The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 01/17/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Bettye J. Hatthews Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Timothy L. Hancock Pamela S. Hac'Kie ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the January 17th meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Dotrill, will you lead us in a prayer and a pledge. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly father, we give thanks this morning, as we always do, for the wonder and privilege of your power and grace. We always give thanks for the wonderful community that we live in in Collier County. Father, we would ask that you bless its people, and we bless this process in our great country and our elected leadership. Father, we ask that you guide and direct the deliberations of our county commission today as they make very important business decisions that will affect Collier County and that you would bless our time here together this morning and this afternoon. And we pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Hr. Dorrill. We are moving on to the agenda. Are there any changes or deletions? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. I have just two changes. Good morning, Commissioners. First is to withdraw item 16-A-3 and only in the event that it's necessary to reschedule that will it be -- that was a recommendation to consider increasing a purchase order for microfilming services and also asking this morning to withdraw item 10-B on the Board of County Commissioners. That's at the request of the petitioner in this particular case. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 10-B was it? MR. DORRILL: 10-B as in boy, yes, sir. One agenda item of note this morning, 8-G-3, which is that item which pertains to the privatization of the landfill, just to remind for the purposes of those watching at home this morning will be heard immediately following the lunch recess at 1 p.m. And also -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 8-G-3. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: 8-G-1. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's 8-G-1. MR. DORRILL: Oh, okay. I'm sorry, 8-G-l, which is approval of that agreement with Waste Management. And then on -- for purposes of the recording secretary this morning, item 16-A-6 should read only water facilities acceptance for that project known as Paradise Point. It says water and sewer. We're only accepting the water facilities this morning. And, Madam Chairman, that's all that I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Cuyler, do you have any? MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, I have one add-on at the board's discretion. You'll recall Mr. Anderson had some language last week about the special act, and the board wanted a majority plus one type of language. I have prepared something. My understanding is that the information our office got was that it could be on the legislative delegation meeting at the board's discretion. I will add that item for your review or consideration. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I would imagine we should discuss that since it's my understanding Mr. Anderson withdrew his request. MR. CUYLER: Correct, and I have not worked with Mr. Anderson on this, although I think he's aware of it, and that would be under the county attorney's report. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: anything? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. Norris, is there Nothing further. Commissioner Hancock? No, ma'am. Commissioner Mac'Kie? No, ma'am. Commissioner Constantine? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have anything either. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second to approve the -- the agenda and the consent agenda. Call the question. there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Is Item #3 MINUTES OF DECEMBER 6, 1994 REGULAR; DECEMBER 7, 1994 SPECIAL; AND DECEMBER 13, 1994 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED Approval of the minutes for December 6, 7, and December 13th. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So move. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and second to approve the minutes of three meetings. Call the question. If there's no discussion, all those in favor, say aye. All those opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Item #4A1 PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 16 TO JANUARY 22, 1995 AS DR. HARTIN LUTHER KING JR. WEEK - ADOPTED Proclamations and service awards. Commissioner Hancock, you have a proclamation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, Madam Chairman, it's my pleasure this morning regarding -- to read the proclamation regarding Dr. Martin Luther King week. Is Mr. Chuck Mohlke here? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Mohlke's here and also either the new president or vice-president of the NAACP, and this is either Ms. Harris or Ms. Cole. I'll have her help with her own introduction. Good morning. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I'd like to do, if I may, is go ahead and read the proclamation and then ask if you would like to make some comments at the end of that. We would be glad to entertain them at that moment. Whereas the congress of the United States of America has designated the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., as a national holiday; And whereas the president of the United States signed legislation authorizing Dr. King's birthday as a national holiday with observances to commence January 16th of 1995; And whereas Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., received national and international recognition for his stirring struggle against injustice and his leadership in espousing brotherhood, self-discipline, and nonviolence; And whereas the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People held a commemorative celebration of Dr. King's birthday by sponsoring the NAACP's 12th annual Freedom Fund Banquet on January 14th, 1995, honoring his lifelong efforts to achieve freedom for all. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January 16 to January 22, 1995, be designated as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., week. Done and ordered this 17th day of January, 1995. I'd like to present this proclamation to you and then -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Make a motion to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Do we have a motion to approve? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion to approve. Second? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a motion to approve. All those in favor? Opposed? None. There being none, proclamation is approved. (Applause) MS. HARRIS: Good morning. My name is Joyce Harris. I am the newly elected president of the Collier County branch of the NAACP, and I would like to thank the commission for this proclamation. And I do have a couple of comments, basically concern. I represent a very diverse community in Collier County, meaning races of people, different races, creeds, colors, and genders. We celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday yesterday, which is tradition throughout the nation -- traditional throughout the nation. There is some concern in the community that we are receiving -- are being presented our proclamation today, which is a post-celebration, in our opinion. We feel that this was not done in a timely fashion. I have not received any explanation as to maybe why it was done in an untimely fashion. And as representing the community, that's the concern they'd like for me to present to the board this morning. We do graciously accept this and really do appreciate it and would like to say to the board that for future reference what we'll do -- we'd like to -- to do today is say that every year it is celebrated at that time, and hopefully in the future we will be able to receive it in a more timely fashion. The community honestly is very outraged, and I came along today so that maybe we can do this in a very diplomatic fashion with a degree of diplomacy. I'm understanding, you know, for whatever the reasoning is, and that I don't know, but we accept this, and we thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ha'am, the reasoning that it is being given this Tuesday instead of last Tuesday is that the notification -- of the official notification of -- of what -- what was going to transpire Saturday evening was not received until after the meeting Tuesday. MS. HARRIS: Okay. I don't understand why because I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't understand either but -- MS. HARRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- I did not read the program that you had until after the meeting Tuesday, and, therefore, it was impossible to give you the proclamation last week. MS. HARRIS: Okay. It is my understanding that we sent notification on the 12th of December of 1994 to the commission, and there was no response. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's certainly something we can correct in the future, but the most important thing is that we do have the recognition of Martin Luther King, Jr. Even if we're a day late, I hope it still carries a lot of weight that we've taken the time to put together the proclamation and given it the appropriate recognition. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe that it's quite true. The fact that we are -- it is a celebration going the entire week. We do regret that you feel it's an inappropriate thing to do today instead of last Tuesday, and we regret that it did not happen that way. But, as I say, the proclamation -- the notification to me that the proclamation was desired did not come until after the meeting last Tuesday. Therefore, it was not possible to do it. Apparently, I guess, what we're looking at is in the juggle of -- of things changing and our offices being moved and so forth that your notification apparently was not received in time or not handled through proper channels. I don't know which either. But I believe that -- that we are making every effort we can to remedy the situation. MS. HARRIS: Okay. But you can understand my concern; right? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I certainly do. MS. HARRIS: It's like Christmas. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I noticed it last week when I read the notification that, gees, we should have done it this morning, but as I say, it was not possible. MS. HARRIS: I understand, but it's -- I'd just like to emphasize it's like -- if you celebrate Christmas, it's like getting a Christmas present the day after Christmas, and that's -- you know, I just needed to emphasize that because I represent a community of people, and they wanted me to say that to you this morning, but we do graciously accept this, and thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I thank you for doing that, and we will try to be more timely next year. MS. HARRIS: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: We had another individual who had asked to speak on this particular issue, Mr. Tribble. MR. TRIBBLE: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning, Mr. Tribble. MR. TRIBBLE: My name is Henry Tribble. I also would like to address that issue and a relevant -- relevant one, and I very -- I'll read a brief letter that I have addressed to the chair and the board. Dear Chairwoman Matthews and board members: I wish to address two issues. First, I wish to convey my concern and disappointment relative to the absence of official representation by county commissioners and senior staff at the NAACP Freedom Banquet on January 14th, 1995. It is my understanding the invitations were sent to each of you approximately six weeks prior to the event. It is also my understanding that only one commissioner sent a letter of regret relative to the invitations, and, in fact, as I said, no commissioners attended. The black community finds this an unacceptable response by our county commissioners. That's what's in my letter. But there have been numerous cries of -- regarding this from other than the black community. We do not believe such would be the response relative to highly important events sponsored by organizations that represent other elements of the community. We believe it demonstrates a total disregard of our interests and concerns upon the part of the Collier County government. In conjunction with the board's 1994 negative actions relative to the Human Rights Commission, funding of social service agencies, and other items of primary concern to blacks as well as other minorities and disadvantaged persons, we believe that this recent action sends a clear message of your intent not to fairly represent those concerns, interests, and needs. What is not in the letter is -- this is the proverbial straw. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the NAACP seeks equality of opportunities and justice for all and not just for blacks. Second, it is my understanding that four to six weeks ago the NAACP requested a proclamation commemorating the Dr. Martin Luther King holiday. Additionally, the NAACP representative followed up a number of times regarding that request. Based on this information, it is inexcusable that the proclamation is made today after the birthdate and national holiday honoring Dr. King and the principles of equality and justice for which he lived and died. In my opinion, such actions and attitudes by Collier County government officials are similar to those of our opponents in the 1960s and '70s. They constitute disrespect and nonconcern for issues that are deemed important to many citizens of this county and not just minorities. The continuation of this posture will leave us with no alternatives but to pursue our rights via 1960s and '70s constitutionally protected avenues of addressing our grievances such as state and federal administrative agencies, the courts, and, if necessary, the streets and beaches of Collier County. As a means of insuring your positions on this issue are accurately conveyed and recorded, you are individually and collectively invited to publicly clarify at this meeting the reasons for those actions relative to the banquet and the proclamation if you so desire. Sincerely, Henry C. Tribble, chairperson, Black Affairs Advisory Board. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: I've already stated my -- my position on why this proclamation is late. I -- I cannot do something I am unaware of. I became aware of it subsequent to the meeting last Tuesday. I have no knowledge of receiving any request of -- for a proclamation four to six weeks ago. I'm just unaware of it and -- MR. TRIBBLE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- I'm sorry if it happened that way. I regret it. We were going -- we were going through a lot of changes at the time, and we tried to remedy it as best we could. Unfortunately, if you perceive that it's not good enough, then that's a perception that you're going to have to have. MR. TRIBBLE: Honestly, I had prepared the letter prior to your speaking today. I indicated my understanding of when it was presented. I assume it was presented to either your staff or the county manager's staff. I'm not certain which. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MR. TRIBBLE: So I understand that you cannot present something that is not given to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That I'm unaware of. MR. TRIBBLE: Right. On the other hand, as I indicated earlier, I believe -- I feel, and so does -- so do other people in the community, many people in the community, that it is of such importance that whoever staff it was given to should have gotten it to you before. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll look into the matter. And I'm sure, Mr. Tribble, that you and your staff understand we've been undergoing a lot of physical changes and reconfigurations. That may be what happened. I don't know. I'll certainly ask some questions and look into it. I'm asking at the time -- at this time that you agree to accept apologies for it being tardy, and I can't do more than that. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. MR. TRIBBLE: I have copies for each of you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Tribble, I did send you a letter of regret on the banquet, and we received -- I think each of us receives literally hundreds of invitations per year. MR. TRIBBLE: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So by not attending that -- there are literally hundreds of others I don't have an opportunity to attend to, so there is certainly no disrespect to any of those organizations because I don't have a chance to attend all of them. I guess this is probably a comment -- my mind says -- my common sense says I should keep to myself. However, I'm not going to. I feel like we're trivializing a little when we say we're a day late. In the Christmas example you used, I had a brother who was sick with leukemia, and there was one year in particular where we didn't get to have Christmas the 25th, but we still got the family together, and we still had our gifts, and it was a few days late. But I tell you what, whether it was the 25th or the 26th or the 27th, the spirit of Christmas was still there. And I think what we were trying to do today -- if there was an error in some way and we should have been doing it a week ago, we can fix that, but let's not lose the focus. What we were trying to do today with our proclamation was honor Martin Luther King, Jr. and so I think we need to focus on the substance of that and the attempt by this board. If we're tardy, so be it, but I think the spirit is still there. And we can correct the timing another year, but I think this year we have hopefully succeeded in the spirit anyway. MR. TRIBBLE: The only thing I'd like to respond to is your statement that you receive hundreds of invitations a year, and I -- I really have a problem with the fact that you put the annual banquet of the NAACP in that category. It is the only major activity that that organization has, and it's on an annual basis, and I believe that is trivializing its importance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one additional comment, Mr. Tribble. I think that this -- I have to agree that this is out of proportion today, but what that tells me is that there's a significant lack of communication if we're at the point where it only took a straw this small to break this camel's back. And I would hope that maybe you and I or whoever -- I'm sure others on this board would more than welcome communication so that we don't reach a point where we're able to break the camel's back with the straw, and nobody knows the camel's back is this bent, weak, whatever you want to say, because it's quite a surprise to me. MR. TRIBBLE: Well, this is the first year that I'm aware of in the last several years since I've been -- I've been attending that there was not a commissioner present, and I won't go further than that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I've attended it in the past, and I was unable to this year. But I mean I can't attend every banquet we're invited to. Just as our Commissioner Constantine has said, we get literally hundreds of these, and every one of them is the premiere event each year for that group. VOICE: Ten minutes is up. MR. TRIBBLE: We understand that, but at least a response and at least making sure that there is some official representation from this body, is that too much to ask? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I wasn't aware nobody else was attending. We don't, you know, communicate that way. And I had asked Hiss Filson, I think, to notify the group that I was not attending. But, again, we've been through a lot of changes in the last six weeks. I'm -- I can only apologize for myself and this board, but I can't do more than that. MR. TRIBBLE: Right. And I thank you very much for your time. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS PRESENTED Next on the agenda are service awards. We have one five-year pin for Eric Schramm with water distribution. (Applause) Item #5 BUDGET AMENDMENT 95-125 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have no -- yeah, we do have budget amendments. Mr. Smykowski. I said it right again. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Good morning, commissioners. For the record Michael Smykowski, budget director. There was just one budget amendment that requires your approval. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, motion to approve that budget amendment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second. There being no discussion, call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. Item #7A STATE REPRESENTATIVE SAUNDERS REGARDING PRIVATIZATION OF WATERAND/OR WASTEWATER SERVICES - TO BE HEARD BY THE PRIVATIZATION TASK FORCE AT THEIR FEBRUARY 6 MEETING CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Public petitions are next. We have a request from the Honorable Butt L. Saunders, state representative. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hay I make a comment about that just as -- mention briefly to the county manager, and I think it is appropriate in this form having introduced Butt this way, that today, God bless him, he's just Butt Saunders, Esquire, out earning a living. And I think that's important that we recognize that he does have two hats, and he's able to switch them, and we know what hat he has on today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't know he only had two. MR. SAUNDERS: Yeah, I appreciate that. I will tell the board just for your information that in terms of members of the legislature representing clients before local government bodies, there is absolutely no prohibition on that. It's a very common occurrence, and I know there's been some publicity about that, so I just want to let you know that there's no ethical, moral, legal issue associated with that. MR. DORRILL: I agree, and I would offer any apologies. I think most times staff tries to show respect where they feel that it's due for people who have elected or appointed office, and we certainly realize that Mr. Saunders has -- has business interests other than those involving the legislature. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Do you want to proceed? MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to the commission for the opportunity to be here. For the record my name is Butt Saunders. I'd like to hand out a copy of the memorandum that I sent to the Board of County Commissioners in December just for your review at your leisure. I'm going to be extraordinarily brief. I'm just going to introduce Jim Thompson. Jim Thompson is with PSG and has some information to present to you concerning what his company does in reference to the privatization of water and sewer operations. I want to emphasize the word operations, and I've emphasized that in that memorandum also. What they do is operate the facilities. The county commission still retains total control over rates, quality of service, financing, construction, contracting. Everything dealing with the ownership of the facility remains with the county. Operations would remain with a private company, and Mr. Thompson can explain the benefits of that. Mr. Thompson. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Butt. Madam Chairwoman, I'd like to thank you very much for the opportunity to give just a very brief presentation. I do have a handout here that we'll quickly follow. MR. DORRILL: I need one more if you have one. Thank you. MR. THOMPSON: I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Jim Thompson. I am a regional vice president with Professional Services Group or PSG. We currently operate across the nation and in Puerto Rico and Canada approximately 140 water -- wastewater and utility systems throughout the nation for cities, counties, and municipal utilities districts. We want to talk just a little bit about the qualifications of our firm so that you -- you know from where I speak that we do have quite a bit of experience in this -- in this field. First of all, PSG basically is owned by a company based in Paris. It's called Company Generale Dayo (phonetic). This is the largest water and wastewater utility management firm in the world. We are then owned, I guess, by a subsidiary called Air and Water Technologies, which is traded on the American Stock Exchange. We currently operate, like I said, over 140 plants nationwide, also in Canada and also operating now all five of the major treatment plants on the island of Puerto Rico. We have about 1,540 people working for us across the nation and Canada, two-thirds of which are skilled technicians in utility management. I might just tell you a little bit, that CGE, our parent firm in France, currently has revenues in excess of 27 billion dollars a year, and we have net worth exceeding over 3.9 billion dollars. So when I say we are the largest firm in the contract operations business, that not only goes for us, PGE, but for our parent firm as well. Just to kind of give you an example of the type of firms and the type of services we do, I did note two of our contracts and kind of give you a breadth. We are currently operating and have operated for the last eight years all of the wastewater treatment plants and sledge disposal facilities in the city of Oklahoma City, and over the last four years we're operating the largest wastewater treatment plant under contract operations in the city of New Orleans, which is a 122-MBD facility and is a pure oxygen facility, which is one of the more difficult plants to operate. You'll notice also that we're quite active in the State of Florida. And we're very proud of our activities in Florida, particularly our Water Conserve II project in Orange County in Orlando. That particular project is a major water reclamation facility. It is the largest in the nation and has just been awarded an EPA award for its operation this last year in 1994. We're very proud of that process, and we hope to be able to get much more actively involved in the coming years to Florida in water reclamation. Now I want to spend a little bit more time in kind of a broader concept and the broad concept of privatization or contract operations. It's gone by both names over the last ten years. As Butt told you, privatization basically is a private company that just operates your facilities. We do not own. We do not regulate. We do not have any rate-making power. We do not have any capital improvement power. Basically that stays with the commission. We're basically an operations firm. We would, in fact, present a contract to you that would -- basically for a given price, which typically over the years of contract operations is anywhere from 5, 10, or even 15 percent cheaper than what county operations are currently doing. Now, that's a historical fact that we've been able to maintain as an industry, not just necessarily as PSG or a company. Our goal is to provide the county the highest quality O and H services we can at the lowest practical costs. And I say practical costs. We're not interested in coming here and low-bailing just to become a contract operator for Collier County. We want to make sure that the level of services are equal to or better than what Collier County residents are getting right now. Our process is -- is somewhat complicated from the standpoint is that we use computers heavily. We have developed over the last 13, 14 years computer programs primarily in process control and maintenance which are two of the most major expenses you have in any type of utility operation outside of labor obviously. We have also developed what we think is the finest predictive maintenance program where we're able to lower costs. Instead of having breakdowns, we fix it before it breaks, which is much, much cheaper in the long run. We have an extensive quality control program in our lab. In fact, so much so we have seven to eight regional lab managers that are based -- one of them will be based in Florida here very shortly as we get our new office fixed up too. We have a heavy emphasis on our employees. We are a service company. We develop safety, training, and incentive programs for them. And hopefully we're able to develop our employees, county employees, into a career as opposed to just having a job. And that's our goal. That's basically our stated goal. We have a very business-like approach to it. We accept all of our responsibility. We put no limit on any regulatory fines. And basically we're very emphatic about that, is that what we say we will do, we will do. And we will certainly like to get into a little further process and have you call our references, our 140 other clients out there that I'm sure you will, but I want to make the offer anyway. Typical project support team that we would bring in, we would bring in probably one, maybe two managers, and that is all. They would be located in Collier County and be available to the county commission and county utility staff for consultation at any time. Usually the second question that's asked about privatization after the control issue that we've just addressed, and the second issue is what are you going to do with all our employees. Basically our position is we will give the employees a chance for jobs at Collier County. We aren't -- we cannot guarantee, as no contract operations firm can, that all employees can be hired. That's just not possible in the way we do business, but we guarantee that there would be no wage cuts. The benefits would be equal to or better. Wages would be equal to or better. Basically we're not going to maximize change on employees. We really work at it. I'm an ex-city manager. I spent 15 years as a city manager, and I'm very sensitive to the issue of public employee displacement, and it is one that I watch very carefully. Basically in summary -- I don't want to take a whole lot more time. We are a large company. We are the biggest in the business and the best, in my opinion. That's not biased or anything, of course. We have access to unsurpassed technical support in the industry. We believe that we can bring a level of service to Collier County that's equal to and most likely better at a much lower cost to county rate payers, and I am available for any further questions you may have or anything at all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. It seems to me we have a privatization committee already established, and it seems to me this board may want to direct them to take a look at what this is and set up some sort of meetings with you as to what the details are. MR. SAUNDERS: I understand that the privatization council is meeting next week; is that correct? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next Monday, yes, at 5:30. MR. SAUNDERS: What is the mechanism for formally being placed on the agenda? Does the commission place the item on the agenda? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We can certainly ask them to look at it. I believe next Monday's agenda is already set. They're -- they're looking at -- deeply into parks right now, and we meet every two weeks at 5:30 in the afternoon. MR. SAUNDERS: I'm sorry. At what time do they meet? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 5:30 in the afternoon on Mondays every two weeks. So the next meeting after this Monday -- we lost our little calendar -- would be February the 6th. MR.SAUNDERS: We would request then to be placed on the agenda, not the next Monday, but the following Monday -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The following Monday? MR. SAUNDERS: -- which is February 6th. Is that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll -- I'll take that up with them on the 23rd and certainly get you a letter to that effect. MR. SAUNDERS: Okay. One of the things that Mr. Thomson had offered to do, and it's outlined in the memorandum, is to take a look at the utility financial picture and kind of give the county commission and the privatization council an idea of the magnitude of the potential savings there if there was privatization and then to request that there be an RFP for those services if the county commission and the privatization council feel that the savings are sufficient. If you would like for us to do that, we can do that, or we can simply appear before the council. It's really your -- your call on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second on that. Commissioner Hancock, you wanted to comment. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Two points. On the first you addressed, although I appreciate the opportunity for the exposure. If you ask, Jim, I've worked with some of your people in the field back in college, and my experience with PSG has always been a good one. I don't want to circumvent the privatization task force, and I'm glad to see we're putting that on their agenda. Also I think this is important for the county manager to understand we're doing this for the simple reason that it has certain play with the potential hiring of the utilities director and what their job may or may not be depending on whether we privatize this utility. So -- a lot of things coming together on this, but thank you for being here on this. MR. SAUNDERS: Just for your information, the resumes for prospective utilities administrators, I think those were due last week. So you're sort of in that process, so this is a timely moment to be considering this issue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I wanted to ask Mr. Thomson a question. MR. THOMPSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If such a review of our internal structure and so forth would aid him in the presentation to the privatization task force. MR. THOMPSON: Oh, there's no question it would. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That it would aid that process? MR. THOMPSON: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And you're willing to spend your time to do that? MR. THOMPSON: Not only our time, but our money. It would be at no cost to Collier County. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, it seems to me if the board doesn't object, that it would certainly give us a clearer picture -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why say no? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- of where we're headed or where we might be headed. I see no objection, and thank you for the effort. MR. THOMPSON: Should I deal with the county manager, or who should I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I believe probably the direction would be to Mr. Dotrill to work with Mr. Thompson to make available to him what he needs, and I guess the privatization task force will see you on the 6th unless you run into a lot of information that you need to digest and you want to go for -- what would it be then -- the 20th, but we'll be in touch, and you can certainly let -- let us know which date you want in the end. MR. THOMPSON: I appreciate that. Thank you very much. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Two quick points for no other reason than I see reporters in the back of the room writing feverishly. I think to this and former boards' credits, Collier County leads the state in all sixty -- of all 67 counties in the number of counties that have privatized county activities. I think that's important for no other reason than we have explored privatizing practically everything that we do and more than happy to explore it here. And I would hope that the story tomorrow would reflect that my number one priority would be our existing employees. Those employees have been much embattled over the past, I'd say, two years in terms of what's happening to that division. We've had two productivity committee reviews. We've had Coopers and Lybrand come in and do an independent management audit. We spent all of last year developing the merits of a utility authority, and we may now be on the verge of having a privatization review. We have recently lost one of our best plant operators to the City of Naples because of a concern over what is the future of the county utility division because the county commission has explored any number of opportunities. My main goal in addition to continuing to run an efficient utility system, regardless of whether and if or not we explore privatization, is to make sure the employees know that they have good jobs and that the county commission is not going to jump or -- or reach any quick decisions on privatization and for them to bear with us through some analysis of that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree with you that -- that we need to keep that in mind. However, I also am aware that we've looked at many, many alternatives for different privatizations, but I -- I think that is an assurance to not only the employees, but the taxpayers that we continue to look at new and better ways to do the same -- same job. MR. DORRILL: We're going to look at one this afternoon, and I don't think that we've had an expression of concern from our solid waste department employees because they know that we've been very deliberate in protecting their interest through an evaluation phase and that type of thing. And just -- I want employees in the utility division to read this tomorrow in the newspaper to know that that's one of our primary concerns. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there any other questions from the board? Mr. Thompson, I guess we'll see you on the 6th. MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you. MR. KELLER: I signed up to speak. MR. DORRILL: Yes, I'm sorry. We've got Mr. Keller, and I've also got Mr. Zak. MR. KELLER: I'm George Keller, concerned citizen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Keller, we don't usually allow speakers on public petitions. MR. KELLER: I asked him if I could speak, and he said I could. I've sat here, and I've listened to a lot of stuff this morning that didn't amount to a tinker's damn, and I think you can listen to me for a minute. I'll take 3 minutes or less. All I can tell you is this, that I'm not against privatization, but you want to remember something. I'm -- I'm at the 80th year, and government was run by privatization. All the sewer systems in this country were all formed by private companies. The next cycle was government taking it over because it was too big and too encompassing and had too much effect upon the public to privatize. So now we've got it coming back to privatization. Let's study the thing very thoroughly. Let's set up a separate committee to really study this. Let's not jump at anything that we're going to feel very bad about making the wrong decisions in the future. I was involved with the resource recovery deal. I was involved with the sales tax deal, and it's very easy to jump on something new, and it's very easy to get into trouble. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that we would look at it very closely because we certainly don't want to get in trouble. And to jump on something new merely because it's new is not the appropriate thing to do. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Zak. MR. ZAK: Good morning. I'm Gregory Zak, and I guess I've been dubbed a well driller. The reason why I came here this morning, I do not speak for the Soil and Water Conservation District. I speak as a private citizen. I do hold a title now as chairman of the Soil and Water Conservation District. By state statute 582.20 we have been entrusted with powers to protect the rights of the public, to have investigations, and to oversee water, water quality, and the disposal of water. We are going to have a public meeting on Thursday concerning the privatization of the water and sewer. It will be out at the agricultural building at the county fair grounds on Thursday, January 19th, at four o'clock. I, as I say, do not speak for the district. What I am speaking about is simply the fact that -- and I don't mean to critique, but we have amassed as of the end of fiscal '93, beginning fiscal '94, 351 million dollars in assets under the water and sewer, and that's this specific, not the other smaller units. I don't know what the numbers are in '94 because they are not published as I was -- I was told. The numbers indicate that things are going well. I would certainly hope that you will review it and review it carefully. And also when we give away awards -- employees, and this is not criticism, it's very important that these people know that we really do believe in their ability to run something. They've amassed a fortune for us. That gentleman mentioned 3.9 billion in assets, and you already have probably a half a billion in assets, and you're just one little tiny county and not a country or a state. So these people have done a fine job for us, and privatization may be the slap in the face in some instances. If -- one thing I'd like to add just real briefly. I would hope because I've had a chance to meet with very reputable companies here in town, I had a chance to talk with landscapers and so forth that have ability to start conserving water in major proportions as one of the serious problems lies in the fact that we know of ways CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Thompson, would you move it along? I mean, it's only supposed to be -- I'm sorry. I mean Mr. Zaks. This was only a 10-minute petition, and it's now stretched considerably longer. MR. ZAK: I'll be done real quick. I'm sorry, but, okay. So anyway the bottom line is that if people really want to cut their sewer and water bills, it's very simple. There's companies here -- not speaking for myself at all -- but there's companies here that have programs, xeroscape and so forth. So if they want to reduce the rates, no problem. We'll show them how to do it. The district hopefully will be working with you, and we'll have your cooperation to help the people. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final comment, Madam Chairman. There were several comments, both from the public and from the manager, about our employees. And of all the alternatives we've looked at in the last two years, I don't think any of them question the job the employees do. I think it has questioned perhaps some of the management techniques or what have you. And that's what we're looking at here is not privatizing the facility, but privatizing the management of it. But I don't think anyone is questioning the job our employees do on a day-to-day basis, so I don't want that to be confused by anybody. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think every one of us in looking over these privatization concepts have asked the county manager to be absolutely certain that our current employees are protected. And as far as I know, that has happened, and it would be my intention in the future to continue to make sure that our current employees are protected in their jobs. I mean they do a good job. We should honor them. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with that. I think it's important to understand what we're talking about here today from the utilities department is simply the operation of maintenance. We're not talking about transferring ownership or anything of that nature to a private utility company. We're just talking about the physical operation, the physical maintenance of the facilities. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're talking about a contract to operate and maintain, and that's -- it's not a privatization or passing ownership at all. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, in hopefully to bring this to a closing, there's one thing that we haven't considered, and that is last month's employee of the month was a pretty stellar candidate by the explanation we received with his job description and what he had done to earn that honor. I would like to see somebody like that have the ability to move upward in a company and through privatization if he does get on with someone that privatizes that utility, they have the option of moving him to increased management responsibilities in a more rapid rate than the county would. So for stellar performers like that, this is something that could be an opportunity. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Very much so. Any other comments? Item #7B WES BRODERSEN SALES MANAGER, VICE PRESIDENT OF COLDWELL BANKER REGARDING BOAT DOCK LOTS - WITHDRAWN We move forward to the next public petition, Mr. Wes Brodersen. Is he here? Was that withdrawn, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: It was not withdrawn in the event the gentleman is here. I see Mr. Arnold, and I don't know whether the petitioner is here or not. MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Wayne Arnold of community development. We had recently corresponded with Mr. Brodersen relative to this item and suggested that he might wish to withdraw it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Apparently he has done so. MR. ARNOLD: I feel so as well. Item #SA1 RESPONSE TO TAXPAYER ACTION GROUP'S PETITION RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING - ACCEPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Why don't we move on then now to the county manager's report. Community development, item 8-A-l, a response to the Taxpayer Action Group's petition relating to affordable housing. MR. HIHALIC: Good morning, commissioners. I'm Greg Hihalic, the affordable housing director for the county. I'm coming before you this morning to try to respond to the Taxpayers' Action Group petition action on November 1st about affordable housing issues. And that petition really had two different sections to it. One section asked that the regulations that we have relating to multifamily rental projects, that is the income limits that are allowed within those rental projects will be decreased, and decreased from 140 percent above the income limits of the category to 110 -- 115 to 125 percent of the income category depending on what the commission wants to do. We've asked for a legal opinion from the Florida Housing Finance Agency on this, and we have not received that. In your packet you'll see that we do have a legal opinion from an attorney for a private multifamily developer in the area, Windsong Club. And his opinion is that by doing this, he -- he will then be in violation of his low income housing tax credits, which is a federal program, and his sale -- state department incentive program which is a state program for his multifamily housing projects. We also have -- we've had some discussions with Mr. Hark Hendricksen who is the former executive director for the Florida Housing Finance Agency. And he says that if the commission made a change such as this, it would put applicants in Collier County at a severe disadvantage for the low income tax credit program. And he feels that even if the developer got high points in all the other areas of the low income housing tax credit program, they would be limited entirely in this section, and it would jeopardize the developer from being able to participate in that program. We've tried to mirror our ordinances to the state and federal regulations, and I think that that allows developers who wish to participate in programs in Collier County and build developments in Collier County to be able to utilize those tax programs that are available at a state and federal level to leverage those benefits to be able to make their projects economically feasible within the county. And I suggest that -- my recommendation is the commission keep the standards the same within the ordinances. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're suggesting that if we were to change the standards in the -- in the ordinances, that our developers and builders would have a difficult time? MR. HIHALIC: A severe disadvantage for the low income tax credit program. And it may, in fact, make them violate the contracts that they would have to sign with the State of Florida and with the IRS. The second part of the Taxpayer Action Group's petition raised several questions about the need for affordable housing, and in your packet you'll see the response that I did send to the Taxpayer Action Group. I think that they -- they say that when people pay more than affordable levels for housing, it can promote a healthier life-style. It can promote lack of having additional money available for other interests they may wish to pursue. And you'll know from my letter that I don't think that that's a credible argument. I also say that people shouldn't be required to only spend affordable housing levels, and that if they wish, they certainly should be allowed to spend more than 30 percent of their income for their housing costs. But as I mentioned for very low income families within the county, and that is families of four that earn $22,500 or less, these families do not have the option to live in affordable housing. There is only approximately 153 units out of over 5,000 units in the urban area that are indeed affordable for these very low income households. And from the research that's been done, you know that the average wage within Collier County is only $20,000 a year. So we have a tremendous percentage of our population that does fall within these very low and low income categories. I guess that's my response to their petition. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This may be a situation where we have a real good idea that has some difficulty on the state and federal level in getting it done. What I'm hearing is somebody from the top level decided 140 percent. And if we're to encourage future developers to bring in the low and very low income, if we change that, we could be hindering that process. I personally like the idea for the simple reason that it almost forces an upward movement. Anytime that we have increased the range in which someone may stagnate, it's not to the benefit of every people -- all people involved. In addition, this would help possibly free up those low income units that people who are more in need than those who are moving up the ladder. Unfortunately, we don't have a litmus test on this. In other words, we don't have a -- a low income range. And then look at a nonlow income development and see if they reasonably can move up in that -- as they increase in salary. In other words, I still think there's going to be a gap there if you look at the regular rents within Collier County. I just have a tough time making a decision on this today, particularly if I see that it hinders the development of more affordable housing in Collier County. And I guess my last comment is it's a really nice tie. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- it is a stunning tie. The -- one of the points you made when you made -- you had two separate things there. MR. MIHALIC: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think the second one was you said I think there was only 153 very low income units in the county. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, commissioner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things that I think we need to review this year, and it is something in our workshop format that I'm going to suggest as an early item is trying to create a situation where we can have a higher incentive for very low construction because right now almost everything, and certainly everything in the urban area, is for low, not for very low. I think we need to address that particularly with -- with where they -- those incomes fall in Collier County. I don't worry quite as much, I guess, about the 140 percent in that I believe if someone qualified initially and is pulling themselves up and actually increases their income to that point, the majority of those people who have worked hard enough to increase their income that much are going to also want to increase their standard of living as they do it. There's usually a reason behind why you work hard. I'm of the feeling that if someone initially is in a very low income category, gets housing within that category, works hard and is making a pile of money, they are -- over time they are probably going to look for better quarters to live in and look for a better situation for themselves. So I think the majority of the time that will work itself out. I think the thing we need to focus on right now is finding a way to create a better incentive for the very low because we're terribly lacking with that right now. MR. MIHALIC: I agree with you, commissioner. In fact, the state has really backed off on their requirements for very low income units in the competitive process, and what they're saying is it's not economical for the developer in Collier County to be able to provide those very low income units, and we've seen two developers now that have tried to back off of that and withdraw those very low income units that they had agreed to provide in the beginning, and that was for financial reasons. So I do agree with you that we need to have some type of direct incentives for those very low income units within Collier County. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just briefly that I'm glad to hear -- I'd like to echo what Commissioner Constantine said, and I know that is something that we're going to workshop to talk about, incentives for very low. And just to add my two cents worth, having represented developers who are in the sale loan application in the federal tax credits application process, other counties -- applicants from other counties already have a significant lead on Collier County applicants, and this kind of a change would be the death now to Collier County applicants. So I -- I am glad that I see that you are doing something that appears to be supported by the board. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the Taxpayer Action Group has made some very good points here. I agree with them in principle. I'd like to see if there's some way that we could lower the 140 percent requirement because if that requirement was applied to the members of this board, I think almost all of us could apply for affordable housing. But, Mr. Cuyler, is there -- do you think it would be worthwhile to research, and if there's a way that we could have some mechanism where we could have lower than the state standard on that 140 percent? MR. CUYLER: We're -- we're doing that right now. Depending on what the board does today, we'll continue with that research and get you an answer. We've contacted some of the state agencies. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with the other members that we can't jeopardize the entire affordable housing program by arbitrarily doing that, but if there's a legal mechanism that would allow us at some point to lower that perhaps down to perhaps the suggested levels, I'd certainly like to know about it. I -- I know that Commissioner Constantine has also raised the point that we need to focus more on the very low rather than the low and moderate, and I certainly agree with that also. That's a good point that we need to continue to pursue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hihalic and I had a fairly lengthy conversation yesterday on not particularly this subject, but on the one following this agenda item. And I think that he's probably -- I hope for the workshop that we have on affordable housing he has some numbers put together that will give us some different opportunities of how to encourage the very low construction by working with some formulas and working our affordable housing ordinances along with the SHIP management plan and try to bring it all together to encourage very low housing. But -- MR. HIHALIC: Let me speak to that for a second, commissioner. The SHIP, which is our State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program, basically we will be receiving additional funding. Our first three years are about up, and we will be doing a new housing assistance plan. We are projecting to receive a little bit more than a million dollars a year starting next year. A small portion of that can be used for rental assistance under the SHIP program, but I would anticipate trying to incorporate some of these incentives for rental of very low income housing units into that housing assistance plan which we will bring back to you within the next couple months. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I can hold my comments. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, do we have speakers on this? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. You have two. Ms. Varner -- I have three -- and then Mr. Sommer. MS. VARNER: Good morning. I'm Jane Varner. I'm the chairman of the affordable housing committee for the Taxpayer Action Group. Thank you for allowing us this hearing. Congratulations, Miss -- Miss Matthews, on becoming our new chairman. Our presentation in the executive summary, I'm sure you've all read it, and I'll concentrate solely on our rebuttal to the opposition to the first part of our petition. Well, this looks like Excedrin headache number one for the taxpayer. I can understand what's been said even though a lot of it was written, quite legally written. But I would like to ask Mr. Hihalic just one question, if you'd explain paragraph C on page 7 as it relates to the phrase, shall not evict other than for good cause. And my question is, has the term good cause been defined specifically. MR. HIHALIC: Well, good cause is not defined in any of our ordinances. It's, I assume, a general common law term, so I would not define it. I'm not an attorney, but I -- our county attorney may wish to define it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a -- I would just jump in there and say that it's a term that does have a legally definable meaning in the case law. Lots of cases have been, you know, have been decided on the issue. MS. VARNER: The good cause, is this related solely to the behavior of the tenant, or is it -- or could there be other outside good causes such as we feel we have good causes? I'd like to mention some of these good causes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do. MS. VARNER: They may not come under the purview of what they're referring to there, but we feel a good cause is it creates too great a gulf between families who can avail themselves of this program and families who cannot. For instance, a family earning -- of 4 earning $26,000 a year may earn the $36,000 a year and still take advantage of affordable housing while a family say earning 27 or $28,000 a year, family of 4, may well have to sit paying market rates looking for housing while they watch this other family making $36,000 a year still paying these nice affordable rents. I think that's inequitable. When the incomes of low income people exceed a certain point where they can afford market rate housing, the government housing comes in to direct competition with with the private market and deprives them of their perspective clients. We're free enterprise people. Lowering the percentage of increase frees up more low and very low income housing. If we're really concerned about getting a lot more housing out there for people, then the turnover rate increasing that would give us more low income housing. The taxpayers save money by having to supply fewer affordable housing complexes, and the residents of Collier County have fewer affordable housing complexes in their neighborhoods, which would help to alleviate some of their concerns about the property values. So we feel these are some good causes although they may not be acceptable to our imperial congress. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask if -- Miss Varner, is this -- I think you've heard from a lot of us that the idea is a good one '- MS. VARNER: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and that, frankly, I feel our hands are tied because -- because of the state and federal regulations. Is this something that you might pursue at a higher level of government? MS. VARNER: Well, what I was going to say, these conditions and restrictions dictated from higher government are a good example of the flexibility denied the local governments. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely right. MS. VARNER: We realize this puts us in a bind. Because they have these restrictions, we cannot reach this type of financing. Also they demonstrate how government can call something black when it is white and white when it is black totally denying our sense of reason and logic, the example in this case being that even when a person's income is no longer low income, it still is. Our government insults our intelligence when it expects us to believe and accept such contradiction, but then why would one be surprised about that. However, to continue, for the reasons we listed, tax dollars could be used effectively to produce desired results with less costs while supplying more people in need of affordable housing. We're not happy with the -- these restrictions -- and I'm putting it mildly because I still believe in civility, and our hope is perhaps the new congress and legislature have gotten the message and that they will desist in passing down these cavalier obligations upon us. And we thank you for your time, patience, and willingness to try to seek ways to maximize the effectiveness of our affordable housing programs taking into concern all the people of Collier County. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you -- are you going to take this issue up with Mr. Goss and our congressional delegation, because it seems to me that's where the problem is? I mean -- MS. VARNER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- we need affordable housing, and it strikes me that the only way that we can acquire it and have the developers interested in it in Collier County is to use the same framework offered, so it's the framework that needs to change. MS. VARNER: And that is why I brought it up in spite of it being probably not useful right here right now, but we always hope that you, the commissioners, will have contact also in telling our state legislature and they in turn telling the federal government that we like to have more flexibility at this level to solve our problems. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I can appreciate that but -- MS. VARNER: Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sommer and then Miss Barsh. MS. BARSH: Mr. Sommer asked that I precede him. I'm Frances Barsh. I'm a member of the Taxpayers' Action Group. The cost detra of tax subsidized housing is to make housing affordable of low, very low income. The threshold test of low income for eligibility for a family of four is $26,000 total. If this income level is increased by 15 percent or to nine -- 29,900, the threshold test income of market priced housing is reached. By holding to a rule of 40 percent increase of the threshold income test, a $26,000 -- of at $26,000, families of 4 with a $36,000 income are still classified as needy enough to remain in tax subsidized housing. How ironic when at the same time a family of 4 with an income of $27,000 is barred from tax subsidized housing. Thus, the entire premise and purpose of tax subsidized housing is violated and nullified. In considering the income evaluation eligibility what are the parameters and requirements of disclosure that are used in the county? Income comes in various forms. It can be earned. It can be received in interest. It can be received as a gift of money or in kind. It can be food stamps. It can be paid in aid to dependent children. It can be disability compensation. It can be unemployment compensation. It can be insurance settlements. It can be Medicare. It can be Medicaid. It can be social security, and if I can keep on going and use up my five minutes in that area. Are all these sources of income considered and attested to in the present disclosures required for eligibility for tax subsidized housing in the county? Are all members of a possibly eligible family included in the county's income disclosure tests? How is this done? How is this followed up? The argument is made that cutting the 40 percent increase criteria to a 15 percent increase criteria in effect punishes those who are succeeding. The same argument can be made for the income tax -- for the income tax threshold criteria. Therefore, the advocacy of a $40,000 threshold income increase is the advocacy of a double standard and imputes the arguments of equality and the premise and purpose of tax subsidized housing. Indeed, we do have to go to perhaps the higher levels of government, but we ask your cooperation in doing the same. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Mr. Sommer. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Sommer, I believe. He's the final speaker. MR. SOHMER: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Bob Sommer. I'm a Naples -- Collier County resident and a member of the Taxpayers' Action Group of Collier County, incorporated. What I'm here for is just to give you an overview of the Taxpayers' Action Group's position on affordable housing, and I think it will help you to put into perspective some of the things that have already been said. And especially for the commissioners that have not been with us for the last year when I was up here again giving the TAG's position, I thought this would be an advantage. And this is our position as applied to affordable housing. TAG has always been supportive of affordable housing for the very low income people. We are dead set against the use of public funds to aid developers in building housing in the name of affordable housing but price them well out of the reach of the very low income people. We reject the use of sale loans, income tax credits, density variances, and deferred or waived income -- or impact fees that give developers an enormous edge over conventional builders while doing nothing to relieve the problem of the truly very low income housing. We also are in disagreement with how the affordable housing people in Collier County are handling this problem. When we read that in 1992, 49,872 employees, 68.5 percent of the total employment in Collier County, were employed in service, retail trade, and agriculture. And the average wage in these occupational categories according to the Florida Department of Labor, is $5.91 an hour, and a full-time job in these occupations would average $12,300 annually. And then we see developers take millions of dollars of tax dollars to finance developments that these needy folks cannot even touch. It bothers TAG greatly, and that is our position. And I would like to make a few suggestions on how we might alleviate this problem. We propose that the director of affordable housing or his office be designated as a clearing house for affordable housing. This will mean that all persons seeking affordable rental housing will register with the clearing center and that all housing owners seeking tenters will advise the clearing center of housing units available. In the case of government assistance rental housing projects it will be obligatory to notify the clearing center of all housing unit vacancies. We propose that the director of affordable housing be required to publicly inform the county commissioners in an attachment to each application for rental housing impact fee deferrals or waivers the following data: A, actual number of affordable housing seekers actively on file on the date the new project application is submitted; B, actual number of housing unit vacancies registered by nonassistant housing owners; C, number of housing unit vacancies reported by government assistant rental housing projects and; D, inasmuch as an impact fee waiver or deferral is in essence a tax loan, the developers submit the same financial statements and profit spreadsheets that were sent to Tallahassee in order for the commissioners to make judgments of need. We suggest that the commissioners have staff establish and define what structures qualify as adequate for liveability, that is square feet, bathrooms, amenities, and luxuries. To our recollection, nothing has been done in this area. And, lastly, TAG again asks the commissioners to commission a professional study to be done to assess housing needs in Collier County, not the housing wants of Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is there any -- MR. DORRILL: That's all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's all. Any further discussion from the board? I don't think we need to do much at this point except to accept your response. MR. SOHMER: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I guess you'll develop numbers and stuff for the workshop that we're going to have -- MR. HIHALIC: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- so that we can look at it again. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I would like to thank TAG for bringing us forward and their continuing efforts in the area of affordable housing. The comments that Mr. Sommer made I think hit home with all of us, that we are concerned about that very low end of the spectrum and that we're not doing enough to encourage the development of that while others are getting by in the low end. So, again, I would just like to thank them on the behalf of the board for their work. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'm particularly concerned over the two developments that had very low income housing in them, and recently they petitioned us to remove them. So I think that's setting a trend that we need to address. Thank you, Mr. Hihalic. Item #8A2 REQUEST BY SHARON GARCIA TO REINSTATE BUILDING PERMIT 91-5123 - REQUEST DENIES. APPLICANT TO HAVE NEW BUILDING PERMIT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR OBTAIN DEMOLITION PERMIT Next item is a request by Sharon Garcia to reinstate building permit number 91-51-23. How about if we hear this and then take a morning break. MR. SMITH: Good morning, commissioners. For the record my name is Bill Smith. I'm the director of building permitting, inspections, and review. Mrs. Garcia is before you today, I hope. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is she here? MR. SMITH: Miss Garcia? Yes, she's coming. Miss Garcia is before you today to ask for an extension to the permit. A little history on the permit. The permit was issued originally in August of '91. On 3-27-92 there was a 90-day extension that was granted. On 6-26-92 there was another 90-day extension granted. On 5-18-93 Miss Garcia appeared before the Board of County Commissioners. According to ordinance the building administrator is only allowed to grant two extensions. The Board of County Commissioners must grant the third. The Board of County Commissioners granted an extension on 5-18-93. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Smith, right there. At that meeting don't I recall correctly that we had a commitment that the project would go ahead to completion at that point? MR. SMITH: That's correct. At that time the Board of County Commissioners required a construction schedule, and at that time also there was an expiration date of 9-2-93. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was two years ago. MR. SMITH: Three and a half years later. As you can see by the pictures, we are still not at that point. It is -- it is my opinion and my recommendation that we require the petitioner to apply for a new permit and follow today's codes and standards. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is there further comment from the board? I -- I for one am -- I'm disturbed that almost two years later, 18 months at least, we're back asking for another extension on this, and it's obvious in the intervening 18 months this house should have been able to be completed. MR. SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it is not yet completed. Substantially underway, I presume. MR. SMITH: Not even substantially. There's been no interior work done at all. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's still a shell? MR. SMITH: That's correct, and they have not passed the truss inspection or a partial framing or a roof sheeting inspection. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not dried in? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's not dried in yet? MR. SMITH: It's dried in to the extent that there is dry paper on there. The gable ends are still open, and it has not passed inspection. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question, if the petitioner was here, if she was going to tell us anything. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: She hasn't come forward yet, so I'm not sure that we should continue this hearing at all. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to agree with Commissioner Matthews. We granted the extension as a favor to the permittee a year and a half ago, and apparently their end of the bargain, which was the schedule Commissioner Norris mentioned, was not kept. So I'm not sure what the incentive for us to grant yet another extension would be. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If a motion is appropriate, then I would move that we accept the staff recommendation and deny the application. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second. MR. SMITH: And remove the structure, remove the unpermitted structure? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what our codes would require. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do our codes require that? Do our codes require removal? MR. SMITH: Go through the proper procedures, but, yes, I would at least like the board to entertain the thought if that's what staff recommends. I've had several conversations with Miss Garcia over the telephone since September, and it's always been her -- MR. CUYLER: Do you want a time certain within which to have her apply for a new permit or to have her remove the building? MR. SMITH: That would be my recommendation, that within the next 15 days that she either apply for a permit or obtain a demolition permit to remove the structure within 90 days. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you amend your motion to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm not sure about 15 days. My goal here is that we enforce the ordinances that we have. Maybe 30 days is a more reasonable time to allow her to apply for a new building permit. And if she does that and is willing to complete the construction of the home in accordance with the present codes, that will satisfy me. So I would be willing to amend my motion to say that in the event a building permit application is not received within 30 days, that the regular notification procedures commence under the ordinances. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What about a demolition permit? Would that be satisfactory also? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anytime anybody wants to tear down, that's her business. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. She has to get a permit to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand that. MR. SMITH: Could we maybe make the motion to within 30 days have a building permit issued which would mean she'd have to pay fees and go through the procedure or obtain a demolition permit with a date on the demolition permit to demolish? I mean we've been looking at the structure as you see for three and a half years. Some of the citizens out there are concerned, and I think it's a viable -- I think it's a viable point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could agree to that. I could accept that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you second that, accept that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second will amend. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine? Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any further discussion on it? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? There being none, the motion passes. Next item -- oh, yeah, we're going to take a break. Let's do that. Ten minutes. (A short break was held.) Item #8A3 DEFERRAL OF 100e OF THE IHPACT FEES FOR 34 DWELLING UNITS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT TO BE BUILT BY IHMOKALEE NON-PROFIT HOUSING, INC. FROM LIBRARY SYSTEM, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, ROAD, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEES FOR TIMBER RIDGE UNIT 2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING - APPROVED IN THE AMOUNT OF $133,603.68 DEFERRAL FOR THE 7TH TO 15TH YEAR CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Continue the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Hihalic, the next item is a hundred percent deferral of 34, I presume, rental units. Is that what that is? MR. HIHALIC: Yes, commissioner. These are rental, single-family homes. I'm Greg Hihalic, the affordable housing director, for the record. I'm here before you this morning to ask that you consider deferring one hundred percent of the impact fees for 34 single-family dwelling units of the 34-unit affordable housing project to be built by Immokalee Nonprofit Housing Incorporated in Immokalee. This will be called Timber Ridge, unit two, affordable rental houses. This project is actually 58 units in a PUD, a planned unit development. 24 of these units will be sold immediately, and the commission approved waiving those impact fees on the units that will be sold immediately. That's 24 units. An additional 34 units will be rented for 15 years to very low income families and then be sold to those very low income families turning it into ownership from rental. This project has received financial incentives at various different levels including the low income housing tax credits that we have talked about earlier today. And this project needs a 15-year deferral to work. It will not work on a 6-year deferral which is what I would normally offer to rental developers. And we're asking for the deferral of $133,603.68. I've given the board three options if they choose to fund this deferral. I say that we can pay this 133,603.68 immediately from general fund reserves. There is no money budgeted for impact fee waivers or deferrals of rental projects anywhere within the budget. The commission has discussed it for several years but has never allocated any money directly for these impact fee waivers or deferrals for rental projects. The second alternative is that the commission can fund the seventh year net present value of the $133,603. Essentially this is what we're asking rental developers to do when we defer an impact fee for six years and subordinate it. We ask them to provide some -- a treasury note for that net present value amount. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you computed that amount? MR. HIHALIC: I have not computed it because I don't know what interest rates we would have to get in the market on that type of bond. I would estimate we'd probably save about 25 percent off the immediate value on that, but we have to see what interest rates are collecting out there and see that the board can essentially defer the funding of the deferral until the seventh year because the county attorney's office has ruled that we do not have to put up the cash for these deferrals until the seventh. So the board would then have to fund that from the seventh to the fifteenth year, and that's a third alternative the commission may like to consider. As I mentioned in my executive summary, my original intention was to use this as the first project trying to use the interest on the impact fee funds to fund. We have an attorney general's opinion that says we can use the interest on impact fee funds to fund affordable housing waivers and deferrals. And, again, that was my original intention, but as I mentioned in my executive summary and as the chart I provided you shows, in three different funds; in the water fund, the sewer fund, in the educational facility funds. We would have no balance at all in the water and sewer because of the accounting methods that were used for keeping track of the balances in the water and sewer impact fee funds and in the educational facilities impact fee fund, because that is essentially a pass-through that the county collects but immediately passes it to the public school system. And so we have no interest accrued, accrued interest earnings on that fund. Secondly, if you look at the schedule of interest earnings that I provided to you, you'll see that there are interest earnings in several different areas that are at zero, several road districts and other impact fee funds that have zero balances. So I just don't believe that we can use interest on impact fee funds as a comprehensive way to fund affordable housing waivers and deferrals for developments. We're asking for -- you approve this today, although we have found that the resolution in the agreement was not included in the package that was provided to you. I'll have to bring back that resolution and that agreement on the consent agenda to you next week. I think that the developers have a presentation they'd like to make or answer any questions that you have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for Mr. Mihalic? Wait for the presentation? MR. XUEHNER: MAdam Chairman, commissioners, my name is Carl Xuehner. I'm the development director of Immokalee Nonprofit Housing. The Timber Ridge project which you see before us is something that we've been working on for the past 15 months. It consists -- as you see on the board to your left -- of 58 single-family lots. The lots in orange, which -- I'm sorry, the property is surrounded by three streets, and it's an in-fill site in Immokalee served by water and sewer. The orange units are the 24 for immediate sale properties. Those -- to jump ahead here -- are being funded basically by $5,000 per unit grants from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta and 90 percent conventional mortgages. The topic here today are the 34 units shown in red plus the blank area there, which is the open space in the planned unit development as well as an existing residence which will be converted into a community facility. The houses that -- to be built are -- 75 percent of those will be three-bedroom, one-bath homes with a single-car garage. 25 percent will be four-bed, two-bath homes again with a single-car garage. The purpose of the garage is as much for storage as it is for the storage of a vehicle. If you go -- if you know Immokalee at all, one of our major problems is exterior storage. I believe we can clean up and maintain the neighborhood better if, in fact, we have a storage facility on site. We are the answer to the commissioners' prayers today in the sense of what's come before us today in the sense that here we are with 34 very low income housing units. We will be renting these units at 50 percent of median, 45 percent of median, in that price range, a hundred percent of the 34 units. Our priorities obviously are to farm workers. We have a rental project two blocks away, Sanders' Pines, and which is an 80 percent farm worker occupied unit, and our priority here again will be to farm workers. The rental rates will be $365 a month for a three-bedroom home and $400 a month for a four-bedroom unit. There is nothing on the marketplace in Immokalee that is anywhere near comparable with that. I should take that back, other than Farm Worker's Village which has, I might say, extraordinary subsidies. Other than -- and I guess I should make that point -- other than the federal tax credits, the sale loan from the State of Florida, once we get the project constructed, there is no ongoing subsidies. We have no section eights. We have no ongoing subsidy payments. These are conventional, if you will, after construction. I've talked to you about the financing for the single family. The rental will be funded by a $500,000 conventional first mortgage, a $500,000 state apartment incentive loan, which we won in competition with others this year, and a million three again from the sale of tax credits to the Enterprise Foundation, which is a Jim Rouse's organization where they purchase on behalf of corporate investors. And again, we won those credits in competition with everyone in the State of Florida, so we're very proud of that. We originally were scheduled in front of this board on the agenda directly following the Osprey's Landing presentation, and we thought that was perfect timing, but unfortunately for technical reasons that didn't work. As you know Osprey's Landing originally had 35 very low income units as part of their approval, and the commission recently granted a modification in that to delete those 35 units. And I think -- and at that time the turnback to the county was $540,000 in impact fee deferrals. We are -- will give you 34 of those 35 units for only $140,000 saving four hundred and plus thousand dollars winding up with basically the same unit count from a Collier County perspective. The quote in the Naples Daily News of this board was it was the elimination of the 35 apartments intended for very low income families, a family of four earning less than $21,000 a year, for example, that drew the ire of all five commissioners. As far as repayment of the fees go, it is our -- as part of our financing, we initially commit the land to a 50-year low income use, so there's no question this is going to be used -- what -- that is the definition of perpetuity in the state statutes, 50 years. We're committing it to perpetuity which translates into 50 years. In the end -- we need to maintain these in accord with our ownership for 15 years because of the issuance of the tax credits. Tax credits show a benefit for ten years on the basis that you maintain ownership for 15 years. At the end of the 15 years it is our goal to turn over the ownership of each of these units to either the tenants -- and we'll try to work on a program whereby they would build up some equity along the way -- or to other low income families at that point in time assuming no appreciation in value, that the units are worth fifty or sixty thousand dollars fifteen years from now as they are today. And if everyone who owns a single-family house in this room looks back 15 years ago and figures out what their single-family house is worth, I think that's a fairly conservative assumption. The balance on our mortgages at that point in time will equal about $25,000 a unit. The impact fees deferral represents another $4,000 a unit for round numbers. So we'll have $29,000 per unit in mortgaging that we would need on these $50,000 units. That's a 60 percent loan to value ratio, and that's a slam dunk in anybody's lending budget. So we see that there's no problem in repaying the fees at that point in time. The problem is should we try to repay them or budget for them or reserve for them along the way, it makes a major percentage impact on the rent that we have to charge to each of the families on a day-to-day basis. In summary we will add 34 desperately needed housing units. The cost is only 134 versus the 500-plus of Osprey's Landings, and we have a practical source of repayment. In conclusion all of our financing is in place. All of our approvals are in place. The single missing item from us moving forward on this rental project is the action in front of you. I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions? Commissioner MAc'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that I have to take the opportunity to thank you and to tell you you certainly articulated my feelings exactly on point. I think that this is the answer to my prayer for what we need in Collier County in affordable housing, so thank you, and when it's appropriate I'd look forward to making a motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other -- other comments or discussion? Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What impact would it have on your rental structure if we deferred these for a six-year period and you amortized the impact fees over the next nine? MR. XUEHNER: Our lenders won't agree to it, commissioner. What we would have to do would be to come up with some form of borrowed money or something to come up with a zero coupon bond or something today. We couldn't get the lenders. Fannie MAe is one of our lenders on the conventional mortgage and sale, neither of whom could accept basically 130,000 coming due in one form or another six years out. It just doesn't work into their approval structures. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They don't want any of those evil derivatives in their financing. MR. XUEHNER: They want to see that there is a sound basis of funding for the entire length of ownership of the property. They believe, as I've presented to you today, that the net value of the product at the end -- there's a difference between multifamily very affordable housing and single-family very affordable housing, and it's a much higher chance of appreciation or maintenance of value in single family than there is in multi. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand. Now, I think if I heard you correctly, you said that this will -- refresh me. Did you say that the project will not work financially if you have to fund the impact fees even over a 15-year period? MR. XUEHNER: I think what I tried to say was it will make a significant increase in the rental that we would have to charge. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But it would be feasible? MR. XUEHNER: I assume we can -- what it does mean is we put the project on the shelf, and we have to go back now through the sale approval again and through the low income tax housing tax purchaser approval. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. You said it would significantly impact the price of the rental units to what? What does it significantly impact? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: $55 a month. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that would be for 6 years. For 15-year amortization I have twenty-two -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate the help, but I would love to hear it from the petitioner. MR. XUEHNER: I think it's approximately $25 a unit a month. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Over 15 years. MR. XUEHNER: Over 15 years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So rather than 365 it would be 390 and 425. MR. XUEHNER: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three bedroom is how many square feet? MR. XUEHNER: Thousand. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a good size. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And four bedroom is how many square feet? MR. XUEHNER: 1,200. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's a good size. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other comments or questions? MR. DORRILL: We have some speakers as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have speakers as well? MR. DORRILL: Yes, in addition to Mr. Xuehner you have Mr. Zawilinski. Following he, Mr. Estes. MR. ZAWILINSKI: Good morning. Fred Zawilinski, executive director Immokalee Friendship House and vice-chairman of the board for Immokalee Nonprofit Housing. Speaking as director of Immokalee Friendship House I see every year several hundred families that are homeless in Immokalee. The opportunities for housing for families in Immokalee is even more -- more difficult than for single persons. For single persons it's not uncommon for 10, 12 people to be crammed into a trailer or small apartment. Farm Worker Village, Oak Haven Apartments, several other projects in Immokalee are providing more opportunities for housing, but all fill up very quickly, even sometimes before ground is even broken on the apartments. These are single-family homes. They are not cramming people into small areas stacking people on top of each other. It gives people a chance to take care of their own unit, to have yards, to have opportunity for their children to play, but it also gives 34 more units for us to move families out and hopefully free up housing elsewhere, either at Farm Worker Village or some of the other projects, that allows me to move families out of homelessness and into housing, whether directly into Timber Ridge or into other housing. As the only resident of Immokalee to speak to you today on this issue, this is an important project for our community. It's accepted by our community, and I would appreciate the opportunity for this commission to come out and see the area because it is -- it's a good piece of land that we can use. I urge you to -- to consider the 15-year waiver of the impact fees. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Zawilinski. I have a hard time with names. MR. ESTES: My name is Brad Estes. I'm executive director of Immokalee Nonprofit Housing, and I'm here today to speak on behalf of Albert Belivean who is a resident of Naples who among others volunteer regularly in Immokalee. He's very concerned. I will distribute a copy of his letter. He is ill today, and he cannot be here, but I do want to read one thing in his letter. According to the most recent U. S. census, about 25 percent of Collier County households earn less than $20,000 a year which in itself is one-half of the median income in Collier County. A 1993 study revealed that there were 3,140 families in Collier County earning less than $10,000, yet there are only 143 very low income units in Collier County. I think that really is the point that we need to address today, and you -- you have spoken about that already. I also mentioned that -- that the Immokalee community supports this project. In December the Immokalee interagency adopted a resolution unanimously supporting this, and that's 38 different agencies, I believe, that are on the Immokalee interagency. With that I will enter this letter from Mr. Belivean in the -- in the record, and thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Estes. MR. DORRILL: We have one additional. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have another speaker? MR. DORRILL: Miss Varner. MS. VARNER: Jane Varner, the Taxpayer Action Group. MAybe I'll surprise everyone, but we have tried to -- this is what we have been saying all along, that this is the type of housing that Collier County needs. The rents seem very low, reasonable. We've got some three bedroom, four bedroom, so we at this time would like to say that this seems to fill the bill for what we're looking for. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Miss Varner. Mr. Mihalic -- Commissioner MAc'Kie, I have one question before you jump on the motion. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay. I don't have to make it now, just so it gets made. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The petitioner has -- has made note and mentioned that their intention at the end of 15 years is to make these units available either to the tenants or to other low income, I guess, either management companies or the low income families at what he described as the unamortized mortgage or the remaining mortgage plus the impact fees, whatever it is that they are at this day. Is it appropriate to have -- to get something into the affordable housing agreement with this -- with this petitioner that at the end of the 15 years that that's exactly what happens? MR. MIHALIC: You would like to define what they can do with those units at the end of the year? Well, again, there are other regulations that stipulate they must remain low income housing for 50 years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 50. MR. MIHALIC: 50 -- 50, so they will indeed at that time be sold to very low income. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that -- that we set up a -- a scenario that in 15 years that these rental units do become available to home ownership of very low income. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, actually I have a question for Mr. Hihalic on the fiscal impact options that you gave us. My leaning is toward the second one so that we aren't deferring the decision, the funding problem, to some later board, but that we're taking advantage of what seems to be the most fiscally responsible alternative. But I can't find a recommendation from you in the executive summary as to which of those three, and I would like to know if you have one. MR. HIHALIC: I presented them to you as options. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me comment on that, Ms. Hac'Kie, if I could. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's the same dollar amount, so we -- you're asking, if you do number two, you're asking to pay in today's dollars, where if we wait and start funding this seven years from now, we'd be paying in future dollars which would be inflated. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which would be cheaper dollars. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Cheaper dollars. So my preference in particular would be option C. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To start funding it and fund it the seventh through fifteenth year -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: go out. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. -- with the cheaper dollars as we With cheaper dollars, exactly. Does it make sense? Yes. Yes, it makes sense. Do I have a motion? I make a motion that we approve staff's recommendation using option C as the funding mechanism. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that, and I would ask, though, that you amend it to recognize that this is a unique situation, and we don't currently have a policy which allows us to fund these through general funds, and that this sets no precedent until we set such a policy. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So amended. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a comment also. Yesterday in my discussion with -- with Mr. Hihalic as our SHIP funds increase, I believe we can commit 25 or 35 percent of the SHIP funds to rental programs. MR. HIHALIC: 25 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 25 percent. MR. HIHALIC: Yes, commissioner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As we start receiving a million dollars a year on it we would have 250,000 available. He's going to research the possibility of amending our management plan so that we might be able to pay these retroactively, though our hand has been slapped before for trying to do that. MR. HIHALIC: Yes. I don't want to tell you I can do that because the last time I tried to they wouldn't let me. And we'll never be able to now identify a funding source for at the end of seven years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, is there a problem with funding this 7 through 15 years with the impact fee ordinances themselves? MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am. I think that as part of the paperwork we'll put a resolution on for next week that as Commissioner Constantine indicated, it will be coming from general reserves. But this is an item-by-item basis until such time as you establish it otherwise. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. The motion is to approve staff recommendation using option C for the funding mechanism. Motion was made by Commissioner Norris, seconded by Commissioner Constantine. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. All those opposed? There being none, the motion passes 5-0. MR. HIHALIC: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Hihalic. MR. ZAWILINSKI: Thank you, commissioners. We'll invite you to the opening. Item #SD1, 8D2, & 8D3 RESOLUTION 95-53/CWS 95-1; RESOLUTION 95-54/CWS 95-2; RESOLUTION 95-55/CWS 95-3 AND SUBORDINATION OF COUNTY UTILITY RIGHTS FOR PARCELS 103.2, 106.2 AND 116.4 RESPECTIVELY - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item under utilities, 8-D-1. Mr. Cuyler, is it appropriate to handle these all -- all three of these at one time? MR. CUYLER: If you make that clear on the record, that will be fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I think I -- I'd like to try to handle them all at one time. We're going to do items 8-D-l, 2, and 3 which are all subordination resolutions. MS. SAYLOR: For the record my name is Ann Marie Saylot. I am the administrative assistant within the utilities division. These are routine subordinations with attached resolutions. They do involve public right of way. We did have them on the consent agenda a few months back. At that time Chairman Matthews had asked them be pulled for further information. I understand that the planning commission has addressed their actual plans as to what they are doing with the road right of way related to the State of Florida, the Department of Transportation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MS. SAYLOR: There is no expense to the utilities division. If and only if our water or wastewater pipelines would need to be removed or moved in any way, that will be at the expense of DEP and also at our approval as far as the construction end of it goes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve these resolutions and subordinations of county utilities rights for all three parcels. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second, motion from Commissioner Norris, second from Commissioner Hancock to approve all three items, item 8-D-l, 2, and 3. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes. MS. SAYLOR: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #SH1 MISSIMER INTERNATIONAL RANKED AS #1 CONSULTING FIRM FOR RPOFESSIONAL HYDROGEOLOGICAL SERVICES, FOR THE NCRWTP DEEP WELL OBSERVICATION PROJECT, RFP 94-2284 Next item is -- we're going to skip over 8-G-1. 8-H-l, approve final ranking of consultants for Professional Hydrogeological Services. MR. CONRECODE: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Tom Conrecode from your capital projects office. This item was continued from two weeks ago where we had asked you to approve the ranking of the selection committee for Hydrogeologic Services. At the time the board had asked us to go back and review some history on this particular project, and that, in fact, is being handed out to you at this point. What I'm providing is the February 1991 report that was the original analysis done to determine the alternatives for concentrate disposal at the north water plant. It considered the plant as it operates today at 12 million gallons a day, membrane softening, which is a relatively good quality concentrate. It also included the future use of an 8 million gallon per day expansion of a low pressure reverse osmosis and then ultimately a 20 million gallon per day reverse osmosis plant for some point substantially further out into the future. The board had asked two weeks ago what the alternatives were to handling the effluent -- or not the effluent, but the concentrate, and I need to make sure I separate those two because they will come together as one of your options here today. That report had talked about dilution of the concentrate with it -- with effluent or with canal water in use for spray irrigation. In addition, they looked at sanitary sewer disposal. I'll go over that briefly, not to -- to reduce its significance, but what you end up doing is consuming a huge quantity of your wastewater treatment plant capacity, and it accelerates dramatically the amount of future growth of those facilities. Surface water discharge, which in my opinion and I think in the opinion of the report, there's a better chance of snow today than getting a surface water discharge because our surface water discharge would have to go to either the Gulf of Mexico or waters leading to it which are largely considered outstanding Florida waters, and I don't think that's going to go very far very fast. Deep well is one of the options included in the report and then land application. Because of the concentrations of dissolved solids in the water, land application isn't necessarily a good option because it contaminates the land. So if I can, I'd like to address a couple of other issues. As we walk through some of these, I think the board really has -- can narrow those five alternatives down to two, one of which is deep well. The other is dilution and spray irrigation. However, keep in the back of your mind that there is potential to -- to create kind of an industrial waste treatment process which ultimately has a discharge of an industrial waste sludge or, again, injection into a class-one injection well which we're just working in a circle at that point. You are currently expanding the north county wastewater treatment plant. At the point that's completed late this summer, early fall, you will have sufficient capacity there to do the dilution of most, if not all, of your daily production of concentrate from your 12 HGD of treatment that you currently have on line. Understand that in addition to that 12, you're considering 8 HGD of capacity you're trying to bring on line two years from now. The only thing you need do is to develop -- not you, but we, your staff, need to develop customers and make sure that we make the appropriate connections for the tense of that water within the north part of the county. That's not a small step. That's a pretty substantial step when we're increasing the flows by as much as a million gallons per day. That would also include the construction of a pipeline -- a pipeline from the water plant to the wastewater plant. Under your operating permits for your wastewater plant you have to have a backup disposal method. I think you've heard that discussion associated with the south plant as well as the north plant, and that -- the options that you've heard are injection well. This keeps coming up. The perc pond option which you're -- we're currently pursuing additional study on the south plant, but ultimately we end up transferring disposal of this material or the possibility of the disposal of this material from one site to another, and I want you to keep that in mind. I think it's an important point as we go through the options. In any event, when you go to 8 million gallons per day of additional RO capacity in the north plant and ultimately if we convert the entire north plant some 10 or 15 years from now to reverse osmosis, we think that the only viable option at that point is going to be deep well injection because of the high concentrations of salts within that concentrate at that particular point. A couple of key points that I'd like to make, we have a representative of the consultant that prepared that original report that you have with you now. We also have members of the firm Hissimer International here to talk about some of the different strategies for permitting and different things associated with deep well injection. I'd like to summarize a couple of other key points for you to keep in mind, and then I'll turn it over to the board for questions and certainly at that point to the consultants that are here today. One of the key points is that dilution and irrigation is a partial solution to today's flows but I think certainly one worth considering. Ultimate disposal is transferred from the water site where we're talking about the salty water to the wastewater site where we're talking about mixing with effluent and all of the regulations associated with effluent disposal as opposed to brackish water disposal. And, lastly, the 8 million gallon low pressure RO expansion will generate substantially higher concentrations. We can't answer your questions today of what those concentrations are simply because we haven't finalized or studied what the brackish water source would be for that 8 million gallons of capacity at the north plant. subject to your questions -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? No questions. Do we have a motion? Nobody has any questions? MR. DORRILL: One speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No speakers? MR. DORRILL: One. Mr. Perkins. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Perkins. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners. Good morning, people. Good morning, Jerry. By the way, when I speak to Jerry back there and I talk to the camera, which I'm doing right now, I'm deliberately talking to the employers of this commission and these people, the employers. We don't lose sight of that. That's a very important fact. Okay? Now, deep well injection -- oh, Bill Perkins, Bell Meade Group and Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. Deep well injection is totally unacceptable because you can't see where it goes. At the same time all the experts have shown you around this country just what kind of experts they are. We pay for their mistakes, and they say I'm sorry. That's not good enough. I don't want to get it out of sight. Now, one of the questions I do have is how come the north plant and the south plant are not tied together in a pipeline? Because I understand in the north plant the effluent is being sold or transmitted to the golf courses and to anybody who can use it, and in the dry season there isn't enough of it. Now, if we take the effluent and pipe it to the north, maybe we can disperse a lot more. At the same time too if the north and the south has too much effluent, we have the farms, we have our cattle grazing, and all of the rest of the items that we can use for percolation and disposal. I shouldn't say disposal because it's not disposable; it's reusable. Every bit of it is reusable. Now, we have this available in Bell Meade area. Now, the point is the water. Everybody's yelling about water. We need to maintain our water supply, and the natural way to do it is just watch what God provided for us, and we filter it through the earth. Now, we have the means; we have the technology; and we should have the ability. Now, what is it going to take to make it happen? Now, the next thing too -- I want to reiterate this. They're still working on the fact, and I'm still trying to get the information to whereas I saw it or read it or heard it about the sewage being used to produce diesel fuel. Diesel fuel is energy. Energy is electricity. Electricity turns right around and supplies this courthouse right now. Now, if we can take and turn and take and make a product that is a problem and convert it into where we can use this thing to our benefit, then we're going to be way ahead of this country. Now, at the same time the information is out there. Boy, is the information out there. All you have to do is ask. They will give you headaches reading on it. There's tons and tons of companies, and the EPA and the State of Florida are big time in this thing right in Cape Coral and right in Pembrook Pines, just for two. And these are the only two that I know of. The catch to the thing is let's stop throwing money away and creating another problem and especially when we get the wrong kind of experts in there. Let's fix the problem. Let's not move it. Let's not hide it. Let's fix it. That's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I would be in favor of stockpiling this stuff in your driveway, Mr. Perkins, we don't have any options on this. The EPA has classified this concentrate as industrial waste. We can't pipe it. We can't spread it over the ground. We can't pump it into lakes. I'm looking at this, and this is the same position I came to when we discussed this a couple weeks ago. I'm looking for options, and I'm not seeing any. I'm not seeing any options that the EPA will allow us to pursue with this particular -- this particular waste because the way they have classified it. Is that a fair assumption, Mr. Conrecode? MR. CONRECODE: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we here somewhat have our hands tied on this issue, and there's a hesitancy to make a motion because no one really wants deep well injection. No one approves of it. If someone has a concrete option, I'm -- I'm all ears, but I just don't see it. MR. PERKINS: Can I ask a question? Now, I'm totally ignorant of this fact, but I'm thinking of a distillery. If we evaporate the water, what is left? What's in the air? What's in the water? If we distill this stuff, what is the by-products? Is it separate? Is it dispersed one thing from the other? The chemicals, where do they go, because if we have the energy and we can make heat, which -- got tons of it, it's not being used for anything except polluting the air, we can distill this cotton picking problem, save the water and most likely capture other residue. Has this been looked into? Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Conrecode, what's in this stuff? MR. CONRECODE: Well, I'll turn you to table 2. I think it's table 2 in the report -- I'm sorry, table 1 -- where it talks about all the different elements, calcium, magnesium, potassium, in various concentrations throughout. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's TDS? MR. CONRECODE: Total dissolved solids. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So our highest concentration here is sodium and chlorine, chloride, which is essentially salt. MR. CONRECODE: Calcium I think is your -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Sodium is -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the pressure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm willing to make a motion if it's appropriate. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If there is no other discussion, I was heading that direction myself. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's no other way to dispose of these solids even if we were to do something with the fluid that they're included in? MR. CONRECODE: Well, if we were either to distill it or treat it through wastewater treatment process, it would be classified as an industrial wastewater site. You can then press and dry the sludge and dispose of the sludge, and I'm not perfectly clear right now on what those requirements would be, whether we'd have to ship them out of state for landfill in a particular fill in Georgia or not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we're not seeing options. MR. CONRECODE: Not good -- not good cost effective options. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. I'd like to move approval of staff's recommendation on the ranking of the consultants. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Mac'Kie and a second by Commissioner Hancock to rank Missimer International as the number one consultant on this, and is there further discussion? There being -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a little bit of discussion. It appears that through federal and state government regulations we're being given an unfunded mandate in that we can't do anything but what they tell us we can do with our -- with that -- what's left of the water after it's treated. So how do we go about getting state or federal funding to help dispose of this? MR. CONRECODE: I'd be happy to look into that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I don't, you know -- by this time next year perhaps if the congress does what they say they're going to do, they won't be able to impose this kind of restriction on us without helping with the funding, so let's see if we can't pursue that. I'd like to have an answer on that if there's some mechanism that we can use to get some sort of granting on this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So at this point this executive summary is merely to rank the people who responded to the RFPs? MR. CONRECODE: Yes, ma'am, and then we would return to you with a contract to go forward with the project. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And our -- is there some chance you can look into the funding of unfunded mandates? MR. CONRECODE: I will include this as a part of that executive summary packet. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know that was part of our discussion at the intergovernment summit Tuesday and Thursday -- I mean Thursday and Friday. We found a very interesting solution, but I can't share that in public. Kind of -- kind of tell them what to do with it but -- Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to support the motion but only because of the reason that you just stated, that we are strictly ranking firms, and this isn't taking any final action. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm -- I would like to continue to look at alternatives just in the hopes that something pops up before we actually move ahead with this, but I'm going to support the motion too for that reason. Any other discussion on the motion? I'll call it. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes, and you will now go and negotiate with Missimer and bring a contract back, Tom. MR. CONRECODE: Thank you. Item #8H2 RESOLUTION 95-56 AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CREATING THE FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE COMMISSION BY ADDING LEE AND OSCEOLA COUNTIES TO THE COHMISSION - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the agenda, request for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a resolution authorizing the chairman to amend an interlocal agreement. We're adding Osceola and Lee County to the commercial paper. MR. YONKOSKY: For the record John Yonkosky. The request agenda item 8-H-2 is a request for the Board of County Commissioners to approve a resolution that will in effect amend an existing interlocal agreement that this board has with Brevard and Hanatee County, and the amendment in essence adds Lee County and Osceola County to that board of local government financing commission. Staff recommendation is that the board approve it. There is no financial impact. It just allows the two additional counties to participate as members of that organization. For the board's information, in 1991 this board along with -- or this commission along with Manatee County Commissioners and Brevard County Commissioners created an interlocal agreement that put together this local government financing commission and this -- you've used it several times in the past few years. If there's any additional questions, I'd be glad to answer. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any questions from Mr. Yonkosky? There being none, is there a motion? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hove approval. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner Hac'Kie, a second by Commissioner Hancock to approve staff -- staff recommendation on this. There being no further discussion, I'll call the question. All in favor say aye. All opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. Thank you. Item #8H3 ARLA BERNSTEIN CONFIRMATION AS COHMUNITY DEVELOPHENT ADHINISTRATOR - DECLINED Next item on the agenda is, Hr. Dotrill, the confirmation of the community development administrator. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, commissioners. It's a pleasure this morning to be able to nominate to you the individual that I think as a result of a very long and what has been a difficult task to try and find a replacement to Frank Brutt, the county's former community development administrator, nominate to you Arla Berstein. I won't take a great deal of time, but I do want to review what I think to be her most complete background and experience of the individuals that we evaluated. You'll recall that we received about 200 resumes, and I had asked a committee of local citizens to do the evaluation of those and to rank those into two tiers at which point I became involved and with the committee's assistance conducted interviews of our short-listed candidates. Of the short-listed candidates we -- I will tell you that the initial committee interviews there was no clear candidate who was head and tails above any of the others. We did not reach consensus as a committee in terms of who the preferred candidate was. It was split probably between two to three individuals. As a result of that I made a decision to invite the two finalists back. Those two individuals were Ms. Betstein and also Mr. Cautero who has -- and they both have identical positions, identical county positions to the one that we were looking at here in Citrus and formerly in Marion County. Mr. Cautero is a potential candidate to become the assistant county administrator in Citrus County, and he withdrew. Miss Betstein then being the remaining short-listed candidate was invited back for a personal interview with me, and I think that she clearly has what I would call the most complete and thorough background of any of the individuals that we looked at. That includes not only planning. She was initially educated as a planner, but she has management and interestingly enough a marketing background. Her interest in marketing and her continuing education are something that I'll get to in just a moment. She has a managerial background that also includes code compliance issues, housing, economic development, land and growth management regulation process. She has combined applicable experience of 16 years, the most recent of which was 4 years, as I indicated, in an almost identical position in Marion County where the county seat is Ocala, a lot of similar growth management issues, land development regulation, housing, and economic development issues in Marion County in the Ocala area. As part of what was a thorough background and reference check process on her this morning reviewing that information again, I counted no fewer than the following two EDC recommendations. These are, again, from Marion or Broward County, which is where her primary experience is, an award that was given to her for industry and economic development appreciation activities by the EDC, local chambers of commerce, oddly enough the media, land development community, former or current county commissioners, a former mayor where she worked for the City of Miramar, as well as a personal call that I made to Joe Cone who is my counterpart in Marion County. I've known Joe for probably 10 years. Since this also may be an issue, the position and the restructuring that took place in the very end of 1993 in Marion County was similar, I think, to the reorganization that took place here. Marion County had some other economic issues that resulted in Mr. Cone proposing a reorganization of the county administrator's agency and the reduction of 42 positions in Marion County. The issue as to why she was not kept in Marion County had to do with the fact that at the time they were eliminating upper and middle level management positions. They combined what they called the public works department -- they used department director. We used division administrator. They're one and the same, and community development counties are required to have a county engineer, and because they combined community development with public works, they made a decision to let the public works position county engineer be the remaining senior position in that county. I'll tell you in conclusion that -- that to a certain extent some of the rumor mill was working overtime at the end of last week, and there are a couple of issues that I just want to go ahead and dispel because I don't think they're pertinent. I don't believe they would come up today, but I'd like to go ahead and reduce these, the concern that she is too advanced degree oriented in her interests to obtain at some point a Ph.D. in marketing. She has -- my understanding, has two masters degrees. She in -- her original training is in planning, urban planning. Her secondary interest is marketing. Her continuing interest is at some point to get a Ph.D. in marketing. She realizes that to a certain extent southwest Florida is still a wasteland of higher education, and the responsibilities of community development administration here are such that she committed to me that her only recourse for the foreseeable future would either to be to go to FIU or FAU in Boca Raton or Miami. And she has agreed and acknowledged that she would suspend trying to go to school to get a Ph.D. and also trying to run our community development division. I'm more interested in the latter of those, and she has committed as part of them. There were some totally untrue allegations concerning the position and the circumstances under which she left Miramar. Miramar does not have professional commission manager form of government. They have a strong mayor. Those are all patronage jobs, and they serve at the pleasure of the mayor. We have received letters of recommendation as part of her resignation at Miramar from both the mayor that she worked for as well as the incoming mayor who made a decision to replace wholesale department directors when he became the mayor. There was -- was an allegation the middle of last week that not all of her staff liked her in Marion County. I would submit to you today that not all of my staff likes me. You didn't hire me to be popular with the staff. I think there's a difference between respect and popularity. The fact that she was not necessarily popular with all of her subordinates in Marion County is not an issue that frankly carries much weight with me at all. There is the question concerning whether or not she is dynamic enough. That is subject to individual interpretations as to what dynamic tendencies we are looking at. I've already admitted that none of the candidates blew away the selection committee in the initial interviews. I will tell you that I think Ms. Betstein, while she may not be dynamic in a charismatic sort of sense, I think she clearly has the skills and the organizational abilities to raise the performance of the staff and that division to perhaps a higher level then they are already. That is my particular interest in her. If I had to compare her to people who are on the staff, and I thought about this, I think that she has the skills and abilities of both a Jennifer Edwards, who is my personal assistant who I think compensates and is successful because of her organizational -- her personal organizational skills that she brings to the job that in turn help keep me on task and organized but also A. Hartha Skinner. A. Hartha Skinner is an individual that I have the highest respect for in terms of a can do and willing spirit to get the job done. So if I was trying to equate Ms. Betstein in her particular skills to people that we are familiar with, I would say that it's those two particular individuals. I know that some of you met with her privately last Friday when we made her available. I know there may be some concerns in terms of the private discussions that you had with her. I'd be happy to answer any of the questions, or if I've not filled in all the blanks, I'd be happy to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- just -- I had served on that citizen's committee before I was elected to the county commission, and I didn't, therefore, get to be involved through the interview stage. But having reviewed all of those 200 resumes that came through, I -- I was thrilled with this one. This -- this -- this woman appears to have the qualifications and the ability to articulate a vision for our community and to lead us in this critical, critical role. And I want to commend Mr. Dotrill for -- for going -- keeping his nose to the grindstone in what had become an extremely difficult process and coming through with such an outstanding recommendation. I am very excited about this possibility. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unfortunately, I don't share your enthusiasm. It's true through the resume there appear to be a number of things there. However, I think it was Commissioner Matthews and myself who most hounded the manager a couple of years back to make changes in developmental services, that we were not running properly, that we were not customer oriented, and that changes needed to take place. And we did do that, and I certainly credit you for that. But like you, I did phone calls to Marion County and to Miramar and to elsewhere, and because of Commissioner Matthews and my attention to this two years ago, I take it very serious now that I think the department has changed. I'm sure we all take it very serious. But the department has changed on Horseshoe, and I want to make sure we continue that change, which I think has been for the better. I spoke with the county manager in Marion County. I spoke with two of the commissioners from Marion County. I spoke with people from Miramar, and I did not receive the same glowing reports. I received reports of problems during the comp. plan. I'll give you several quotes. Miss Betstein is not hands on. She relies heavily on staff, and that got to be a problem when staff was not her staff, was not heeding the direction of the board nor of the county manager in Marion County. A direct quote was, disappointed in the way Arla let it get out of control, manages forcefully. There was evidence of some favoritism. My notes say here -- bear with me. I wrote it upside down and sideways here, but I think each of this is important. And all of these are quotes, not paraphrases. Abrasive with subordinates, manages forcefully and favoritism. I said that. Leadership style was the biggest weakness. Feedback from the staff in the trenches, very unhappy, and that was emphasized, and you are right. There are going to be some people in any job that are unhappy, but that seemed to be an emphasis from all three people I spoke to. And I think there is a difference. You mentioned being happy and having respect. And the word respect was not used. However, I would translate it that there was some question as to the respect given back and forth there. I think respect goes both ways. A manager -- and you're a good example of this -- has to respect his or her employees. And whether people are happy with you or not, I think you show them a great deal of respect, and you always stand up for them in this forum, and that apparently was not the case there. We need a doer, a leader -- you used the word dynamic -- someone with vision. And the one thing, the simple phrase that has stood out for me more than any other with this is a can-do attitude. Until the past year our developmental services has told everyone the reasons why you couldn't do something, and they would give it back to them. And it wasn't until this year that we had a can-do attitude and laid out the reasons how you can do it: Can we help you, customer service oriented. And we need someone with that attitude, somebody that excites and encourages our staff to move forward with that attitude. For the first time as long as I've lived in Collier County and paid any attention to developmental services, our staff seems to be upbeat and excited and happy about their job in helping the customer. I don't want to take a step backwards. And after sitting down last week with Ms. Betstein and talking to the people from Marion County and Miramar, I have a question as to whether or not she's that person. Now, the process was halted at my suggestion six, eight months ago, whatever it was. And there were seven people on the short list at that time. Four removed their name for one reason or another since that time because we did not readvertise when we reentered the process for the people that were on that short list. MR. DORRILL: Two of the four -- it was either two or three of those four found employment during the interim period of time. They're just no longer available. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Exactly. My point is those people who we considered the top choices, their situation changed. I'm going to guess in that last six or eight months other people out their there situation changed as well, people who had not applied who were not part of the process. Perhaps if more than half of those changed, then that's a good indicator that the industry out there was changing as well. So my preference, I think, would be to readvertise and to look for a person that fits the doer, the leader, the dynamic, the person with the vision, the can-do attitude. Because after talking to these people in Marion County and Miramar, I don't think this candidate fits that description and that need. MR. DORRILL: I haven't spoken to anyone personally in Miramar other than I had our human resource director run down and speak at length especially over the allegations that I'm not going to go into concerning her leaving, because they were unfounded. But I did speak to Mr. Cone. In fact, I had Mr. Hargett speak again to Mr. Cone this morning just because I was busy trying to get to the meeting this morning to confirm that there were no surprises or performance issues related to her tenure of four years as community development administrator there, and Joe confirmed that again this morning. If there are some specific concerns that were expressed to you by current or former commissioners up there, I'd be happy to look at those. I don't -- I don't know that they would change my -- my recommendation of her this -- this morning. I share the concern over the performance issue, and that's why I said I do think that she has the skills to take the performance and add to the excellent attitude that is there, and I'm not discrediting any of the change. All of the change in development services over the past year from my perspective have been very positive. My office and me personally have been overwhelmed in prior years with day-to-day failure on the staff to make decisions or be willing to solve their own problems. I bet I haven't had to be personally involved in those types of problems on except maybe one or two occasions in the last six to nine months. I think that's an indication of how well the staff is at the moment. I don't want to do anything to deteriorate from that because the staff and their attitude have never been better in the -- in this some 15 years that I've been with the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it's your judgment that Ms. Betstein would continue that -- that good attitude toward getting -- getting the job done and interfacing with the public? MR. DORRILL: I think so. But, you know, she is from outside, but that's why I said in looking at her skills and her particular abilities that I'm convinced that she can raise them to a higher level without backsliding into the way that they were because I and the committee said that at the very beginning that we didn't want anyone to come in here and make any organizational changes, any personnel changes, or process changes and that we would heed the advice from the development services steering committee where we could streamline or reduce land development regulations or things that were encumbering or slowing down the process. It was very clear to all of the candidates that we were looking for someone to come in here and not make changes to the system that is in place. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just like to say that I think the very worst thing we could do would be to readvertise and start over in this process. It's dragged out way too long. I think that the interruption in the process that occurred six to eight months ago was inappropriate and should not have happened, and I don't want to see another interruption and delay. I think that -- that, yes, it's true you have spoken with these people, Commissioner Constantine, and they have some negative comments. I'm attempted to go through and read excerpts from these letters that are very positive comments that others had about Miss Berstein's abilities. I feel strongly that -- that we owe it to the community not to stop again. We have to go forward, and we have a very qualified candidate, and I urge our support. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to respond to that just real quickly. I think we owe it to the community to get the best candidate, not get the candidate in the fastest method possible. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Certainly not fast method. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I couldn't agree with that more. Our responsibility to the community is to make sure the department runs properly. Here's my concerns. As Mr. Dotrill pointed out earlier, the candidate was basically reorganized out of Marion County and Miramar, which is fairly similar to what happened with our -- some of our staff members a year and a half ago. And it seems to me that if she had been perceived by any of those organizations as a top-notch employee, wouldn't she have been kept? I mean that's a serious question. Another question that's really troubling to me is that she's been unemployed in this particular field for over a year. That causes me great concern. If she's generally recognized as a top-notch employee, why has she been unemployed for over a year? That's a question that needs to be answered. And I think the point is that there's several very important questions to be answered. Some of those I won't reiterate that Commissioner Constantine brought up. But can't we find a candidate that doesn't bring forward all these questions? I -- you know, our department is operating very well right now. I -- I think we need to proceed with caution here concerning this particular candidate. I would rather take the cautious side and readvertise. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm afraid I too am going to express some reservation, and I have to be perfectly honest. They stem more from my meeting with Arla than from anything else. This is a situation where I basically am being asked to make a decision on hiring someone in my field of expertise. Both Miss Betstein and I are AICP certified planners. I do not have the level of degrees that she does. But in discussing with her the process of the development services department, its goals, its desired result, I was a little taken aback that she tends to spend her time in theory more than practicality. What we do down on Horseshoe Drive has a very real-world result. It ends up on the ground. It ends up in our environment. It ends up everywhere around us. And although Miss Betstein does have some redeeming qualities, it is my biggest concern that we do have people -- that we do have people that have the drive and the energy and the enthusiasm. I was actually looking forward to meeting her for one reason, and that is that I believe Commissioner Hac'Kie was quoted in the daily news as stating that she was excited about her vision for the community. I asked Arla about her vision for the community, and she told me that she really didn't have one and that it would be presumptive of her to come into Naples with a vision. And I asked her, "Well, how do you get achieving a vision?" I was concerned again about her lack of emphasis on the public input in establishing that vision. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait a minute. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just have to admit I met with her for an hour. I talked with her. This position is so important that I have internal reservations about it, and maybe if I have the opportunity to -- to meet with some other people and she stands out above that, I would feel better. But at this point I look at the progress we've made in the last year, and I do feel that Frank Brutt had a good resume on paper. On paper Frank Brutt would stand next to this candidate. And, unfortunately, some of the reasons that Frank was ineffective I felt appear in this candidate also. So I have difficulty supporting Arla for this position. MR. DORRILL: Just one -- one comment or in terms of just a general response, if I may. And don't take this the wrong way, but some of you may be concerned that -- that you need to personally be responsible to interview, select, and then supervise this individual, and I just want to remind you that that's actually my responsibility. And in terms of getting performance out of any of the individuals that are in your agency, ultimately and initially that's -- that's my responsibility is to -- is to make the selection. I am, yes, obligated to have these people confirmed by you, and in -- in some way that requires you to do a value or judgmental analysis of the person that is being recommended to you. If it's clear that we're not going to be able to confirm her, as a professional courtesy we need to tell her that today. We can't have any second thoughts here. We've had her down here, I believe, three different occasions because she -- again, in complete response, she hasn't been unemployed, but she has been doing some consulting and some teaching at the University of Florida. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, I said unemployed in this field. MR. DORRILL: In the field is the proper response. She has already given her notice. Now, she knew that she was at risk for that, but the semester was beginning in Gainesville, and she gave her notice, and so there's going to be a hardship there. And I need to tell her today that either we are or we might or we would reconsider your qualifications, because I don't think that we should string her out if she needs to recover the employment opportunity if she can that she had with the university. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, just in response to your being responsible for getting these candidates. Obviously you are as county manager. But if we weren't supposed to have input on that and have some part in that process, there would not be an ordinance requiring you to get confirmation of the board. And I think the point is division administrators do require the confirmation of the board, and if there are questions among the board, you know, you can certainly help us with those, but you need to respect that as well. MR. DORRILL: And I am, and that's why I said please don't take this the wrong way, but the -- it's not up to you as a board to actually make the selection or to get the performance out of the individual. That's -- that's my responsibility, and that's what you need to hold me accountable for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Couple of things. One is I don't know exactly what the newspaper said I was excited about, but what I was excited about was this potential administrator's ability to lead and direct us because of her theoretical background, because of her educational background, that she had the ability to lead us in developing a vision for our community. And I think that we need to be careful when we're talking about a division administrator. We need a person who can develop theories and can develop a vision and isn't necessarily the nuts and bolts person. There are others whose responsibility that is. I also think that there's a contradiction in what you're saying, Commissioner Hancock, when you say that you were surprised that her response is that it would be presumptive of her to have -- to have a local vision that -- and then that you would criticize her for the lack of developing any public input in -- in developing a vision. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, you've misunderstood my statement. I was surprised to her response after your comment in the paper. I had assumed from your comment that she had some idea of a vision for the community. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was surprised to find out she did not have one, so that was the comment I made. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. I see, because, in fact, what I am excited about is the ability of a person with this kind of qualifications to lead us in developing a vision. And I have to say this, although I -- I hesitate because it's the gender thing. It's not unusual for women in positions of authority to be viewed as abrasive and to have some problems with the people whom they supervise. And I think that you have to be careful in discounting this candidate because there have been people who have viewed her as abrasive. I think that we have to factor in that that is a problem that women in leadership positions have to deal with on a regular basis. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would have felt more comfortable if that were true, if she were a little more assertive. I just feel that's a very true leadership position in the county. And, you know, if I was the only person with this opinion, I would gladly step aside and let the board move ahead and trust Mr. Dorrill's choice on this. I was hesitant today because I didn't know what the rest of the board thought. But in my meeting with her, I have to express reservation on her appointment, and I'm afraid that's a responsibility that I take serious. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just one -- one other comment is I need to be sure that we all understand, because I can count to three again, but the process here, the status quo will exist until we readvertise. I mean -- a year? When will we be back -- when will we be making this decision? It's absurd how long this has dragged on. And if we didn't have a qualified candidate, then I would agree that it would be wrong to take the best one we have. But we have an extremely qualified candidate, and I think it's a darned shame to be dragging this out longer and longer. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't disagree with you on the qualified candidate. I just -- myself I pointed out that there are a number of questions that leave me uncomfortable with this particular candidate. On paper, once again, she looks fine. I will take issue -- I don't share your opinion that what we don't need out there is a nuts and bolts person. We do in my opinion need a nuts and bolts person. That's what's making the thing -- the division run well now. And as far as being in some sort of time constraint to make a change out there, I don't necessarily share your concern there either because as has been stated by almost everyone involved, the department's running fine. The division is running fine. It's not like we need someone to go in tomorrow and clean up a mess that's ongoing. It's operating properly. So I personally -- because we have time, because we're not under some sort of constraint, I personally would rather take a look and see who's available now today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me say something, please. First of all, I want to commend Mr. Dotrill for the wherewithal and the diligence to go through 200 resumes. That's -- that's a lot of work, and the -- the committee that helped him do that. Again, their -- their diligence is well appreciated. I don't share the opinion of my three male colleagues in this, and my reason for that is that I too met with all I -- I happened to be in the office, I guess -- what was it -- late November, early December when you had her down. And I sat and talked with her for -- I don't know -- 45 minutes or so before I went to lunch. And I -- I, for one, think that what we have here is probably a difference between the way men do things and the way women do things. We do things distinctly different. Hen establish hierarchies, and women don't. Women establish a plane. They want to see who's in the ballgame before they decide what the ballgame is, where men walk into a position, and a man would have sat with you and said, I want to do this, this, this, this. This woman was kind enough to say, I'm not sure what it is Collier County wants. Therefore, I don't have a vision yet, but I'll form one. And -- and I commend Mr. Dotrill for being able to see that, because women in leadership do see things and do things entirely differently. And I'm -- I would like to see this board move forward and confirm, if for no other reason that we have had a steering committee work at this. We have had the county manager work at this now for over a year, and I would like to see it go forward. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We are the -- we may be the second fastest now. For many years we've been the fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're the second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you're right. We've dropped to second. But as a result -- and Mr. Dotrill has been quoted as saying this -- other than the county manager, that position is probably the most important position we have. And if we are the premiere community in the United States and the fastest growing community in the United States, we should have the absolute premiere person to hold that position. I think Commissioner Norris made the point that on paper she meets the qualifications that are required, but I'm not comfortable that she is the premiere person. You mentioned that this is a long time, Commissioner Matthews, that this has gone on. You're right. And, frankly, I wish we could finish it sooner rather than later. But I think we need to make sure we get the premiere person in that position. And the key there -- the key phrase I want to say is person. It bothers me a little when I hear, well, men do this, women do that. I want the person who can do the job. I don't care if it's a man. I don't care if it's a woman. I want the premiere person, human being. So for you to throw out the gender thing I think is a little inappropriate. I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we decline the nomination and direct our manager to readvertise for the position. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On the motion I -- I, frankly, am having difficulty with being constantly confronted with this gender thing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You raised it. I didn't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. I did not raise it. Commissioner Hac'Kie raised it first. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't apologize. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The question is I believe that not only are there physical differences between men and women, there are differences in the way that we look at issues, the way that we draw our conclusions. Our tendency is to establish teamwork, not to establish pecking orders. And it's an extremely different way to do things, and sometimes women in order to accomplish that concept must appear to be aggressive, abrasive, all kinds of different words that are usually applied to them by other people in their field. This is a lady who has come forward working in a predominantly male-oriented field, and she has done very well in the field. She's well educated in the field, and I -- I, for one, will not support whatever motion has been made that we continue to search. It's 14 months old now. I just can't support that. We don't have a second yet either. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the motion just one last comment that -- that if -- if the gender issue had been raised by someone saying, well, our -- our division heads are two white and two male, so let's get a girl in there, I would be -- it would raise my ire to the extent, you know -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd be upset by that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that would make me upset. However, the issue that's being raised here is to ask the men on this board to please evaluate another leadership style and to consider another way that -- that this organization could be led instead of the traditional hierarchy, and I think that it is appropriate for the women on this board to point out to the men that this is a different way of looking at things, and I appreciate it when you point out to me things that I might not have the background to be able to see. So I don't think this should be viewed as a -- as a divisive, the girls against the boys. I hope that it can be viewed as just helpful information sharing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- throughout this whole process I've tried very diligently to not let this be a gender factored decision in any way. And I think it's unfortunate that the issue has been raised here today because I've been going through this whole process doing my dead-level best to not let that affect my decision in any way, and I can assure you that it has not. I would be more than pleased to -- to -- to appoint a female director at some time in the future. I just don't think this is the one, and that's the way I feel about it. I really -- I really think it's unfortunate that the gender issue has been raised here today, though. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It is an absolute shame this has degenerated to this type of discussion. I don't -- to generalize men or women as if we're all alike, I'm no more like Mr. Norris than I am Mr. Constantine or Ms. Hac'Kie. And I just disagree with that wholly. This has nothing to do with gender. It has to do with the fact that I met with a candidate that was totally unimpressive for a lead position in this county. I cannot with good conscientiousness to the voters of this county recommend someone based on a time frame of push or a gender argument. It has to be because they are, indeed, what I believe to be the best person for the job. I can't stand behind that with this candidate, and I'll second Commissioner Constantine's motion. MR. DORRILL: Just in response so that you'll know what -- what my inclinations are, before I go through the process of trying to readvertise the position, I would probably go back and talk to Mr. Cautero because, if you remember, I said I had two finalists in my book, and I thought that they were both equally impressive. It was Mr. Cautero who asked to be removed from consideration. I would probably go back and give him one final chance to be reconsidered because I am not personally acquainted with what his opportunity might be in Citrus County. He has not been offered the job. He may be under consideration for the job. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did your motion -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion included to readvertise. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we have that authority? I thought that our authority as a board was just to either approve or disapprove the manager's recommendation, and it's his choice in how he goes about coming to his recommendation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We can do that. I'll be happy to change the motion if that's the pleasure of the board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll amend the second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the motion is now -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to decline the confirmation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- to decline the confirmation. We have a motion by Commissioner Constantine, a second by Commissioner Hancock to decline the confirmation of Ms. Arla Berstein for community services director. There being no further discussion, I will call the motion. All those in favor? All those opposed? Motion passes 3 to 2. And I guess -- Mr. Dorrill, I guess you'll go back and look at the candidate you have again. MR. DORRILL: Or -- or other options. And I may be speaking to each of you privately -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's your choice. MR. DORRILL: -- to try to get some little clear, but it's obvious that I'm not looking for a quick and popular decision. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Why don't we -- why don't we take a break until -- I guess we're going to be looking at 10 after one. We have a couple more issues to take, but we had decided earlier to take an hour for lunch. Ten after one. (A lunch break was held from 12:11 p.m. to 1:22 p.m.) Item #12C1 & 12C2 PETITION AV-94-021 AND PETITION AV-94-019 - CONTINUED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To reconvene the January 17 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, we have a few unfinished items on the morning agenda. I guess the question -- the question that I've been asked is whether we have petitioners present to handle those unfinished items. Mr. Archibald, do you know? They're vacations mostly. MR. ARCHIBALD: On the first vacation item, 12C(1), the staff is recommending that be continued. The second item, 12C(2), at the wishes of the board, that item could be continued one week also. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That one can be continued one week also? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to continue those two items for one week. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We have a motion from Commissioner Constantine and a couple of seconds -- actually three I think -- to continue the two unfinished items for the afternoon agenda, and I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes. We will move on to the landfill -- Item #9A RESOLUTION 95-57 NOT PROCEEDING WITH CHANGES TO LEGISLATION RE MAJORITY PLUS ONE VOTES - ADOPTED MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- item in just a moment. Mr. Cuyler. MR. CUYLER: I'm sorry. The add-on that I put under the county attorney's report dealing with the language for the special act, I don't have an interest in whether you handle that now or not, but we've been told that we have to get that approved document to Commissioner Saunders' office by five o'clock today -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: By 5:00 today? MR. CUYLER: -- if that's going to go forward. If you think there's time later, we can do it later. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This may go beyond five o'clock. Maybe we need to handle that one now. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we do not alter that language. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That we not alter -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The current language. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That we not alter the current language. Okay. What Mr. Cuyler has done, he's prepared the alter -- he's prepared language to alter the special act in accordance with Commissioner Hancock's proposal last week. Mr. Anderson withdrew his item from the legislative agenda, and I asked him to bring it back to us today to see if the board wanted to put it on the legislative agenda and that's -- MR. CUYLER: There's a resolution. It should be in front of everybody with a 9A up in the right corner that I handed out, and the second page has got your language. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only reason which I have requested that be done is if two members of this board should have to recuse themselves from a vote, we have a question as to whether or not we can function and make a decision. If we do not alter the language, then we still, in fact, have that same question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The real substance here is just to -- it doesn't change anything except allows us to vote if there are only three commissioners participating? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: happen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And it means that all three have All three would have to agree. -- agree. That's my understanding. Or all two if that should ever We have a motion on the floor to not make any changes. Is there a second to that? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to not proceed with making any changes in the special act. Any discussion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll support the motion just because I think we need to iron out -- I haven't seen that language, and I'm not prepared to rush through it and do it before five o'clock today. Maybe we'll just do that next time around, but I'll support the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It would be next year. Okay. So maybe the direction is that we proceed carefully and put it on the legislative agenda next year. I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes four to one, Commissioner Hancock being in opposition. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I still think it was a good idea. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think it is a good idea, but I agree, I think we need to bring it forward a little more cautiously so that we address all the ramifications that might occur. That I believe -- Item #10A RESOLUTION 95-58, REAPPOINTING JOSEPH ZAKS AND BRUCE PRAY AND APPOINTING KIHBERLY KUSHHAN TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Parks and recs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We have a parks and rec appointment for the parks and recreation advisory committee to appoint -- re-appoint and appoint three members to serve four-year terms. We have one person who has applied from the Immokalee area. He is the only person who has applied who qualifies for that; is that correct? MS. FILSON: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But, once again, it's late? MS. FILSON: Well, they notified me that he was not going to apply for re-appointment and we -- since we didn't get any other applications, he changed his mind. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MS. FILSON: That's why his was late. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was it late? Yes or no? MS. FILSON: Yes. It was late. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would like -- Well, one of the appointments is from district five and I can make a motion coming from district five that we re-appoint Joe Zaks and Bruce Pray, both of which served district five. And the other position is a vacation, Darlene Koons vacating the position. Do we have a replacement? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. I would like to support Kimberly Kushman for that position. I'm very, very happy that a lifetime resident of Collier County is willing to serve in that kind of a position. She's an officer of Barnett Bank. She'll be able to bring up financial perspectives. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will move the advisory committee's recommendations in that case, the three that are named. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That is -- Wait a minute. Wait a minute. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Kushman, Zaks, and Pray. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Kushman, Zaks, and Pray. Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion on the floor then to re-appoint Joe Zaks and Bruce Pray and to appoint Kimberly Kushman for four-year terms on the parks and recreation advisory board. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five to zero. That does conclude it now; right? The other one was withdrawn? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Meeting's adjourned. Item #SG1 AGREEMENT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. PURSUANT TO RFP-94-2227 TO PRIVATIZE THE COUNTY'S LANDFILL OPERATIONS - STAFF DIRECTED TO LOOK INTO PRIVATIZING THE LANDFILL BASED ON A TIMETABLE AND TO WORK WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT RE A CONTRACT WITH ALL AMENDMENTS TO BE BROUGHT BACK ON FEBRUARY 7, 1995 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not quite. Okay. We will now take up item 8G(1), the agreement with Waste Management, Incorporated, to privatize the county landfill operations. MR. DORRILL: Madam Chairman, we received just in advance of the afternoon session a letter, which is a letter of protest of the award of the contract this afternoon, on behalf of Addington Environmental which you may recall was another competing firm, and they're represented by Mr. Pickworth. And I thought that before we get into the meeting, we should go ahead and -- Each of you have a copy of this in front of you. The county attorney has a copy and a response. But at this time I would like to have Mr. Pickworth come forward and state for purposes of the record the nature and rationale behind their protest. We'll go ahead and deal with that, and then we'll be prepared to begin the staff presentation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pickworth. MR. DORRILL: If you would, please. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, how many people do we have? MR. DORRILL: We have about 30. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 30. MR. PICKWORTH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Don Pickworth. I represent Addington Environmental, Inc., one of the proposers under this RFP. We were, I believe, the second-ranked proposer. I have delivered to you a letter protesting the award of the contract of Waste Management for the reasons set forth in the letter which I'll go through in a minute. I think we all ought to keep in mind that with CPI escalators and everything else, this is a contract for well in excess of $200 million, and I don't think this county gives out very many $200 million contracts. The comments I'm making are based on the contract that I saw, and I say that because Mr. Lorenz delivered a contract to me at six o'clock on Friday evening, and I very much appreciate that, that he would go out of his way to get me a contract, but it's also disconcerting to think about the fact that the county is considering a $200 million-plus contract and a final draft of what is being considered is being delivered around on Friday evening. It's certainly not the practice that I think has attended the business of this county commission over the years, even in contracts of far, far smaller amounts, and I think you know that but at least in view of what we're going to talk about today. So I guess I've got to say, if someone jumps up and says, "Oh, wait a minute. There's another contract out and doesn't say that and doesn't have that problem," I'll have stand corrected because I -- you know, I'm talking about what I saw, and I don't know if there's anything more recent or -- When I talked to Mr. Lorenz the other day, as we were speaking, he was receiving faxes on this. So with that, let me proceed to outline for you what we believe to be some of the primary concerns, and I say"primary" because, you know, you can go through this contract -- we can spend all day going through a bunch of things in this contract, but we'll just hit some highlights here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I suspect we will. MR. PICKWORTH: And let me -- And let me further state that when we get into some of the landfill gas questions, I have with me Mike HcGuigan from SCS Engineers. These people are highly expert in this subject, and he will be available to answer any questions that you wish to direct to him concerning this subject because, as you can see by the letter and what I'm going to say, this is a major, major financial point. With that, let me just kind of take these in order. And our first point is that the proposed contract is not responsive to the RFP with regard to site optimization. And without elaborating too much, I think you all know what I'm talking about. And the RFP -- I will quote this because right at the very beginning of the county's RFP, the county says that its immediate short-term goal for solid waste management is for landfill site optimization to maximize the Naples and Immokalee landfill capacity. Well, in fact, we're here today to consider a contract based on accepting the alternate proposal of Waste Management which was the least landfill life of all of the proposers, and I refer you back to the executive summary where even the county staff beat that one. So we're here on an optimization RFP and we're considering the least optimal contract. Secondly, I was out at the meeting in Golden Gate, and I certainly understand the fact -- and this goes back to the whole optimization question which is obviously not withstanding the fact that the county went out for an RFP to optimize the landfill capacity, that certainly does not reflect the views of some number of citizens of this county. And I guess in an expedient attempt to try to address that, it was thrown out that, well, we'll put some kind of an opt-out type of provision in the contract so that we can get out of this in ten years, and supposedly that will satisfy those concerns. Well, you know, that -- obviously if we're considering an RFP to optimize the landfill and if we look at the shortest term that any proposer propose was 17.7 years by the county staff on the base proposal, that's even under that. That's not exactly an optimization contract anymore. And then the question is, why are we -- why are we even considering that RFP at this point. It seems to me that we have far abandoned that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, Mr. Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Have you -- Mr. Cuyler, have you had a chance to look at these allegations and respond to them? And the second question is, is this even an appropriate forum for this particular discussion? MR. CUYLER: The answer to the first question is we've looked at them because we knew they were going to come up. We have not addressed them because today was the day to address them. In terms of our answer, whatever the board looks at may change this, but based on what we have seen so far, the fact that you have a contract that allows an earlier opt-out on some reasonable basis does not negate the fact that you still have a potentially long-term contract, a contract which could maximize subject to the county's buy-out or opt-out or whatever. So we've looked at it to that extent. With regard to whether this is the appropriate timing that's -- you know, whether you want to hear these discussions first or whether you want to hear them in the context of the overall proposal after staff is the board's discretion, the chair's discretion. I don't know how you want to handle that. This is not a formal protest. I don't think Mr. Pickworth is saying it's a formal protest. He's just -- He's raising certain issues at this point. Whether you look at them now or later is up to your discretion. MR. PICKWORTH: I think I have to raise these issues before you take action on this contract award though. So to that extent it's formal. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I don't have any objection -- I don't care what order we take this in. I think that if our attorney tells us that the contract is responsive to the RFP, that we are his clients and will rely on his advice. However, I think that there are issues raised in this letter that I -- are relevant to the discussion on whether or not the Waste Management contract is the best deal for Collier County. So in whatever format we hear them, I'm interested in hearing what he has to say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have consensus among us to continue with this today? (Nonverbal answer.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think so too. MR. PICKWORTH: Could I continue? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Continue, Mr. Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: My next point is that the ten-year opt-out provision provides a windfall for Waste Management. Obviously, you know, Mr. Cuyler and I -- I guess we'll disagree as to whether -- even having that in there is a violation of the RFP. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's why we have thousands of lawyers in this world. MR. PICKWORTH: I understand. Sure. That's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank God. MR. PICKWORTH: Yeah. And things like this are a lawyer's smorgasbord. But in any event -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: All those who are not attorneys raise their hand. MR. PICKWORTH: But let's look at this opt-out from another point of view. Forget the legalities for a minute, and let's talk about -- As Ms. Mac'Kie has suggested, this is really a good idea for the county because I view this as an incredible opt-out. There is an incredible windfall for Waste Management built into this contract, and let me explain the reason why. First -- and, again, this is, you know, taking information off of their proposal and the various information which the county has put out. If the county opts out after ten years, there's a lot of liner and cell construction that is not necessary and the math we do is that if you opt-out, there's $27 million in cell construction and liners in the Waste Management proposal. If you take and relate that back to the number of tons that are going to be put into that landfill, it amounts to $2.25 a ton on the tipping fee that is just -- goes to them if you opt-out. That should already be in there. That 14 bucks should have a $2.25 component just for that. Secondly, as you know -- you all are very familiar with this contract -- you become responsible for the post-closure responsibilities if you opt-out. We figure that's probably an $8 million item. So, you know, there's a couple that's -- I don't know, 17, 18, $19 million just on that alone and certainly a big shot on the tipping fee. Our next point is that -- and this comes under the heading, "The contract contains numerous provisions which allow WMI to charge additional fees for the performance required by the RFP for the price proposed." You know, we got something and it said $13.89, and that was an extraordinarily low number or it appeared to be. And yet upon further examination of the contract and what it all means, I seriously question whether that's really the price and what you're really going to save. And let me start by talking about the failure of the contract to deal with required gas management system and post-closure operation of the gas management system. And we have been talking about this for some time now. And I don't think a satisfactory answer has been brought forward. And, in fact, the answers that have been given are much less satisfactory, let's say. And let me just in summary tell you that your RFP requires and your staff has consistently told us that the county intends that as part of the pollution control and odor control aspect of this privatization effort, that the contractor will fulfill the requirements contained in the federal regulations which are meant to implement the Clean Air Act, and these we checked as recently as this morning with EPA in North Carolina which is the office responsible for the implementation and they say May of '95. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought that was going to be February. MR. PICKWORTH: It is now May, and we talked with them this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I clarify about this? MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As I understand the issue that you're talking about right now is that the Clean Air Act which the federal law adopted some three, four years ago -- MR. PICKWORTH: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- has been in a rule-making process -- MR. PICKWORTH: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- That -- and we're about to -- we're almost finished finally. Government in its, you know, efficiency about four years later is ready to adopt the rule, the Clean Air Act. I see in the RFP that there is a mention of those requirements, and I would like to know maybe from Mr. Lorenz -- I'd like for you to confirm, if appropriate, that it is your expectation -- or in your discussions, in your negotiations on this issue, is it just a glitch in the Waste Management contract that we need to say -- currently the contract says, in the event of a change of laws, they can come back and increase the price. If, in fact, it was your intention to have them comply with these about-to-be-promulgated rules, it would seem that that should be excepted out from the change of laws provision in the contract. MR. LORENZ: In our discussion with Waste Management, it is their expectation that the Clean Air Act requirements will be part of Waste Management's contract. The tipping fee that they have currently quoted us is what they will hold to. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would just suggest that, Mr. Weigel, when we do get to the point of looking at the details of the contract, that that's not clear in the contract. And if, in fact, Waste Management can't raise the fees based on the Clean Air Act regulations, that needs to be specifically set out in the contract because I'm afraid they could argue to the contrary the way it presently is written. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Pickworth, the rules that currently exist from the EPA, are they interim, are they interim final, or what? MR. PICKWORTH: There are no rules right now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There are no rules right now. MR. PICKWORTH: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is it your understanding that the EPA in Hay is going to issue final rules, or are they going to issue interim rules? MR. PICKWORTH: Final. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're going to do it -- MR. PICKWORTH: Final rules. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- all in one fell swoop? MR. PICKWORTH: Well, the rules -- the interim rules, if you will, were published in 1991. They've been out there all along. They are referred to -- in fact, there's a specific reference to them in your RFP. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That's my question. Interim rules do currently exist? MR. PICKWORTH: Well, what they are is they're proposed rules. It's a proposed rule. In other words, by looking at that proposed rule, a proposer under the county's RFP can see that this is what the county is looking for and can or should take that into account in proposing a price to the county. And as Mr. Lorenz just told you, certainly from the staff's intent, that price should include that. In other words, it should not be a change in the law under -- I forget what section number it is -- which allows them to come in and ask for an additional tipping fee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Especially not a law that's already contemplated. MR. PICKWORTH: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I understand. MR. PICKWORTH: Exactly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. PICKWORTH: Either that or your RFP should have told everybody not to do that. I would submit to you it's real clear in the contract that compliance with that is not intended by the contract. I don't think Waste Management is even secretive about this, if you can look at their proposal, you can look at statements they made, they've made in public when asked by environmental compliance, we will comply with Florida DEP regulations. These regs aren't in the DEP regs. I mean, they have not been hiding the ball. They've been very -- They've been very up front about this. They're not including that in the contract, because if they did, it would be real easy to put that in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let us get some questions in. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- Do you have any kind of estimate of what kind of an increase? Does your client -- Can your client quantify for us? My fear would be we make a contract with Waste Management. In May of the same year, Waste Management comes to us and asks and has a right to demand an increase in the tipping fee. Do you have any way to quantify about what that might be? MR. PICKWORTH: Let me give you -- To some extent I can, but, you know, we can't get real precise about this because there's two components to complying with these gas management regulations. One is the installation of a gas management system which will meet certain performance standards. Now, your RFP required, quote, "a gas management system," and the contract says that there will be an operational plan which addresses gas management. Now, will that gas management system that's contemplated in the price you were quoted be a system capable of performing up to the standards set forth in the Clean Air Act rules? I don't know. And this is the component of it that is real difficult to tell because if it falls far short, then we could be looking at a very, very large number. So that I just can't even give you. The other aspect of compliance with this is you have to -- you have to operate this system for a period of time a minimum of 15 years. But, in fact, you have to operate this until the NHOC's from your landfill fall below certain standards. And, of course, there's obviously rather stringent reporting and monitoring requirements that deal with that. How long will that be? It could be 15 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years. You're required -- you're required to meet -- to meet this irrespective of the amount of time it takes. MR. VARNADOE: Mrs. Chairman, I'm just going to cut part of this discussion short. For the record, George Varnadoe. We are fully prepared and expect to meet these new EPA standards as part of our gas management system so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Without an increase in the tipping fee under the change of law? MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. That's built in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you have already built in the proposed final regs into the tipping fee? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And you have no -- MR. VARNADOE: As I understand they're going to be. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And to make it very clear, you have no objection to adding that specifically into the -- into the contract? MR. VARNADOE: If it's not clear, let's add it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Move on. I'm sorry. MR. PICKWORTH: I find that very interesting, and I'm certainly glad that when we get to the final day, we're going to throw that in on this $200 million contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me just a moment. Commissioner Constantine, do you have a question? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a question on suggestion. I don't know what Mr. Pickworth has left here, but then I think what you had in mind was, so that we can go through these in order rather than have questions at random, right now have our staff do a presentation and then -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- go through these in an orderly conduct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like Mr. Pickworth to try to wrap it up. You've had 15 minutes so far and -- MR. PICKWORTH: Yes, ma'am. I'm trying to get through all of these because I think the record -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is only a four-page -- This is only a four-page document so -- MR. PICKWORTH: I understand. I understand. And -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If you would try to move it along. MR. PICKWORTH: -- I will try to get through it fairly rapidly. In view of the fact that Waste Management now has decided they will comply with these rules and comply with the RFP, some of the comments beginning at the top of page four of my letter might -- you know, might not count anymore other than to say, you know, I would hope that we will not simply start rewriting the contract here in the board meeting today and that some very careful thought will be given to this because we're talking about some fairly substantial sums of money here which -- but, obviously -- therefore, some of my comments along there with regard to the definitions would be -- would no longer be germane. On the other hand, I think there is still a couple of other points beyond that. You'll see I've mentioned down here the scale house personnel. The RFP said that the contractor will take over the operation of this thing, and I think it had something in there about the county calibrating the scales. And now the contract says the county will operate the scale house. In reading the executive summary, I think Mr. Lorenz has put in, I think, 56 cents a ton for scale house, if memory serves on the executive summary. If that's the right number, they didn't knock 56 cents off of the contract price Waste Management gave you, and so if they're going to get the same amount, when I multiply this out, this is $6.7 million over the life of the contract. So, you know, it seems like some of those kind of things need to be addressed. If the county is going to take on obligations that the contractor contemplated or was required to contemplate at the time of the RFP and it's now going to be the county's responsibility, these contract prices need to start going down. Another point is, one, in the RFP, closure was the responsibility of the vendor. The RFP requires closure of those portions of the site not previously closed. I know there are some parts of the site that are closed. Well, portions of cell six are up to grade and ready for closure. It's our understanding in applying the RFP, that that should be a cost of the contractor, and it should be built into this contract price. If you look over on paragraph 3.2 of your contract, you'll find that this is not, in fact, the case and that you will be responsible for that cost. We estimate that just on the closure part to be a $700,000 item. And, of course, the other part is post-closure operation and maintenance, again, a more difficult number to quantify, certainly in the million dollar range, and, again, an obligation that we believe your RFP requires be the contractor's obligation. Again, if the county is going to start taking these obligations out of there, that price needs to start coming down to reflect this. Last point, leachate disposal. The contract goes on and talks about leachate disposal at the Naples landfill site and I believe you have or will build a force main to pick that up. My understanding is there is not a force main up to the Immokalee site. I don't know how close it is. I'm told there is no force main real close. But that leachate has got to be gotten rid of somehow, and Waste Management does not undertake to do it in the contract. They undertake to do certain things at the Naples landfill is how I read the contract. And, again, that -- it's very difficult to quantify that. I don't know how far away your nearest force main would be or what it would cost to take it there. I don't know what it would cost you in the interim or until or instead of to put that leachate in tanker trucks and tank it to the landfill or to the treatment plant, but it's a potentially large item that simply is not accounted for. It's got to be accounted for somewhere. Either it's part of this contract price and Waste Management do it for $13.89 or the county is going to be doing it and there's going to be an add-on for that. it's going to have to be one way or the other. Those are -- Those are the primary issues we have. We would be happy to discuss this either further now or throughout the day. And if further information or insight into the gas emission issue is desired, I again invite you to call upon the expertise of Mr. HcGuigan. And with that, I will simply request that the county reject this contract and -- well, from there, there's probably a lot of options, but signing this contract is probably the worst of all of them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Pickworth. We're probably going to have a lot of comments as this meeting goes on between now and the time it finishes that you're going to want to applaud on. I'd ask you to keep it to a minimum. There are also probably other issues that you're going to want to boo. And, again, I would ask you to keep it to a minimum because we do want to try to move through this as quickly as we can and yet do it as thoroughly as we can because we certainly want to address all of the issues that have been raised. Mr. Lorenz, I believe -- Well, let me lay out the ground rules for how I would like to proceed with this, and that is for Mr. Lorenz to give us a general overview of what's contained in the contract, and we have all I believe by now read the contract. I asked the county manager to distribute it to each of us. Memorized it. And I have prepared a series of questions that go virtually paragraph by paragraph and page by page, and I would like us as a board to move forward page by page so that we'll address everybody's questions on a given page so we all know and can concentrate on the same issue because there are many, many issues -- there are many issues in this contract that we need to address. And I'm hoping you'll cover the leachate issue that Mr. Pickworth just raised because I talked with Mr. Dotrill over the weekend and I know the answer to that one now. Why don't you carry forward. MR. LORENZ: I'll start with the general presentation and cover the overview. For the record, my name is Bill Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator. UNKNOWN VOICE: We can't hear you. MR. LORENZ: How's that? Can you hear me now? UNKNOWN VOICE: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bill, the hand-held sometimes works better. MR. LORENZ: How's this? UNKNOWN VOICE: Better. MR. LORENZ: The board in November of '93 requested that the staff issue an RFP to optimize the county's landfills and capacities without expanding off site. In Hay of 19 -- In March of '94, the board received RFQ's, Requests for Qualifications, from a number of firms. And in May of 1994, the board qualified three firms to submit proposals. RFP 94-2227 responses were received on August 26, 1994. And on October 4, the board considered proposals from Addington Environmental, Chambers Waste Systems of Florida, and Waste Management. The board determined that Waste Management was the top-ranked firm at that point and directed staff to negotiate an agreement with Waste Management. The proposed agreement provides for Waste Management to assume the responsibility of operating and managing the Naples and Immokalee landfills with the operating permits transferred to Waste Management. The county will retain ownership of the site. Waste Management will be responsible for the cost of daily operations and, as I just pointed out, less the cost of the scale house, and of all capital improvements necessary to increase the capacity of the landfill to a total of -- this is two corrections you can make in your executive summary -- 8.95 million tons of capacity. This will give us an approximate 23.4 years of capacity at the Naples landfill assuming a 4 percent annual growth rate. Waste Management will pass on the cost of any increased -- any increased costs of new regulations to the county. The agreement provides for a finished elevation of 155 feet at the Naples landfill. It's currently permitted at 108.5 feet so there will an increase of close to 50 feet elevation. The Immokalee landfill will be closed down in approximately six years and no additional expansion, and Waste Management will at its expense build a transfer station, transfer waste from the Immokalee landfill to the Naples landfill. The agreement requires Waste Management to also construct and operate a gas management system for the Naples landfill to control odors. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Lorenz, can I interrupt? You were saying that -- correct me if I heard you wrong -- the Immokalee landfill would continue to be operated for six years? MR. LORENZ: That's the estimate based upon the current growth rate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's -- it will be six years until that reaches capacity. Is Waste Management going to close that landfill and monitor it and handle the leachate and gas and all that in this contract? MR. LORENZ: They will handle all of the Immokalee closure and post-closure for it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. What is the plan for the leachate? MR. LORENZ: The leachate will be transferred to the Immokalee wastewater treatment plant. The county has already been involved in designing a force main that's tied up with the boot camp there, the sheriff's facility, and that leachate will be sent to Immokalee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the permit for that landfill require the leachate program that you're talking about? MR. LORENZ: We have to handle the leachate, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know we have to handle it. I'm just saying, does the permit -- I'm told that the permit for the Naples landfill requires us to build this lift station. I'm asking, does the Immokalee one require that also. MR. LORENZ: Yes, we're consistent with the permit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That's just an expensive way to handle it. MR. LORENZ: There is an analysis that was done previously that indicated that that was the most cost-effective way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The most cost-effective? MR. LORENZ: We went through that feasibility analysis. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. MR. LORENZ: What I'd like to do now, if I could have the board refer to page four in your executive summary, and I'll just go through the significant and contractual provisions that we have in here and cover some questions perhaps as you may already have. I think the biggest question concerns the fee schedule. The note here is that the fee schedule is dependent upon the volume received to the Naples landfill. And, indeed, as -- if the volume decreases, the fee schedule -- the tipping fee will increase proportionately. That proportional increase is contained in Exhibit G of the agreement. Also provided to you just for visual purposes is a figure that we show you that showed how the tipping fee would increase as the tonnage decreases. For amounts greater than 701 tons per day -- this is an annual average -- the fee is $13.89 a ton. And, of course, that's subject to the CIP increase as we go in time. Our current -- currently based upon the fiscal impact statement, we're running anywhere from 670 to 690 tons per day. Our estimate and fiscal impact statement was 694 tons per day which would translate to a tipping fee of $14.02. So that gives you some feel for where we would expect to be in terms of the tipping fee. The fees that Waste Management also includes -- Now these are extra fees above and beyond the fee based upon the volume reduction, but these were envisioned in the RFP to be added during contract negotiations. Insurance bonding costs provision has been made for $5 million performance bond and a $1 million payment bond. The county will reimburse Waste Management for the annual cost of the bonds. These costs are roughly $21,000 for 1995. Again, this was envisioned in the RFP because we didn't know what bonds, what amounts we were willing to settle on. The fee schedule already includes $10 million of an environmental impairment liability insurance. That's built into the fee schedule. There will be different rates for special wastes. These wastes are -- for instance, category one waste such as asbestos will be charged $125 preparation fee plus two times the prevailing rate. Category two wastes -- basically an example of those are sludge -- will be charged twice the prevailing rate. And Waste Management has indicated they will hold the county's sludge at the $25-a-ton tipping fee which it currently is. There are other fees for category three wastes that will be basically charged at $10 per item when they occur. These would be based -- These would have to be paid by the user. Waste Management will also administer the household hazardous waste collection center. They will charge $25,000 a year to manage the facility, and that's also shown as an additional service over and beyond the fee schedule. The fee schedule will be increased annually. The Waste Management will receive an increase based upon the CPI. This is the -- based upon the U.S. City average south. For every year their tipping fee schedule will increase if the CPI increases. There has been discussion concerning the fees charged due to change in law. If we do have a change in law provision and let's -- for right now let's say that this is above and beyond the Clean Air Act regulations, that the Waste Management will be responsible -- will receive the actual cost plus a profit margin of 10 percent on the increased cost as a result of change in law. The county does have an ability to review that information, and there's an arbitration procedure set forward as well. On page five of your agenda packet, management fees, this is an item that was changed as a result of some last-minute negotiations. Rather than the county paying the subcon -- the contractor 10 percent for all of those processing fees, you're going to make a change that the yard waste entire processing fee will be 15 percent, and the construction and demolition debris would be 5 percent. The prior -- The information you currently have in your packet estimates cost the -- or revenues for Waste Management would be $120,000. This change would basically change it to $110,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. To how much? MR. LORENZ: From 120,000 to $110,000. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To $110,000. MR. LORENZ: So it's $10,000 less in their pocket is our estimates. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Now, this is for managing only the on-site contractors? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So off-site contractors are -- they just do their thing and the county doesn't pay WHI for a management fee? MR. PICKWORTH: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. MR. PICKWORTH: Let me go a little bit in order just to pick up on that. The obligations with the on-site or off-site contractors, the agreement does require Waste Management to purchase cover material from Naples Recycling and Modern Recycling during the terms of their existing agreements subject to the reg -- subject to state's -- the state regulations for accepting cover material. This was a change where before it was subject to Waste Hanagement's specifications, but Waste Management has agreed simply to the minimum requirements as by the state. We also added a clause in there that Waste Management will make its best efforts to purchase daily cover from recyclers, commercial recyclers that are recycling commercial demolition debris in the area. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Lorenz, the changes that you are referring to right now are changes from the version that we got late Friday? These are -- MR. LORENZ: The management fee, yes, is -- The management fee is a change. That's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The contract I've read over the weekend is 5 and 15 percent. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wondered if you were -- MR. LORENZ: That's right. The contract that you have in your hand is 5 and 15 percent. My executive summary said 10 percent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: I just want to clarify my -- correct my executive summary for you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But not changing the contract? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. LORENZ: Waste Management will also conduct an environmental audit at their cost. The county will have approval on the firm conducting the audit. This audit will develop environmental baseline conditions at the landfill sites. If the county is going -- If we have environmental noncompliance conditions, then the county will be responsible for taking any actions that will be necessary. We don't suspect anything. Waste Management officials have told us they don't suspect anything either, but this will give us a health of the site before going in or during the beginning of the contract. In financial controls, it is correct that the RFP had required the vendors to make a submittal with them operating the scale house, basically a turn-key operation. As we got into the negotiations, it became more difficult for the county to provide appropriate auditing controls based upon Waste Management operating the scale house. This is where all the money comes in. This is where our records are being established to know how much material is coming over the scales to pay Waste Management. We went through several iterations, and we've decided that it would be best if the county were to retain control of the scale house. We would then be the primary function in terms of our fiscal and financial controls, and this is where we have structured the contract. During those negotiations Waste Management would have to -- they had -- They have their own auditing. They have their own controls. They had to keep some people or some effort, I should say. With regard to the scale house operations and through the negotiation process, there were a number of give and takes on this particular effort, and we thought that we had a good contract given other points to present it to you the way we have, basically the county taking over the scale house and providing the administrative staff. The payment schedule in terms of financial control annually, the county and the contractor will agree on projected annual tonnage for the upcoming year. Basically what we'll do is before next year occurs, we will say that we think that the tonnage is going to be, for instance, 705 tons per day. We will then be able to set a rate on that. As we go through the year, the actual tonnage that occurs through the end of the year, then we will basically have a true-up with Waste Management. If we hit -- if we hit the -- If we're on the high side of the tonnage, we may owe them money. If we're on the low -- on the low side -- I -- we may owe them money. So there is -- there is a projection that's made initially to try to get as close as possible, but then we will pay Waste Management for the actual amount of tonnage that comes across the scale for that 12-month period, but they will be getting money on a monthly basis, so that's an estimate on a monthly basis. The county is responsible for the rate setting. So we will come to you as we normally do during the budget process. We will have in hand an estimate of what the rates ought to be in terms of the volume and how it translates to the tipping fee, all the other associated fees. We will set that rate. Then the board will establish those rates and set the rates for county residents, county rate payers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question. I hate to interrupt you, but you said that Waste Management will be getting a check each month and that eventually -- I presume regularly during the year -- there will be an adjustment so they get paid for what goes over the scales? MR. LORENZ: There will be -- the 12th month will be the adjustment. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Based on all the information that I read in the RFP, their tipping fee is based not on what goes over the scales but what goes in the landfill. Am I correct or did you misstate? MR. LORENZ: Well, there -- It's both ways, actually. The amount of material that they actually dispose of which actually gets buried will be, if you will, that $14.02 that's an example on your executive summary. That would go into it, but there's other processing. For instance, we need to know how much material is going for construction and demolition debris because they're going to be getting a management fee on that. So we need to know all -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If it's on site, they get a management fee for it? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. MR. LORENZ: The gas management and odor control, the contract provides for an active gas collection system that will withdraw gas for subsequent destruction by a blower/flare station at the Naples landfill. Let me make sure everybody understands that we're not -- the contract does not provide for an active gas management system at the Immokalee landfill. This will address the newly deposited wastes in our -- what we call cell six which is the current operating cell. It will also address the wastes that are currently in cells three and four. Odor will be controlled by this system and by adherence to the general and operating -- general and detailed operating plans that are referenced to in the agreement. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I hope I'm not -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I've been doing it so be my guest. We shouldn't do it but be my guest. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One of the things that maybe Mr. Weigel would be the right person to address this question to is it's my understanding that EPA and the Florida DEP have standards for gas management and financial penalties for failure to comply with those. My question is I'm interested in having some sort of financial penalty to Waste Management in the event they don't live up to -- or to whatever contractor gets this deal, in the events they violate the standards for the smell. Is that something that would be appropriate to build into the contract or is that something that should be addressed through an ordinance? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I would comment that typically one would have an ordinance in place before a contract would be finalized so that the contract would be taking into account the laws that exist at the point that the contract is agreed to. It would be very difficult to create an ordinance after the fact of the contract, or I think it would also be difficult to negotiate in the contract for a law that is yet to be formulated and approved by the board through the public hearing process. Aside from that, though, directly to the question of a charge or a fine or a penalty to the contractor, presumably Waste Management, or whoever would be operating the landfill, Bill I think may want to respond, but they are going to become the permittee, and I believe they will be responsible and not the county, although the county will continue to be the underlying landowner, but it will be the permittee that will have permit and compliance responsibilities both with the local, the state, and the federal level. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question, though, is separate from that. My goal would be to have a Collier County penalty separate and apart from the federal and state penalty, and I think the way you've answered my question is that a post-contract ordinance would -- could be argued not to apply to this contract. So this is an issue that I am going to want to discuss. If I want to get this in, it's going to have to be in the contract. MR. WEIGEL: Well, and what I am saying is that one could negotiate in the contract to provide for the post-agreement ordinance, but an ordinance of this nature, whatever nature, is always subject to a public hearing process and approval by the board, and it may or may not occur at a subsequent date. And the same -- the same -- an issue related to this is that the board cannot commit itself to passing an ordinance. It does it through the public hearing process. But there is a provision in the agreement. It does provide for repeated defaults. And I would believe that if there were to be problems with the permittee under permit conditions, current requirements of the law, that if the landfill is found to be in default situation a multiple times, the clause for multiple defaults comes into effect which in and of itself is a penalty clause because it brings contractual obligations or termination to bare upon the permittee. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I appreciate that, but what I guess I'm going to be looking for since -- I'm sorry for the extent of the interruption -- is if we can't commit to an ordinance ahead of time, and I understand that, I believe that the approach might be some sort of liquidated damages provision in the contract. That's the only way I -- I'm down to that now and ideas of ways to approach it, but I want that on the table. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Hac'Kie's point, Mr. Weigel, is not only that if they are in default and don't meet the regulations as put out by the state and federal agencies, it's one thing to manage a gas system. You can be within those regulations and still have a distinct odor throughout the community and I think we need to -- If we've been assured, and we have on the record, that there will be no odor, then we need to have some bite other than terminating the contract to enforce that, and right now the contract does not include any bite. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's exactly my point. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In fact, terminating the contract is a reverse bite. We'd get bite. MR. LORENZ: Let me pick up on one thing here and as I -- I think I need to make sure I put this on the record. Even if the staff, we ourselves, were to construct a gas management system and operate it and do our best job, I wouldn't at all tell the people that there's going to be no odor. I think there will be times when there can be odor. I wouldn't want it to go out -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse -- MR. LORENZ: I would not -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You know -- MR. LORENZ: I would not want to -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know that was bad news and you didn't want to hear that, but he's trying to say what he truly believes is going to happen so let's listen. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Realistically I think there are going to be a dozen days a year where you've got heavy fog or you get density or there's smell, but there should not be 250 days of the year where I drive down 951 and it smells like I'm driving on the landfill. MR. LORENZ: I think the -- an active gas management system is going to -- is going to reduce the odor significantly, very significantly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: With regard to the gas management, it is recognized that the county holds the right to the gas that's being generated at the landfill and that the county and Waste Management may investigate gas utilization alternatives, and this is where I want to clarify my executive summary. A provision is -- A provision is made whereby the contractor will design, construct, operate, and maintain a gas management system if we so direct, and the contractor will receive the cost plus 10 percent on that type of system. The county, however, will receive all the sales of the gas revenues. Terms of environmental and operational controls, there are a number of controls that are in the contract in the general operation agreement addressing ground water monitoring, addressing gas management, odor control, bird management, leachate monitoring, surface water monitoring, and noise control. It was impossible to develop actual specific detailed operational plans. We did, however, try to get it to as many specifics as possible in the contract where you see the general operational plans, and Waste Management will have 120 days from the effective date of the agreement to provide us with detailed operational plans concerning these issues. Closure and post-closure care and maintenance. Waste Management is responsible for all costs related to closure and post-closure care and maintenance. The state regulations require either a landfill management escrow account or an alternative finance mechanism approved by the state and meeting certain special conditions. Waste Management will be meeting the requirements by the state and meet either one of those terms. This is -- This is the -- This is not the early termination option so this -- if this is -- there Waste Management responsibility for everything if we do not take the early termination provision. The early termination provision has been provided because that was a point of discussion on several occasions. The arrangement that we negotiated is that once the Naples -- The concept is this. The concept is, is to try to reduce as much cost as possible. The natural point of making a change in strategy is to simply close the Naples landfill out as it's currently designed and configured so we don't get involved in extending and doing additional construction costs. That will be very difficult at some particular point in the future to try to quantify in terms of a buy-out. So this particular option was developed whereby once the Naples landfill reaches a one-million-ton capacity, that the county will then be given or have 180 days to exercise this particular option. Current projections indicate that a life expectancy of ten -- seven to ten years we would get at this particular stage. It's difficult to give you a quantifiable time frame, but the certain number is the volume capacity. If this is exercised, then the option would be -- Waste Management would close the landfill out at their expense. That would be their capital cost. The county would then accept the facility and would then be responsible for the cost of post-closure monitoring and maintenance and any amortized -- unamortized cost of buildings, fixtures, or improvements at the facilities. Our best estimate is that this post-closure monitoring and maintenance would be about three and a half million dollars. I had indicated previously incorrectly on an interview that there would be about 50 cents a ton. This actually translates into about $1.22 a ton that the county would have to recoup on its tipping fees to be able to put aside this money from between now and the time we would need it. This would work out to about $1.35 per household in terms of taking this particular option. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to make sure I understand, $1.35 per household to put a time limit, in essence, on the landfill and close it in ten years or when we reach that volume. But when you talk about 3.5 million post-closure, we're talking about $1.35 per household? MR. LORENZ: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that a one-time fee? MR. LORENZ: No. This would be -- This would be for the -- from now all the way -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For the 30-year period? MR. LORENZ: The ten-year period. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Don't we have to monitor for 30 years? MR. LORENZ: Yes. We would have -- We would have the amount of money built up basically thinking of it as an annuity and then to draw down on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Got you. MR. LORENZ: If the board wanted to look at some other funding option, you could, but that's how we've structured it. What I'd like to cover in a little bit more detail -- We've touched on a few things here in terms of the fiscal impact statements to make sure the board understands how the monies come together and what kind of fees there are, and I bring your attention to page two of your executive summary packet. As we noted before, our best -- our best hunch at this particular point and I'd like to say that the total tipping fee is our estimates probably a good plus or minus 5 percent on this. So when we get down around to budget for next year, we should be within plus or minus 5 percent of the total number here. We would expect the landfill fee at 694 tons per day to be $14.02. That comes off of the Exhibit G and the way of calculating that. The hazardous waste collection center management fee would be 12 cents a ton, and a payment in performance bonds amounts to ten cents a ton for the total amount going into Waste Management's pocket for every ton of material being disposed of at the landfill would be $14.24 a ton. Now, we have to add to that Collier County's expenses, the -- to run the solid waste department. This is not just to oversee the landfill but the transfer stations, the recycling programs, and the interrelationship with mandatory collection. Our solid waste plus the -- our solid waste estimate is -- administration is about $2.83 a ton. We have factored in looking at new site engineering of 93 cents a ton. Hazardous waste disposal fees, the county will be responsible for the cost of disposing of hazardous waste that's being collected at hazardous waste collection facility. Waste Management will be responsible for simply managing the facility, but we will bear the cost for actually disposing of the tonnage there. Transfer station subsidy and scale house operations total together for a county cost of $5.60. So when you take $5.60 added to Waste Management's $14.24, we would expect a tipping fee to be $19.84 for next year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I could ask you a couple of questions on that and I realize we'll go through these item by item later on, but when you talk about the tipping fee and how much will be going toward Waste Management, my concern -- we have the tiered rate structure here depending on the tonnage that's taken in is the amount we pay. I believe in the industry that's called the putter pay system. One of the things we've talked about is looking at alternative technologies and trying to reduce our flow of tonnage going into that every day. These numbers -- we actually penalize ourselves. I know the "Naples Daily News" had an article the other day which talked about the possibility of reducing our waste volume by 70 percent. I don't know if that's possible or not because we haven't had that presentation yet. But if that were to happen, we more than double the fee we're paying Waste Management per ton to come in. And it seems to me this actually discourages -- the way this tiered system works, it discourages heavy recycling or alternative technologies in the future. The theory being, the better the alternative technology, the less waste you're going to have. But unfortunately under this contract, the less waste you have, the more it costs you. So it doesn't seem like it -- I guess what would be much easier for me to understand is if we eliminate the tiered rate structure and have the contractor provide a flat fee with a CPI increase so we can take a look at what we're really going to get because we don't know if three years from now or five years from now an alternative technology comes on the market fairly inexpensively, whoever's sitting on this board at that time is going to have to balance out, "Do we want to double everybody's household charge or do we want to recycle," and that's not a question we should have to ask. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we can add to that problem, Commissioner Constantine, because I think virtually any alternative technology that we look at, and basically I'm in favor of reducing the waste stream, is going to be more expensive than landfilling. It's just the cost of doing it. So committing to an optimized landfill is going to cause whatever board is sitting here to think long and hard about increasing recycling efforts. And I just did some quick work over the weekend and looked at ten years out and found that if we were to hold our tonnage going into the landfill to 1996 levels, by seven or eight years out, whatever it is, we would have to recycle about 52 percent just to hold to the same tonnage level. So, you know, I agree. We've got a situation here where we want to look at alternatives, but landfilling itself is going to discourage us from doing that. But, anyway, let's keep going because we need to get this done. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other point on -- and you were just talking about household hazardous waste. I have a concern here. It says 25,000 per year plus out-of-pocket costs, and out-of-pocket when I read the labeling and shipping, that I think of as out-of-pocket; however, it includes disposal as an out-of-pocket cost. A drum of hazardous waste, depending on what it is and a number of other factors, can be up to $400 to dispose of that one drum. So, I mean, we could talk about literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by the time you start loading everything in in, quote, "out-of-pocket costs," and that's not what I think of in terms of out-of-pocket. MR. LORENZ: Our intention -- Our intention is to have the county be responsible through its contractor that we go out to bid with to do the disposal. And so although the contract does read that way, we want to be in the position that our contractor is going to basically dispose of the material, and Waste Management would simply -- if there's a problem, there's got to be some coordination. They will call us and say,"Look, we're really getting overloaded here. You need to start having your contractor to come out here," and then we will do that under the unit cost that we have our contractor for. This is what we're currently doing now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not how it's written. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you're contemplating that Collier County would continue to contract with their own hazardous waste disposal company and that Waste Management would not take that under their wings specifically? MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the only management fee they're going to get is the $25,000? What happens to the $10 per item? MR. LORENZ: Well, the $10 -- the $10 per item there is basically kind of a cost to cover having to stop your equipment, have somebody take that material back someplace either -- whether it's at that collection center or have the owner take it back out of the landfill. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we're getting into the area now where we're talking about individual paragraphs. Can you sum up fairly soon? MR. LORENZ: Yeah. To show you what the -- basically the net effect will be on staffing positions basically cuts the total solid waste department by half from 36 positions to 18 positions. I think I also need to note as well that the tipping fee that you see here does not include -- you recall Waste Management does not -- in their proposal did not take the $7 million that the county currently has in a reserve fund for future land costs. So the tipping fee that you currently see here that we would basically have is not $7 million. It's about $6.6 million of monies available to purchase and acquire a new site. So that's one thing you won't have to see with regard to additions to the tipping fee. In terms of what the net impact is, is that these tipping fees reflect a 20 percent reduction in the current tipping fee of $25 a ton for general wastes. The annual residential assessment just picking district one would decrease 6 percent from $104 to $97. This would be the impact of it. And we also just took a look at what a typical dumpster would be for the commercial rate. A four-yard container emptied four times a week would decrease about 5 percent from $365 a month to $345 a month. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How much of our rates increased in the past five years? MR. LORENZ: In 1992 we went from $18 to $25 a ton. I have noted in the executive summary here that if we did not go with Waste Management, that we would be advising the board that because of -- Now, this -- I'm adding something else in here kind of parenthetically, but if you need to look at the cost of building a landfill beyond the optimization of the Naples landfill, we'd be looking at trying to raise $20 million within the next 20 years. We would also see that have to be added to your tipping fee calculations to be in the position to have that money in reserve. So we would -- The point that I'm trying to make here is that if staff would have come to you this budget year and have a discussion about probably going up to around $30 a ton. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the cost per household in 19927 MR. DORRILL: I think we were at $98 a ton and now gone to 101, 102. I believe we were at 98. It was just below $100. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And how much of an impact would that have if we were go keep it ourselves, the increase per ton, but what would the increase per household be? MR. LORENZ: It's -- The way we've figured is 1.1 tons per household. So if that $30 a ton, you'd be looking at $33 for a disposal fee. We're currently at $25 a ton which is -- somebody help me -- 25 times 1.1 would give you the number. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 27.50. So you're talking about five fifty per household over -- five fifty per household per year. MR. LORENZ: If you went to $30 a ton. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. But I just quickly calculated out that $20 million over 20 years at 700 -- I mean -- I'm sorry. It should be 237,000 tons a year I think is what we're currently doing. It's about $10 a year, $8 a year. We're talking about raising a million dollars a year and divide it by 237,000 tons. MR. LORENZ: We're actually looking at -- I'm not sure where the difference in numbers would be but -- yeah, that's right. Together with a -- No. We're looking at around $2 -- two fifty a household. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Lorenz, currently -- and I'm going to ask this as basically a public information question. In our little account that says this is the money we have to spend on getting a new landfill, how much is in it right now? MR. LORENZ: Right now we have six point -- 6.6, $6.7 million. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Now, that's not the -- We're not confusing the money that's set aside for closure of the existing landfill? You're saying we have $6.6 million ready and available to go after and look for a new site? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. Excuse me. Excuse me. The closure monies are included in that. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: See what you did to these people, Bill. That's what I thought. We're basically -- If I'm not mistaken, if you look at the cost of closure which I assume is around $7 million, we're talking about a -- we have a big goose egg right now in going out and getting a new site; is that correct? We really don't have any money to go out and get a new site if we were to do it today? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's post-closure, three and a half million. MR. LORENZ: Maybe what we can do if I can work the numbers up and answer that to you at a later date so we can give you a better analysis. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. These are just real basic questions that are going to come into play in any decision to privatize, and I just want to make sure I have a clear understanding. MR. DORRILL: The money would be available for a purpose other than what is currently budgeted if you do privatize it. That was the nature of your question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's because under this contract, Waste Management would undertake the closing and the post-closing if we go for the full optimal use. MR. DORRILL: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're getting a little ahead there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think we are ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to set the stage so that we're apples and apples all the way through. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are you finished with your MR. LORENZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I think what I'd like to do -- because I've generated many questions off of this and I'm sure others of us have too -- to move through the contract itself page by page, but I'd like to kind of set a framework of how we got to where we are, and I think that begins prior to anyone on this board being elected when the former board -- which we can all say the old board now; right -- elected to begin expanding and buying property north of the current landfill. And, anyway, as a result of that, in September of '93, there was a workshop in this room in the evening that went for three hours or more, four. And the result of that workshop, the five people who sat here at that time all said that we will not expand to the north. We will close the landfill when capacity is reached and move to another more remote location. We will investigate alternative technologies. And when -- for the time being that the current landfill remains open, we said that we would try to do something about the noise, the odor, the birds, and to monitor the test wells more frequently. Part of the problem that we're here I think today is that all this was said with some assumptions that the landfill only had nine to ten more years. That was 18 months ago. And that design for the landfill was set and permitted. When we put up the optimization RFP's, I was a little bit astonished to see the landfill could be extended in life for up to 15 years and that we could redesign it. In October of '94, there was another evening town hall workshop type meeting, and that meeting was almost entirely dedicated to the subject of privatizing this landfill. The opposition to doing that over a 23-year period or to go to 155 feet in height was overwhelming. So with that kind of in the background, I want to move forward and begin to talk about this contract. I first met with a group of citizens in Golden Gate at the community center in October I guess and we were going over the RFP. Mr. Lorenz, you were there. And there was some concern about a line in the original proposal that was borrowed money. That's the way Waste MAnagement put the subject forward, 28 or $29 million in borrowed money. And I didn't see anywhere in the worksheets that I was looking at that referenced any way that was going to address the debt service on that money, so asked for some questions, and the answers came back that all of their capital costs were included in the tipping fee of at that point $14 and some odd change per ton. When that came back, I had expected to see the tipping fee drop, but it only dropped about a dollar to 13.89. I think it was 14.87 originally, and it came down to 13.89, something. But, anyway, it came down to about a dollar. I went back to my computer, built another spreadsheet based on the information that they had given me. I started subtracting all the capital costs out of the tipping fee which is the worksheet that I've shared with my colleagues. And in order to adequately address the capital infrastructure, I took the $28 million or $29 million and divided it by the 23 years, and I saw that they needed to set aside $1.2 million roughly each year to address the capital costs. When I did that and took this spreadsheet out to the end of time, 2019, I got some startling numbers and that was -- we began to look at a profit that had risen from spreadsheet number one of about 13 percent to a profit of about 25 percent, almost 26 percent, over the life of the contract. I thought that was pretty high. And I again started asking some questions. And in a meeting with Waste Management, when I asked the question about the profit being so high, I got a very disturbing answer, and that answer was, "Why should you care what the profit is so long as we're doing it cheaper?" As a steward of the public's dollars, profit means a lot to me, and I don't mind anybody making a reasonable profit on anything that they do. They're entitled to it. This is a capitalistic system. But I think 26 percent is high especially when we're working with the public's dollars. I did not address that question further. The answer that I had disturbed me. I did not address it further because the answer I had was really inappropriate, and I did not want to continue on with it other than to watch the development of this contract as it came forward. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A question. Does the analysis you just described contemplate the windfall that Mr. Pickworth was describing in the event of an early out? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it does. What I did was take this $1.2 million and accumulate it over time and applied a 5 percent interest to it up until the point in time in 2004 when the first major infrastructure would have to be put in and that's 5,000 -- 5,796,000. Prior to that year which is 2004, the escrow balance in this account with 5 percent interest applied to it is some 10.7, almost $10.8 million. Now, maybe my numbers are wrong. I don't know. But I met with Waste Management and they didn't dispute the numbers. They just disputed whether I should be concerned about what their profit was. The other thing that concerns me is that 2003 is eight years out, and based on the contract that we have before us, I'm assuming that we would give notice to terminate the contract in the fifth, sixth, or seventh year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have to. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And I'm also concerned at that point then that Waste Management would turn back to the county the expense of post-closure monitorings. They would close the landfill, true, and I know they have an expense in there of about $7 million, but they have two or three million accumulated in the intervening eight years. They would essentially get the remaining balance in this the way I read this contract. Is that correct? MR. LORENZ: They would -- Whatever they've taken in, they will get. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They don't have to give us anything back. The contract -- MR. LORENZ: That's right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're allocating almost $500,000 a year for capital closure cost. They're allocating a little over $100,000 a year for gas management and $15,000 a year for miscellaneous capital costs, and then we have this $1.23 million a year for seven or eight years that they would simply accumulate. And if we walked away from -- If we asked them to terminate, admittedly they'd have to use some of that $10 million to close because they don't have enough. They've only got $4 million, and they need three more. But, still, the remaining seven million would go to them. I mean, that's the way I read this. Correct? MR. LORENZ: Whatever that they've taken in. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My thought in reviewing the contract before the hearing is that in the event that we did -- if we went forward with this contract, that an important element would be to revise it to require Waste Management to do post-closing even in the event of early termination so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. If the board pleases, I'd like to move forward now and address each issue in the contract, and these issues will come up again so we'll be able to have the various people participate. I started on page six merely because everything prior to that was wheteases. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I started on page two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I also started on page two. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I want to clarify and it's -- perhaps we can get someone from our staff at one podium and someone from Waste Management at the other because I suspect there will be questions for both. We had the question earlier from Mr. Pickworth and I think Commissioner Matthews had inquired in more detail in reference to the Clean Air Act whether or not -- I need a simple yes or no. Will the Clean Air Act be considered as a change in law or is that already in here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, in particular, the regulations promulgated to implement the Clean Air Act. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And why I ask that is when Mr. Varnadoe gave the answer earlier, he said -- he specifically stated in reference to gas management, and that's one portion of it, but I suspect that's not the only portion of the Clean Air Act that will affect our landfill. MR. SMITH: At the board's pleasure, just for a moment I would like to introduce the people from Waste Management. I know we've been here a number of times. We have met most of you and with staff, but my name is Warren Smith. I'm Business Development Manager for Waste Management, Incorporated, of Florida and also project manager on this project. We have with us today a number of people, John Ray, our legal counsel. He's been through all the negotiations and done the principal drafting of the contract with Mr. Weigel. Ron DeBattista is our environmental engineer for the state, and he can answer any technical questions. We also have David Hoot with Rust Environment and Infrastructure who is our consulting engineer on the project, one of them. So those are the people that we have here, and we will try to as briefly as we can answer all these questions, maybe not always with a yes or no, but with a little explanation, we'll try to be as thorough and as brief as we can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a suggestion too, there is a hand-held microphone on the wall behind you so y'all don't have to jostle back and forth behind that podium. Maybe one of you wants that. MR. SMITH: Let me just say too that we appreciate the efforts of your staff, your administrator in working with us. We did have many, many negotiating sessions. I think we worked -- both sides worked very hard to get a contract like any contract. It was a good contract. It was good for both sides. And I believe and I think your staff believes that we have one that's good for both sides. A couple of key points based on some of the comments that have been made here already -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just go through the questions as we ask them and then if you need to -- MR. SMITH: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- feel a need to sum -- MR. SMITH: All right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- them up later, then that's great, but I think each of us has a series of questions and we've been here an hour and a half already. MR. SMITH: The specific answer then to your lead-off question is, yes, we did anticipate the Clean Air Act in the contract. One of the benefits of having a company like ours, it's got 134 landfills across the country, eight in this we anticipate regulations, and we did build that in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the answer will be Clean Air Act -- MR. SMITH: So the answer is it's in the price, and we anticipated that change already. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So will the Clean Air Act constitute a change in law? The answer is -- MR. SMITH: No, it will not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- No. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page three. At the top again, I just want to make sure -- As a matter of fact, by the clearness of that now, you've answered that. Effective date -- I just have a question whether -- I'm not sure that we'll end up in a vote today, but even if we do end up in a vote on this today, April 1, is it still realistic? MR. SMITH: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This I need help from our staff on. At the bottom of page three, "Initial cover has the meaning given it in Rule 17-701.200 section 40 of the Florida Administrative Code. I'm afraid I don't have that memorized. Perhaps you could help me out and tell me what meaning "initial cover" has in the Florida Administrative Code. MR. LORENZ: Initial cover is that cover that you have to put on the waste once the waste is once deposited as opposed to intermediate cover where you can come back and add additional amount of material. We have to put in -- is it six inches -- six inches of material initially. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So this is in addition to the, quote, unquote, "daily cover," or this is the daily cover? MR. LORENZ: This is the daily. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And a tarpaulin won't do? MR. LORENZ: That's something the Waste Management may want to address. MR. SMITH: The state law does require or does allow the use of tarps to cover the working phase, the active working phase that's left open at the end of a working day. You put the tarp on at night, you come back the next morning, you take the tarp off, and you begin the filling again in that working area. When you finish any working area, as you're moving along with the landfill construction, you do still have to apply the daily cover. So the tarp is just a day-to-day operational thing. It's a little easier to do. It also saves air space so it saves time, and it extends the life of the landfill somewhat. We're talking about six inches of cover. So it does not eliminate the need for daily cover. It's just a day-to-day operational advantage to use the tarp, if you will. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How does the tarp affect odor? MR. SMITH: The tarp will hold down the odor. It's going to be relatively impervious. The working phase will be left very small at the end of each day. It's our practice to have not multiple working phases and not large working phases but at the end of the working day to have the minimal amount of working phase or exposed refuse that we can possibly have. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: When you fold back that tarp on the next day, are we likely to have an odor release at that time? MR. SMITH: It has not been our experience that that's a problem. The odors are not generated from the working phase. The odors come about from the decomposition of the garbage that's been placed in the past, and so we're going to address that also through the active gas management system, and we believe that when that active system is in place, which will begin immediately upon your approval, then that odor problem will be taken care of. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The next item is at the top of page four, and I'm asking these questions on Florida Administrative Code in case there are any nuances there. I think we know the basics of "intermediate cover" and "initial cover" and so on, but, Mr. Lorenz, I need you to help me if there are details we're missing. Same rule except section 41, "intermediate cover." How do we define in the Florida Administrative Code"intermediate cover"e MR. LORENZ: "Intermediate cover" is when you have -- after you've -- you've done the daily cover, you've got to come back at certain particular points in your lifts and provide for additional material. This is not -- It's not daily cover and it's not final cover in terms of final closure. CHAIRPERSON HAC'KIE: What materials are used for intermediate? MR. DEBATTISTA: Commissioner, that regulation requires us to place one foot of soil, no alternatives, synthetics or likewise. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there other questions regarding page four? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The next item,"landfill" or "sanitary landfill," again, the meaning given to -- I just want to make sure we're all talking the same language when they have "landfill" used throughout this document. That's referred to how in the Florida Administrative Code? What's the definition? MR. RUSSELL: The definition of a landfill? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. Right here. It says, "'Landfill' or 'sanitary landfill,"' each of those in quotes, "has the meaning given it in Rule 17-701.200 section 42." If we're going to -- MR. RUSSELL: Which is a state-permitted facility to receive solid waste essentially. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that all that means? MR. RUSSELL: (Nodded head.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you sure? MR. RUSSELL: (Nodded head.) For the record, David Russell. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two items down from there -- and this one's the one that gives me some concern."'Life of the facility,"' in quotes, "means completion of the facilities as described in Exhibit B attached hereto together with any horizontal or vertical expansions thereof. Exhibit B in particular has, "subject to a maximum height of 155 feet and further subject to modifications as may be required." I guess I'm just a little uncomfortable assuming that the life of the facility is going to be to 155 feet and for -- it doesn't say here in Exhibit B, but for an unspecified term. MR. LORENZ: Well, I believe in the -- the contract somewhere talks about what the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a slope. MR. LORENZ: -- Designed height of the facility is going to be. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have questions about that too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. There's a design height and a slope. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm okay on page four. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Anybody else have questions on page four? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's move to page five. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Top of the page, page five, "Solid waste management facility," in quotes, "means any solid waste disposal area .... This is the next one that gives me a little concern .... volume reduction plant, the purpose of which is resource recovery or the disposal, recycling, processing or storage of solid waste." Are we precluding ourselves from doing business with others when we look at reduction, volume reduction plants, or are we limiting ourselves in any way? Because this contract refers continually to "solid waste management facility" which in a general term one would assume is the landfill. This references "volume reduction plants," and I'm just afraid if four years from now someone comes to us with a cost-effective way of reducing volume, that these folks are going to come back and say, no, no, we own management rights to any of that. MR. LORENZ: The RFP required the proposals to -- proposers to set aside ten acres for a possible volume reduction facility. Other -- That ten acres, if you will, as I still see that as being the ability for the county to use that area; however, that doesn't appear to be a sufficient area for the two composting facilities that we received; so, therefore, I don't think that the existing site is going to accommodate that degree of volume reduction. We do have volume reduction recycling operations going on with the construction and demolition area. The contract does require Waste Management to continue with that operation and to meet the current level of 75 percent recycling for those operations. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll get back to that 75 percent current level. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Also, on that same issue, one of the alternative proposals I received is a clean HRF process which, you know, could augment landfilling or reduce the waste stream. If we do go that route, does this definition preclude us from doing so? Does it throw a hurdle in our way to pursue a clean HRF process? MR. LORENZ: The only way it would, would be is that it's greater than ten acres, and if we wanted to locate that clean HRF at the Naples landfill, we -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. It's off site. MR. LORENZ: It's off site. That shouldn't -- That shouldn't bother or that shouldn't affect this contract at all with the exception that as we reduce tonnage to the landfill to be buried, then the tipping fee increases. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then we pay more. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Per ton. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just I -- I need to hear that from Waste Management. You don't read that definition as giving you exclusive rights -- MR. RAY: No, no, Commissioner. We have no -- no exclusive rights in that regard, and let me just say that that definition is just that. It's not an operative provision in the contract and I'm -- as I'm flipping through the contract, I think the only reference that we ever make to that in the body of the contract is in terms of the applicable laws that apply to solid waste management facilities which the landfill is one of them. So it's really not an operative provision. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'll give you an example of why I raise the question. On page seven, the second paragraph, "The contractor shall at its expense perform all the operations of the facility including but not limited to .... and I wanted to make sure "facility" and "solid waste management facility" were not being considered the same thing. MR. RAY: No. That's not the same thing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question on page five. Down at the bottom of the page, "Conditions Prior to Assumption of the Operation," it talks about an environmental assessment. Has an informal assessment been conducted yet even? MR. LORENZ: Not by us. MR. SMITH: We did a -- I wouldn't call it an informal assessment. We did our own assessment prior to submitting the response to the RFP and -- to satisfy ourselves that there weren't any problems out there of any nature that would prevent us from responding. We do not believe, as Mr. Lorenz has stated earlier, that there aren't any -- are any problems out there. The assessment is merely to set a baseline, if you will, a snapshot in time of the condition of the landfill prior to our assumption so that both the county and Waste Management will know what that condition is prior to our assumption. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just bring that up because without knowing what that is prior to consummating this contract, I'd want to know what our exposure is, what our liability is, and decide whether we want to assume a liability of that magnitude or of that diminished nature. I'm just -- I'm not convinced at this point that there is no liability there for us to have to assume or whether it's of such a small capacity that we don't have a problem with it. I would need to know what that is. MR. RAY: Commissioner, if I could address that point in terms of the negotiation, staff, you know, asked us and fought aggressively for a very onerous indemnity clause for our operations out there, and we were glad to give that and stand behind that. We've got a performance bond. We've got environmental -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I have questions about the indemnity too. MR. RAY: Okay. Fine. But we were glad to give that indemnity. But having said that, what we wanted was just a sort of a blueprint or a snapshot, if you will, of what the site looks like today. That's a liability you already have. We're not asking you -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How do you like that? MR. RAY: -- To take any liability. We're just saying let's look at what the liability is so we know really where we picked up and started, where you picked up and started for purposes of the indemnity only. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess the point is, is that I would like to know if that liability is so onerous, that we may want to immediately move on cleaning it up or whatever we might have to do. I mean, I'm assuming that it is not, but I don't know that. MR. SMITH: That being said, we don't believe there's any problem out there other than things we've already identified like the odor situation that we're going to take care of and things like that. So we don't -- we don't foresee any great calamity obviously out there or we wouldn't be trying to enter into a contract. MR. RAY: Well, in addition to that, Commissioner, to the extent that there was some compliance issue out at the site that was determined as a result of this audit, there's nothing to preclude you, the county, at that point from going out and conducting compliance out there, and it certainly wouldn't interfere with our operations, and we would work with you to do that, but this is not -- this is not intended to limit your ability to go do that compliance if there was an issue. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But this contract would preclude us from abandoning the site unless we paid you "X" amount of dollars on week seven. I think that's the point that Commissioner Matthews is getting at, is if something shows up out there that tells us you need to abandon this site, fix it quickly, and get to a new site, we've already entered a contract with you and have an ultimate payout at that point. In other words, we don't know our potential exposure to liability that may sacrifice not only taxpayer funds but the contract we just signed with you or with another vendor. I think that's the question that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see anything here to protect us from that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think that I would want to see a clause in this contract that makes this contract contingent on final acceptance of the environmental audit and what its findings are that we agree to assume what those findings are. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Section 2.2 reads toward the bottom of that section which is the top of page six,"The environmental audit shall be conducted by an engineering firm selected by the contractor and approved by the county." I'd be much more comfortable if the county selected that engineering firm, and I think at the conclusion of that audit both parties need to sign off on the comfort level for that so that if there's some disagreement as to what that finds, we should do that, and I think that's almost identical to what you're saying prior to any contract's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I would just like it -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- active status. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I would just like it contingent on what those findings are because we -- we may decide that the liability is such that we need to move on more quickly than envisioned. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Ray -- MR. RAY: Commissioner, let me just address that or, Commissioners. Whoever raised that point, let me just address that. You know, we certainly wanted the county to approve who the engineer was. We don't object necessarily to y'all selecting the engineer. Obviously, you know, it has to be somebody who's got industry experience, a national reputation. And having said that, what we also didn't want to do was to get bogged down in selection of the engineer through your procurement code which would delay the operation of the facility. By having said that, we're glad to get down the road you want to get down. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I understand your hesitancy about the county selecting the environmental audit team because we would probably delay this whole process another six or eight months. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think we need to -- we're not in any rush here. I think we need to do it properly, whatever way it is. My point is that in any business -- and I'll say a couple of examples for you if you'd like. But in any business, if I go and get a, quote,"consultant," more often than not they come back with honest and open findings but tilted toward hopefully what I'm looking for. And I'll give you the example of Apac. We had a transportation engineer in here swearing on a Bible that the -- whatever they were, eight-ton trucks driving back and forth through a residential area had no impact on the value of those homes in that area, and he wasn't a transportation engineer. He was an appraiser and had no value on -- no impact on the value of those homes. Well, he had been hired by Apac, and he had given that, and perhaps there's some way of backing that up, but I find it awful hard to believe if eight-ton trucks start driving up and down my road that it's not going to have an impact on my value. So my concern here is I'd rather have the county protected and have us select that person. If it takes us an extra six weeks, so what. We're talking about 20 or 30 or a 30-year closure. We could be talking about 50 years it's going to have an impact on this site even after it's closed. So I don't care if it takes a few extra weeks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. If we're done with item 2.2, I have picked up 2.3. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So do I. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This addresses operating plans for the landfill and that Waste Management is to develop an operating plan and submit it for review and comment. When I looked through here, Exhibit E appeared to be the plan. And, as I looked through that, I didn't see any particular measurement units or time-lines. It just kind of seems to say we'll do the best we can. And as far as the noise, the odor, the birds, and so forth, the best -- the best you can may not be what we would like to see, and I don't know how we measure those things. You're in the landfill business so help me. MR. SMITH: Well, number one, we believe that based on our experience of other landfills we're going to do a very good job in controlling just the things you mention. It's a draft operating plan for this contract. Right now the permits are owned and obtained -- have been obtained by the county. We will assume ownership of those permits and then be responsible for any future permitting of the facility. So all that environmental liability, if you will, accrues to us if we don't meet the conditions of your existing permit or future permits. Certainly when we take over, there are going to be some permit conditions that will change, things that we want to change. We want a more complete operating plan than even the county has at this point for things like the C and D recycling facility on the site, and we will have actually volumes of books, if you will, or reports that will detail in very detail the operating plans for any number of specific items that wewre responsible for on that site. So this was a draft operating plan just to set the framework of what wewre going to do in much greater detail once wewre awarded the contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But, again, we donwt at this point have any concept of what the measuring units or time-lines are going to be until after this contract is approved. MR. SMITH: Well, the measuring units are basically set out in the regulations, and wewre going to comply with all of those. Obviously itws in our interest to do that not only for this contract but for just our day-to-day business so -- Ron, I don't know if you have any addition to that. MR. DEBATTISTA: Yeah. I might add that in paragraph 2.3-- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry? 23? MR. DEBATTISTA: 2.3 -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 2.3. MR. DEBATTISTA: -- on page six -- that within 120 days after the effective date, we would develop that detailed plan that Warren just talked about. In addition to that, we're required by regulation to present to the state a very detailed and extensive subset of that operating plan as it relates to gas monitoring, gas monitoring and control, leachate handling, and surface water. Okay. Those particular plans are a subset and are usually one-inch volumes of the general operating plan that Warren is talking about. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that. My concern is that that plan won't be developed and minimal standards be set until after this contract is approved. I'd kind of like to know what those standards are going to be so that we know what to expect. I mean, does that make sense? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I think that it makes sense that the standards will be the legally adopted and enforceable standards of the federal and state government, and perhaps we would all feel better if in 2.3 it said that an operating plan would be developed ensuring compliance with all applicable regulation. But I, frankly, think that there are measurable standards and it's very -- it's critical that we have them incorporated into this contract but that those are the standards that should be used. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask Mr. Russell then. The landfill that's being operated today is being operated in accordance with those federal and state standards? MR. RUSSELL: Yes, they are. And the DEP comes on our site every 90 days to inspect our site in light of those standards. So we're presently checked by the regulators as far as meeting those standards. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There must be standards for smell that we're violating. MR. RAY: Let me just address the timing issue for a moment because I think that's critical. When we assume operation of the site, you know, on day one, the permits are still in your name. We've got to apply for transfer of those permits before we can just willy-nilly go in there and make amendments to them, so that's got to happen first, and that's why the 120-day time period is reflected here. And the other thing that's built into this, of course, is that if you look at section 2.4, we do have to be in compliance, strict compliance, with all laws. The operating plans are just sort of a -- if you will, a how-to to get you to compliance with all applicable laws. That's all federal, state, and local laws. So it's our intention as set forth in the contract that we assume operation, apply for the permits to be transferred, and then once we're on site, develop what needs to be in those operating plans and to go ahead as the permittee at that point and make those amendments. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, this goes back to my comment earlier in the hearing when Mr. Lorenz was making his comments, and that is we can meet the letter of the law. You all could meet the letter of the law and still have a stench out there every day of the year, and so I don't think by simply referring to state and federal standards is going to do the trick. We need to have some requirements we expect at our landfill. I don't think the people in Washington D.C. Know the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is Lely all over again. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Unique requirements at Collier. There is no management plan -- I like your comment. There's no management plan proposed that says shall be addressed. Mr. Smith, you're asking us to take a leap of faith, and you've said, gosh, we haven't had any problem at other locations. I have a pile of news clippings here, "Landfill Odor in North Broward, .... Cost of Fixing Landfill Stink Rising." I mean, it's -- there have been problems elsewhere. And I guess when I'm being asked to make a leap of faith and I'm told haven't been any problems anywhere and I can pick up a pile of newspapers and see problems all over the state, that makes me question whether or not I'm going to take that leap of faith. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. Ladies -- Ladies and gentlemen, you know, I realize why you're here, and I realize that you would like to see a contract that is more in tune to what your desires are, but we're trying to work this out. I know you don't want a contract at all but -- but, ladies and gentlemen, I'm asking you to please limit your applause and so forth so we can move through this so that we're all home for dinner at a reasonable time. Whatever time that is is going to be according to how much time it takes us to get through this. Mr. Norris is next. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it seems like we're making an awful complicated set of scenarios here out of a fairly simple issue, and I think we ought to get away from some of this minutia and go on with the bigger picture of what we're trying to do and let's move on with it, or if we're not going to do this today, let's do something else. You know, there's no sense in us -- There's no sense in us sitting here for six or eight hours and going through all this and not do something today. So let's get off of this minutia. Let's go on with the deal. Let's get something done here. Answer her question directly. Are you going to be bound by the same regulations that we are? That's her question. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, we are, and we have our own -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Now let's go with it. MR. SMITH: -- policies that are even more stringent. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I have an additional question to follow up to that. If Collier County is currently complying with applicable regulations, that's insufficient for the standards of Collier County because it stinks. What are you going to do? What will be the measurable standard by which you will -- we can measure whether or not you've controlled the odor problem? MR. SMITH: Commissioner, with all due respect, you haven't done a lot yet to control the odor problem and we're -- immediately upon approval of this contract, we would begin the permitting process to get the gas collection system in place, the design, the permit preparation. And then within several months after assumption or the effective date of the contract, we would have an active gas collection system in place. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But how can I measure its effectiveness? There must be standards by which we can monitor and say when you have violated acceptable standards other than how many complaints we get that month. MR. VARNADOE: Let a non-expert try to relate to maybe non-experts on this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. The Florida Administrative Code which adopts some EPA standards says that you shall have a gas control system where you collect the gas and then you dispose of it properly. Right now, as I understand it, the landfill has a gas collection system, but it's just being vented into the atmosphere. Once you have this gas control collection and disposal system, then, yes, Ms. Mac'Kie, there are specific standards for how much gas can migrate off site when -- yeah, there are. Okay? And -- and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There have to be. MR. VARNADOE: And that's -- the standard in the industry obviously is meeting these state and federal standards. Normally when you put in this gas control monitoring system which you all have heard about which is a flare system, the ability of you guys to change that in the future if you want to, that controls your systems. Once that's in place, there's sometimes necessity of adding more wells to connect to that or doing something different if you've still got a problem, but most of the time that's correctionable. Yes, there are standards once you have that in place, about 25 percent of certain levels, et cetera, et cetera, to measure whether or not you have control of the gas at the landfill extremities. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And those are in the Florida Administrative Code or DEP? Where do those standards exist? Because MR. VARNADOE: Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-70 point -- 701.400. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Varnadoe, how -- This is just, again, like you said, a non-expert, but how is it that Collier County is not required to comply with those standards? MR. VARNADOE: I cannot answer that for you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Because -- Because I'm -- I'm troubled by -- MR. VARNADOE: I mean, I guess that's my problem. These people out here are saying they don't want a contract, and yet they're the very ones that are complaining about the smell that's out there now. I mean, I guess that's my lack of understanding of that situation. Let's just have a general discussion for a minute because I understand their concern. They're saying move it. Now, I have talked with Ron DeBattista who does this for a living, and I said, "Ron, if you started today and you want to get a new site and you want to move that landfill, how long is it going to take?" He's done over 60 of those, and I'm not going to talk for him. He can talk for himself. Six to eight years, ladies and gentlemen. It's not something you do overnight. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ladies and gentlemen, please, you'll have your opportunity. MR. VARNADOE: So in the six to eight years or ten years, whatever it happens to be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's have a gas management system. MR. VARNADOE: -- don't we want to try to control that odor out there? I mean, I guess I just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: During that gap. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it's never too soon to start, that's for sure, looking for our next site. MR. VARNADOE: I'm not suggesting it is. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: No. And I don't think you are. But the concern is, again, we don't have any bite right now. If you're meeting the letter of the law and it still smells awful out there, there isn't a damn thing we can do about it under this contract, and that doesn't do us any good. Well, there is something we could do. We could cut the contract off. But short of that, there's nothing we can do. MR. VARNADOE: You know, I can't discuss that with you. All I was trying to do was tell you that there are standards for gas control now. We seemed to have gotten -- we're unable to come to grips with that, and there are standards for that that are measurable standards that DEP measures. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The problem being, though, that DEP is not currently enforcing those standards against Collier County. So I want a mechanism to be able to enforce those standards against the private contractor. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We get to call DEP and tattle. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We drop a dime, huh? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And these guys ought to be tattling on us to DEP. MR. KRASOWSKI: As a non-professional, I'd like the same opportunity as this lawyer or Waste Management has addressed the board. Those standards are set generalized so that each -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hold it. Hold it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bob, you'll have a chance -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bob. Bob. Please. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Well, this is going on, this big advertisement -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're not on the public record so -- MR. KRASOWSKI: Excuse me. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- You have -- you know, our court reporter has trouble understanding that. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's, once again, look at it a little more global here, what we're trying to do. What these people want is to move the landfill. That's fine. I can understand that. Everybody agrees with that. We can do that, but it's going to take us a number of years, and there's no way of getting around that. We can't move it tomorrow. We can't move it the next year. We can't move it the year after that. It's going to take a period of years. So let's all get used to that idea. Let's accept that, and now let's move forward with what we can do. We can sit out here and let the Collier County government continue to run the landfill with no odor control for ten years, or we can let another company do it cheaper and put in an odor control system which may not work 100 percent but it's probably going to be working a lot better than no odor control system whatsoever. We do -- and I disagree with you on this -- we -- you say we don't have any method of controlling what happens if they can't -- if they can't solve the odor problem. I disagree with that, with the -- especially with the amendment that you have proposed here to opt-out in ten years. We have the ultimate hammer. If the odor control is not done to our satisfaction -- meaning, the residents of the area specifically, then we simply close the landfill at the end of the ten years that you've proposed. We couldn't do it much sooner than that in any case. In the meantime, immediately my suggestion is to take the cynical viewpoint and take the $7 million that we would receive immediately from the implementation of this contract and go forward with the process of locating, permitting, and having a new landfill site ready in the case that at the end of ten years the problems are not been solved and we want to move we'll be ready, and that to me is the real issue here, and the rest of this is really minutia that we don't necessarily need to sit here and spend hours and hours on and miss the big picture. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or at least we need to start with that as the big picture and then -- because I endorse everything you just said and would like to see us make that decision, and that is really how we got here. We were going to separate privatizing or not privatizing from the other issues. I won't repeat the speech, but I would like to make that decision, and then let's look at the minutia with the staff. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, the fact is you can't separate privatizing from the length of time we're going to be at that site because the contract has a term in it. You can't separate it from alternative technologies to reduce waste because if we reduce waste, we pay double as much per tonnage. So you cannot separate those out. You're right, Commissioner Norris, that we need to look at the big picture, but if you're going to look at a $200 million contract that impacts thousands and thousands of residents for the next 30 years, I want to make sure every "I" is dotted and every "T" is crossed properly before we ever do that. So if it takes us a few hours to go through what you're referring to as minutia, so be it. I want to make sure we get this right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I -- Why don't we do this then since the issue really is -- rather than the minutia that we've been talking about -- really is how long are we going to be at the current site. That seems to be the issue, and I think that we ought to talk about that. Now, I have read an early-out in the contract that I can't agree to. I can't. I read an early-out that was faxed to me last evening which is a ten-year early-out, and it has some what I think are prohibitive costs associated to it, and I've had some discussion earlier today with Mr. Varnadoe about trying to get somewhere between the two. Our solid waste department tells us that to move the landfill to another site within six to eight, possibly ten years, is just not possible. And yet at the same time -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you repeat that last thing? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To move the landfill from the current site, to find land, buy it, permit it, and build a fresh cell in less than six to eight or possibly ten years is not possible. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure that's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not sure it's correct either. I'm just saying what I've been told. Now, should we get fortunate and be able to do this in less time than that, I'd like to have some sort of clause in this contract which will allow us to say, Okay, Waste Management, you're working at this landfill now. You know, you've got your equipment there. You've got your employees there and so forth. We choose to operate at another site. Would you pick up your equipment and your employees and go somewhere else; namely, another site that we've already permitted and so forth. I don't know when that will be. It could be five years. It may be ten years. But I think -- I think that's what I'm hearing in this board, that we want the flexibility that will let us move as quickly as we can. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have to disagree with -- with -- do we want Waste Management to operate the county landfill for the rest of our lives. I'm not looking at that. I'm simply looking at a couple of issues. One, how long are we going to be there. Two, who's going to operate it. And, three, when the heck are we going to start looking for the next one. Those are the three items this board is looking at today. Now, the one on our agenda is who's going to operate it. That's what we should be talking about and why they're going to operate it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But the "how long" is implicit in the who. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that that -- I think "why" covers that. If there is reason that by accepting a contract, Waste Management or another provider, that allows us to pursue a new site, that's a pretty good reason to me, and how it allows us to do that is what I would like to discuss and like the public to know so that we're all on the same page. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But I think -- I think that was just what I said. I want the flexibility to be able to locate our site, buy it, permit it, build our first cell and say, Waste Management, our new site is ready for you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or for another vendor. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Or for another vendor. And I had a discussion this morning with Mr. Cuyler, and he indicated that if it was a different site, that it probably would have to go under this -- go through this process again. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So, you know, we need a way to generate an early-out that is not prohibitively expensive and that will essentially not bind the hands of some prior board who looks at the dollars of opting out and says, oh, gosh, we can't do it now. I don't want to tie a board's hands like that. I don't want to do that. I want to be -- I want the flexibility. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner. Just in the interest of getting everything out on the table while we're talking in general terms, I feel obliged in the interest of honesty to say that as we're measuring the amount of time that we want to stay at this landfill, I feel it's my responsibility as a steward of the public trust to maximize the asset that we have. And if we can maximum it in a way that is -- that doesn't offend the neighbors to the site, then I want to do that. I don't want to talk in terms of a fixed number of years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, flexibility. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you -- Let me give a little different thing. First of all, there is zero tax dollars involved in this. This is an -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Enterprise. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Enterprise fund, so there is zero tax dollars, and whatever happens will be reflected in your bill that you get once a year, for right now around 100 bucks a year. So to say in any way this is going to affect tax dollars, it won't. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Rate payers though. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. So if it goes up five bucks to have them move it, I doubt the 40,000 people that live around it are going to be that offended by the $5. I'll use an analogy. Commissioner Norris mentioned, gosh, we're looking like Lely sewer plant here and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I think I said that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What we've gotten into is with the Lely sewer plant, Lely community grew around that sewer plant. Initial plans called to expand that to 32 million gallons. It is clearly inappropriate to do that now. There are two extremes. You could close down that sewer plant completely, try to move it to another site today. That's not cost-effective, physically can't be done, and just won't work. At the other extreme, you can build the 32 million gallons there and offend the entire area, and that doesn't work either. So we're somewhere in the middle now. We're at eight million gallons. We're going to consider whether or not to go to 16, and we're spending $9 million to clean the place up, but we have said a limit, no, we're not going to go. We're definitely not going to go to 32 million gallons. We've gone on record saying that. So I don't think this is any different in that we can say at one extreme is moving this facility today, try to do that. You can't physically do it. We don't have the permits. We don't have anyplace to go. You can't do that. At the other extreme is let's make the optimal use of this particular piece of property and stay there for 23 or 25 or 27 years, and I don't think that makes any more sense than trying to move it today because as you look at the numbers that have gone in here, this opened in 1976. The statistics for -- how many people live in Golden Gate City. A little over 2,000. Golden Gate Estates, 379 when this thing was permitted. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In '76. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Countryside, Embassy Woods, that area had zero. Nowadays, 1994, we have -- 1995, we've got close to 40,000. And when you project to the year 2000, you've got close to 45,000. At build-out, you're going to have 90,000 people around that distinct area. Clearly 27 years from now it's not appropriate. So I think, just like we said with the Lely sewer plant we're not going to do it for 32 years, we should say today we're not going to do it for 23 years. We'll set it for ten years, and we'll set a time frame, a calendar for ourselves to move and if -- I understand we've got six sites that we've looked at now, done some preliminary work on and we have appraisals on and so on or we have a tax value on it. I guess we didn't get appraisals. I think we need to today say that we don't want to be here more than ten years. We need to narrow down sometime in the next 30 days those six sites, perhaps rank them one through six, have our staff spend 60 or 90 days looking at are they environmentally feasible, are they economically feasible, and we may rule out half of those, but take those one, two, three. By the end of the year, we should be in negotiations to buy that property, and we've had an expert who's done over 60 sitings we're told say it takes six years to permit this. So if it takes us a year to buy the land and six years to do that, we've still got three years of fudge rum to be out of there in ten years. So I don't think that's unrealistic at all. I think we should bite the bullet, say what we're going to do instead of leaving it wide open for somebody to decide ten years from now. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I've been saying. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what I've been saying for quite some time. Are you willing to vote on that today? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. I'll make a motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's do it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What I would like to consider, though, is that ten years may be longer than we need, and that's my concern with a fixed term limit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we fix ten years, I believe -- and the county attorney can correct me on this -- we're stepping into a whole new RFP. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we've got -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have another problem also. Our growth management requirements are another problem. We're required to have ten years of landfill inventory under the growth management plan; is that correct? MR. LORENZ: Raw land capacity. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Raw land capacity. Okay. So if we keep that 300 acres that we've bought and not declare it excess, then we're within compliance on that as long as we -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My suggestion -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- As long as we continue to have this figment in our imagination that that's raw land for landfill at some time? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My suggestion would be we keep that to stay within the letter of the law until 12 months from now and if we follow the little thing I outlined, by the first of next year we've bought another 300 or more acres anyway and then we can sell that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just need to understand what's wrong with this proposal. What's wrong with privatize the landfill, require gas management, and then decide if this asset of the county should be abandoned in ten years or 20 years, not based on the erroneous -- not based on present data. But you don't know right now what it's going to be like once they operate. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's -- There's another -- There's -- A1. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Perkins, you'll have to hold it down. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: There's another -- There's another element to this that has been stated and been kind of walked around and I would like everyone to understand it. As was discussed with Mr. Lorenz earlier, if we were to go out and begin looking for a new site today, we have basically no real capital funds to speak of in order to do that. What we do have are approximately $7 million sitting in an account that are set aside for the closure of the existing landfill. By law, we cannot access that money unless someone else has agreed to step in and take over the closure of the landfill. So we have kind of a chicken and the egg. If we are going to sit here today and agree that we are going to close the landfill or move it in ten years and do so without having the money to go acquire a new site, we're promising you something we can't deliver. So I think we're back looking at how can we achieve acquiring a new site, and I believe privatization may be the only way to do that unless we go into a bonding issue and raise rates -- MR. KRASOWSKI: I have the answer to that if you want to hear it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, I think I'll try to answer that, Bob. Thanks. You've said there is no way other than entering into a contract such as this and I disagree. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I qualified that so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The separating this particular contract from the privatization as a whole, we could privatize if we opted to for ten years and have that option, still have that money to do what we need to do with it, but that would be different than as laid out here. This calls for -- This contract does not close the door on having that at that location for 23 years, 25 years. So -- And I think this board needs to have a little backbone and say we're going to close it in ten years maximum. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Constantine, though, we do have a problem of shortening the length of this contract. At least I think we do, and I guess I need our attorney to say whether we do or not. If we shorten the length of this contract and fail to optimize the landfill as the RFP is called for, Mr. Weigel, is there a problem doing that? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. That's what I thought I was going to hear. So with that in mind -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The problem is we would have to issue another RFP, but if that's in the best interest of the county, so what? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have any problem with that if that's what we decide to do. But at the same time, we have a proposal before us that if we opt to include in that proposal an early-out that doesn't have prohibitive damage clauses, that we can achieve the same thing because we, I think, would have met the RFP requirements. We're looking at optimization. We're not looking at a ten-year defined clause. We might opt-out of it in seven years, eight years. I don't know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just suspect the people who are here today will tell us we're not achieving the same thing because we're not making a commitment to close it in ten years. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know that -- I don't know that I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know that we can. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Can physically -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as I would love to jump on that bandwagon and make everyone here happy, there's a real "what if" we have to deal with. There are sites that have been attempted to be permitted for landfill purposes. And after ten, 12, 15 years, they still are unable to obtain the permits. Just as we go to move the site somewhere else in the county, anyone who lives within miles of that location will be back in front of us just as you are today, granted in a smaller number because it's not as populated as the Estates. So the problem I foresee is if we draw an absolute line today at ten years and we run into severe permitting difficulty in a future site, our hands are tied. The ten years come up, the landfill goes away, and we're sitting with piles of trash and nothing to do with it. I'm concerned about that. Maybe you aren't concerned, but the constitutes in my district are concerned. They don't want uncertainty out there. There has to be an option there. That's my -- That's my concern. UNKNOWN VOICE: You had no problem buying land at the site that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ma'am, this is not -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is not a stand-and-shout match. Okay? We have to do something in a certain decorum. I'm just saying that to -- more to Commissioner Constantine that I'm a little concerned that we can't be sure that in ten years we have that second site ready to go. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. But I think what we can do is we can set a time frame and let's say ten years. We can set a calendar which we can try to keep for what to achieve during those ten years. And we can theoretically enter into a privatization contract for ten years. If at the end of ten years we're still six months away or a year away from getting our next site permitted, the contract, the privatization contract would be over, but I don't think anyone would expect us to pile up the trash, and we've already been told it has the capacity to handle more there. So I don't think the public would say then, well, gosh, close it down and pile up the trash. I think at that point you'd have an emergency situation. As a matter of fact, you'd know with some advance -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before ten years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Notice in that case that the permits weren't going. But I think to say it's not possible to do that isn't necessarily true, and it might require a new RFP and maybe that's not bad. But I think you can set a ten-year calendar, and if we get to be nine years and, geez, we're not sure here. We may have to operate it for an extra year or have to grant an extension to the contract if it's privatized, but I think that way we don't leave the door open for 23 or 25 years the way this contract does. But I think there is a way to do it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one of the most challenging things about this job is to be careful that we are attendant to the voters of the entire county and not just the ones who are in the room. And I think that, yes, this is an enterprise zone so my reference to taxpayers was inappropriate, but it is, in fact, a rate payers' issue, and I feel an obligation to the rate payers of the county to maximize the asset that we have if we can do it in a way that doesn't offend the neighbors. All I'm suggesting is let's build in enough flexibility that if by some act of God, who knows what, it actually -- the gas management system does work, we have the flexibility of using up the piece of land that we already own. MR. KRASOWSKI: I'm in your district, and I say move the landfill. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. KRASOWSKI: You're welcome. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does anyone know where we are? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Where we are is that we kind of jumped forward to the paragraph in this contract that we all were finding difficult, and that is how long are we going to be at the landfill, and I think we've gotten some ideas on the table, and let's see if Waste Management can deal with the ideas that are on the table. MR. VARNADOE: Frankly, we thought we gave you the best of all possible worlds, and that is a safety net of 20 years, plus or minus, and the ability to get out at an early date which equates to eight to ten years according to staff estimation of how long it would take to fill cell six. We obvious -- We have also shared with Mr. Constantine his request, the ability to call this contract off at a date certain in this event, ten years. But I don't know why you would want to take that safety net away. It seems to me that, yes, you can -- Mr. Constantine, in particular, you can go ahead and set a time table today to start acquiring these things to start, you know, getting the land identified to buy it to go forward. Once you have that, then you turn around and give us notice that we want to exercise the cell six option. When that's full, get out. We want to exercise the ten-year option. I mean, nothing is going to preclude you from doing that a year from now, two years from now if that's what you decide is in the best interest of the county, you know. So I thought you had, frankly, a win-win situation. You had the ability to have us there for 20 years if that was the best option for the county down the road. These people don't think so. That's fine. You also had the option to get us out of there when we fill cell six, or if you want it on a date certain of ten years, that's also we've shown you acceptable to Waste Management. So I don't know why you would not want to keep that safety net in under there for growth management purposes and also, as Ms. Hac'Kie says, in the event it turns out that's not really a problem. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question is if we went forward with a contract that left in the safety net, as you referred to it, I still have significant problems with the -- who has to do the post-closing in the event of the early termination and other issues like that, and I hear that Commissioner Matthews has those problems as well and that the issue about a windfall in the event of early termination. I think that this board is more likely to come to a conclusion that we can accept the flexible contract if those issues -- if we could hear some response on those issues. MR. VARNADOE: And that's -- You know, that's certainly not me. I'm not the dollar man. I'll let Warren do that, but let me tell you just plainly how that was arrived at as I understand it. Warren, you can tell them that I was wrong after I get through or how I was wrong. You know, you build in a certain dollar per ton over the life of the landfill to accumulate the dollars necessary to do the closure and the post-closure. Now you're talking about, in effect, cutting that period in half. So we haven't collected enough money to do both. So we agree with -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it can't be just half. I mean, it can't be just that -- I mean, what about Commissioner Matthews' numbers? These seem to make a lot of sense. MR. RUSSELL: Well, actually, with the ten-year deal, Waste Management is only going to see one-third of the tons and, therefore, the revenue in ten years. MR. VARNADOE: This has all been negotiated, but I'm going to turn it over to the experts. There's no windfall, but let me let Warren explain why and how. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. MR. SMITH: Commissioners, there's absolutely no windfall. We spent many sessions talking about this and how it could be accomplished, and one thing in the law that we have to do as a private company when we take over a landfill or own a landfill and operate it, we have to accrue -- for every ton that we bring in, we have to accrue a certain amount for closure and set it aside to the DEP's satisfaction that we're doing that. The county doesn't have to do that. The county at one year before you're to close the landfill merely have to notify the FDEP that you're going to do that and then budget for the following year the amount of money you need for that year's closure. You don't need but one year in advance accrued to close your landfill. We can't do that. We have to accrue right over through every time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just because I'm getting educated here, the $7 million then, that 6.8 or whatever it is, I thought that was -- state law required us to accrue that for closing the landfill. MR. SMITH: No. It's not that -- As I understand it, there's two funds. There's a 571 fund and a 572 fund, and one of those funds -- and the seven million is in both of those funds. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A total. MR. SMITH: One is for capital projects, and one is for closure or post-closure, but the one for capital projects I think is the bigger of the amount. MR. RUSSELL: Right. Of the original $7 million, slightly less than two million was for closure, and the other was reserved for capital outlay for future construction of cells. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MR. DORRILL: And we do that because it's a prudent thing for us to do and not because we wait until the last minute to come in here and say, oh, gee, Commissioners, we've got to have seven million bucks in the budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think we'd like that at all. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. SMITH: So there are no windfalls, and we've got to the issue of the ten-year or the fill -- filling of the cell six is that the volumetric thing is more accurate because we don't know whether it will be ten years or eight years or whatever. But then we got to looking at how much money we have accrued for closure versus what the expenses would be to close cell six early and determined basically that it was a swap, a wash and that's -- and I believe we're forthcoming enough to convince the county staff that that was true and we agreed to the -- to that arrangement. So we tried to cover both the option that we were presented in the RFP which is the maximized life and the early closure through filling cell six and a mechanism then to leave when that cell is full. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To be real blunt about it, I assumed that, that you had done that to the satisfaction of our staff, and that is their job to do that math, but can you guys discuss this? I don't understand. (indicating) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. What this is -- and Waste Management has a copy of it and it's -- I've marked it spreadsheet 2A because it's -- 2A and 2B are the sheets because it's the second spreadsheet that I did, and what that does is based along the guidelines that Waste Management told me was included in the tipping fee, it sets aside a half a million dollars a year for capital closure costs. At the end of eight years, you would have $4 million toward the seven million that you need. It has $100,000 a year for the gas management. Now, that would be 800,000 at the end of eight years, and admittedly the gas management system might cost more than that. I don't know. I'm not sure it will because in the ninth year we get into significant infrastructure again. We start building -- We start with adding 750,000 tons of capacity, another three years I assume to the landfill. MR. SMITH: If you went forward beyond cell six. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So some of these costs that you're talking about are built into the tipping fee. And then I have this other cost which I presume is your infrastructure addition. In 2004 it's 5.8 million. In 2006 it's 5.8 million. And in 2008 it's 16 million. So what I did with that is say, okay, we're going to allocate $1.3 million a year towards these costs since I was told that they were included in the tipping fee. And what I'm seeing on this spreadsheet is that prior to 2004 when you have to commit to spend the first $5.8 million, there will be $10.7 million in this, quote, unquote, "esorowed contract." Now, I agree, some of that money you're going to need to meet the closure costs because you've promised in this contract to do the closure, and I agree that probably the gas management cost to handle the post-closure monitoring is going to be more than the $100,000 set aside each year. But it seems to me that there is some sort of a windfall here, plus in this clause there's all kinds of what I prefer to call damages assessed that are based on lost profits. MR. SMITH: Commissioners, let me assure you there is no windfall. We have done what we hope is a good business deal for us as well as for the county. Commissioner Matthews did provide this summary which I'll let the document speak for itself. It goes into more detail than I can probably get into here, but let me assure you that the $13.89 covers all our expenses. We do not have to go out and borrow the money that's shown in there. That spreadsheet was something that we were required to fill out in response to the RFP. We did it to the best of our ability even though in some cases it didn't make a lot of sense to us to fill it out. And, incidentally, we were the only proposer that filled it out and, you know, we've answered those questions in there. The capital is financed by us internally. We accrue it through the tip fee. And that's about all I -- You know, if anybody has any more detail they want to go into -- I'll turn it over to John Ray. But it's basically there. HR. RAY: Commissioners, let me just add just a couple more points. You know, we incur expenses. We pay those expenses as we go. We don't hold and program a certain expense in year five, year ten or 15. If you have to do something in terms of a gas management, we're going to do it. We're going to pay for it. We don't have maybe necessarily the same time constraints that you all have or budgeting constraints. We just go ahead and have to do it. Having said that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I realize that and that your -- I mean, for the sake of argument, the only way I could deal with it was to spread the cost over the life of the contract. MR. RAY: I understand, Commissioner. I was just trying to clarify for some people perhaps maybe who hadn't had that -- the benefit of that explanation. And let me also say -- you know, for example, I know you referred to the profit percentage, and there's also some reference in the letter that I've just handed to you. Once again, you know, the spreadsheet itself didn't contemplate the fact that we're a taxable organization. We've got a federal income tax that we have to pay. Right there you lop off 40 percent off of, you know, what we all have to pay for federal income tax, and that reduces our operating profit, and there's also some administrative costs which we also reference there. So here we go again. We're sort of in the constraints of the spreadsheet which we filled out, the only proposer to fill it out. We were trying to do that to be responsive. It wasn't sort of apples to apples with private-company contracting, but we did the best we could in trying to be responsive to your proposal. That's all. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I'm hearing an answer to the question, and I see it in this letter, December 7 to Commissioner Matthews, that the difference is a result for our requirement to pay federal income tax on earnings at the rate of 37 1/2 percent and our administrative and overhead expenses which reduced the profit percentage that you calculated. So basically the answer to the question, why does it look like 26 percent profit if, in fact, it's 13 percent is taxes, administration, and overhead. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's -- MR. RAY: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what we're hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I have another Waste Management question. I think that I'm only willing to entertain the contract in concept that is before us today if -- if -- even in the event of early termination, Waste Management undertook post-closing expenses and responsibilities. That's one vote. I don't know if you have -- I don't know if that means that's your problem to deal with. And I've been standing there. I hate it when they do this, but I think it's something that we need to address. MR. RAY: Let me just, you know, go back to how we got to where we're at. You know, here the county had asked us to come up with some alternatives, and we came up with multiple alternatives, and within those alternatives there were certain cost ramifications. In negotiation with your staff, there was a lot of trade-offs. Now, having -- You know, you're making a suggestion that we pick up post-closure. One of the reasons why we got to that in addition to the fact that it seemed to be financially a sensible thing for both sides, there seemed to be certain efficiencies with having, you know, the successor operator who ultimately, you know, runs the site that everyone wants to have happen somewhere away from them, when that operator is out there, there's a lot of efficiencies of having that operator conduct post-closure care, you know, mowing the lawn, doing the sampling because he's doing that out at the -- or she is doing it out at the new site. So that's why it made sense to do it. Now, having said all that, you know, we obviously want to give the commission maximum flexibility, but there's a cost associated with that. We have not obviously negotiated that or put that into our contract, and so you're sort of -- you know, sort of leaping off the page, if you will, on us today. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: MR. RAY: Okay? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: speak? I understand. I knew that. We understand. Did it anyway. We have what? About 30 people to MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to go back to the first question Commissioner Norris asked. I mean, if we are going to entertain this particular contract, I've still got another 30 questions. I've heard some discussion of alternatives to this particular contract, and I think we need to set that direction before we run off in one or another that may not be where we end up. I hate to waste a couple hours' time on a direction that -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think it's only fair to the people who came here to speak if they know what direction we're going -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What direction we're going. -- into before -- Before they speak. Yeah. Sure. Before they speak. Otherwise, they're not -- I mean, it's a little early for them to start speaking because they don't know where we're going. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make one suggestion and see where it goes. This is what I'd like to see us do today or hopefully today. I'd like to see us make a commitment to close in ten years. I'd like to see us set a time table similar to the following. Within 30 days of now, review the six sites that our staff has selected, and I'll point out all of those are agriculturally zoned. All of them are surrounded by thousands of agriculturally zoned acres so there -- none of that property is currently planned now or ever to be residential. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And don't ever say ever. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Don't ever say never. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now planned. But I'd like to see us within 30 days review those six sites and rank them in our order of preference based on economic, environmental, whatever. Within 90 days after that -- During the 90 days following that, have our staff, or outsiders if we need their help, audit the top three choices for suitability to make sure there is not something out there environmentally that we're not aware of. By June, make final rankings on those and enter into negotiations to purchase the top-ranked property and work our way down. Perhaps one or more of those won't be interested in selling. By December, hopefully you close on the property. That's six months to negotiate back and forth. And by January 1 of 1996, begin the permitting process for that. If it's necessary, if Mr. Weigel tells us that this RFP won't allow us to set a time certain, I'd like to see us issue another RFP for management of the facility for ten years. And, Commissioner Hancock, you had a good point. What if we get to that point and we're six months -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Options. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Have an option for an extra two years perhaps or maybe two options in periods of two years in case that occurs at the county's pleasure in case of permitting difficulty, but I'd like to see that be the direction we set today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine, I'm being persuaded by this idea once you build in some options on the other end. Would the only available options be in the case of permitting difficulty or could it be a change in conditions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Obviously if something else occurred that the board felt was appropriate to extend it at that time, then -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then -- Excuse me. Let me understand. You're saying that you want to not vote on this contract today and to issue a new RFP? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm following the time-line. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. I agree with your time-line, and I agree with what you're trying to accomplish, and that's what I've been in favor of doing all along. But if you say we'll have a time certain of ten years plus we'll build in where we can extend it if we need to, isn't that the same thing as agreeing to this contract and then say -- and giving a commitment today that what we're going to move forward with is moving the landfill within ten years? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it's not, and I'll tell you why. What I have -- What we have there is a commitment to see the ten years I had written down with an option for an extra two years, and I had put in the event of permit difficulty. Now, if there's some dire economic difficulty or something else where for whatever reason the county can't do it, could include that as a reason as well. But I had an option only for a couple of extra years. The plan we have here is optimization. If we don't take that option at the end of cell six or at the ten years, we're stuck on that site for the life of the thing which could be 23, 25 years, and so there is a difference, distinct difference, here. Frankly, I'd like to have one option period, be that two years or three years, but have one option period and then -- so at the very most, you still have a maximum number of years. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What -- Mr. Dotrill, what would be the time frame involved in going with a new RFP? MR. DORRILL: I think a minimum of 90 days perhaps. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: decision point? MR. DORRILL: No. No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Before we would be back to this No. No. To get us to here, how long? To get us to this decision point Another six to eight months. MR. DORRILL: I think at least six months. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just don't think it's worth that. I think that we have the flexibility and that we can make the right decision. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we can make the right decision without going to that drastic of a measure. I think we can make the commitments to do this. I think we can make the commitments to all of our constituents as well as these people here in the audience today. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I think we can do that through this contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would like to think that we could do that. My problem is this though. If we approve this contract and the optimum life on it is an extended period of time which if we go into extensive waste stream reduction programs -- we don't know when that's going to end -- my concern with that is the board, whoever it is that's sitting here at whatever time that that is, will look at this contract and look at the damages essentially that are part of this ten-year program or even a shorter termination period -- even if it were totally flexible and we had a termination for convenience clause, it's still going to have some sort of damage assessment on it. And I agree, probably it should have, but I want to make sure that that damage assessment is not so onerous that the board, whoever it is sitting here, looks at that and says, we can't afford to get out of it and we can't afford to stay in it, and that's part of my concern with a 23-year or a 25-year, whatever this might be. And the way it's written, we don't know because we're also committed to the rest of the county that we're going to look at waste stream reduction programs which can extend the life of this considerably. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, you said you'd like to make that commitment for the ten years but stay within the confines of this RFP. If Mr. Weigel tells me a way -- how we can do that, I'd love to do it that way. I just -- I thought he said earlier we cannot do that. That's why I suggested the other RFP. But if we can do it, I'm all for it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think we can do it in a formal written commitment through a contract, but we can do it as a commitment from the board, and that's really all this contract is worth in the first place. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that true. That's fine if this -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's nothing to stop a subsequent board from going down here -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. -- and changing this contract. Oh, sure. I mean, let's face it. Exactly. Commissioner Matthews, just that -- one other just for clarification. As we're discussing this and I'm hearing some consensus, I assume that nobody here is talking about signing the version of the contract that we have in front of us today? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, I think that's a fair assessment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Just so we're going to talk about -- Even if we approve this concept, we're still going to be negotiating the terms of the contract? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I'll tell you, why don't we do this because I've had a -- I've had a couple of commissioners signal that nature is calling and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Take a break. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would you like -- Why don't we -- I think we got to the meat of what we need to do, and that's the termination part of it. And if the public has concerns about various clauses -- and we're going to send this contract back for whatever purpose, whether a new RFP or an adjustment to the language -- when you're talking is the time to tell us so that staff can make notes and discuss whether that's really plausible or not. Other than that, I would like to take at least a five-minute break, and then we'll come back and the public will be talking. You need to change your paper, don't you, or at least take a break, the court reporter? THE COURT REPORTER: (Nodding head.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's what I thought, and she needs at least five minutes to do that. So let's take a pause for five minutes. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To reconvene the January 17 Board of Collier County Commission meeting, and I think from some of the discussion during the break, that we need to make good clarification of what this board is preferring to do at this point, and if somebody wants to summarize that and -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me tell you what I would like to do and I think we could do and we could go forward. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If we don't -- If we don't decide what we're going to do, I don't know that we should waste the time of the people out here who want to speak. There's 30 of them who want to speak. If we don't know what we want to do, I don't know if we -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But what I think we ought to do is do like Commissioner Constantine outlined, start looking for a landfill relocation site immediately, and he outlined some time frames, within 30 days I think he said and that sort, start that. If his time schedule is correct, we should be in the period of one year at the point of knowing whether or not we have a new site and whether or not it's permittable, that sort o thing, and we'd be ready to go. That means that all five of these board members will still be sitting on the board at that point in time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A year from now. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A year from now. At that point in time, we can make the decision for early termination of this contract, this particular board. So we can make a commitment today that that's our intention to do that. And f we do that, I think we've covered all of our bases. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question. The way the current contract is worded -- is written -- and Mr. Goodlette and Mr. Varnadoe were good enough to reword 7.4 at my request, but it says at the conclusion of cell six or at the tenth anniversary. When I brought up the different option of ten-year period, Commissioner Hancock's question was, what if our permits drag and it's 11 years or 12 years. My concern is that we be nine years into the process and we realize, uh-oh, we're going to be over but we can't opt-out because we're past that ten-year window and we're stuck there, and I need some help with working that. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's very simple really to overcome. If at the end of ten years the contract is over, Waste Management has to leave, and we still need the landfill, we simply operate it with county personnel once again. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But we don't have any county personnel at that point. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We can get them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We would have some advance notice to prepare. Let me ask you just to follow up to that then. How would that be different then, just making a ten-year commitment, and if we're not there in ten years, we'd have a choice of extending the contract two years or having our own personnel? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Because it would require another six to eight months to get to that point and another six or eight public hearings, and that's not fair to these people. They would like to have an answer on this. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Let me just ask that. I'm not sure -- Mr. Dotrill, you need to help me here. I can't believe it would take another six or eight months for an RFP because it seems like we wouldn't be starting from scratch. We'd be changing the time-line and some of the requirements there, but all of your definitions and many of the requirements in the RFP, which I have somewhere in this pile, would be pretty much the same. We'd have some changes and -- because you'd lose the optimization portion, but as far as all the substance in there, actual day-to-day running and who is doing the scale house and who is doing all that, I've got to think we're going to have essentially the same RFP so surely it doesn't take that long. MR. DORRILL: But there's no time in drafting. Your own procurement policies require some advertising minimums and pre-proposal conferences, and the question that I was asked was, how long would it take to get to the point where we are today. Where we are today is that you have -- the board has previously selected this vendor as the winning vendor, and then we've spent the better part of the last month and a half in contract negotiation. So just to get us to where we would -- we'd have proposals in hand is something less than that. To get us where we are today I think would take six months. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're saying in six months we could have a final contract in front of us? MR. DORRILL: I said as a minimum and then I thought we could be back within six months. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if I could just -- just -- I have to understand. What we appear to be debating here among the board members is whether or not we add six to eight months to the process so that we limit ourselves to ten years instead of saying as soon as possible no longer than maximization of cell six or -- you know -- I don't think that it's worth that. I guess I've said that already. But I don't think it's worth it for six to eight months to lose flexibility. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, I have a question and it's beginning to concern me about the requirements under the RFP process. If the board were to go on record today in approving this contract with the full 23 years but come to agreement amongst ourselves that we really mean to cut if off in ten years or eight years, whatever, do we have a problem with the RFP process by doing that? MR. WEIGEL: I think we come back to that term"smorgasbord for lawyers" that we heard earlier. However, what I really -- my legal opinion would be that ultimately the contract will be controlling. That is the agreement drafted, agreed to between the parties, and it will last for whatever the length in term of the contract and conceivably beyond the intents and wishes expressed by a board at a particular point in time on the record. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, I appreciate where you're trying to get us in this process and I appreciate the suggestion you put forward, but I think Mr. Weigel has summed up my concern, is that ultimately the contract is controlling, and this contract leaves that door for 23 years or more open, and I just would feel much more comfortable with a contract that had a time certain. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we -- you know, we've definitely made a statement here today that the paragraph 7.4 which is the early termination paragraph included in the contract based on tonnage is not to our liking. I think we've probably made that clear. The alternate contract or the alternate paragraph 7.4 of which we had two, one of them is a ten-year fixed term with a proviso that Waste Management operate the new landfill, and our attorney had said that that's not possible because we would have to have an RFP for the new vendor for the new landfill. And the other 7.4 that was offered -- I've got it somewhere here. But, anyway, from memory, it was essentially the same, ten-year fixed term without the proviso that Waste Management would move to the new landfill site. The problem that's been raised that Mr. Weigel tells us is that if we enter into a fixed term, we have an RFP problem. My question is, why can't we renegotiate paragraph 7.4 and come up with a more flexible time that gives this board options to opt-out in two-year periods. We can opt-out at eight years, at ten years, at 12 years which would cover the concerns of the citizens. The earliest period to opt-out would be eight years, and that would allow us to move on the most aggressive scale possible from what I hear. It would address Mr. Hancock's concerns of what if the permitting doesn't work in a reasonable amount of time, and it would also address your concerns because the board would be able to exercise the early termination as quickly as possible and as quickly as we have a new landfill available. The question that we keep running into, in my mind -- and I'm a numbers person. I'm sorry -- but the damage clauses in these early terminations. I'm concerned about them. And, with that in mind, if we can't come to some sort of reasonable damage clauses as well as address other concerns in the contract itself which are monitoring questions and so forth like that which I think we can work our way through, but I'm concerned that we'll make the damage portion of the opt-out so onerous that a board, if it's not us, six or eight years from now or ten years won't exercise it when we're making a quasi-commitment verbally that we want that done. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to ask the rest of the board what I think is a fairly simple question. I'm a little slow sometimes, and I'll be the first to acknowledge that. Other than maybe taking another six months of paperwork in the RFP process, what is the disadvantage? What is the down side to having a cut-off, to having -- to committing in ten years we're going to close this? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one down side and it's -- you've heard it from me already. It's just the obligation that we have to the rate payers to maximize the usefulness of an asset that they own if that can be done without offending the neighbors and if we set -- if we decide today ten years based on the present conditions we close off the -- foreclose the possibility of conditions changing such that staying on that site longer than ten years would be okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I guess -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine, would you like me to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. If you've got another reason, then I'll address them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mine is one of a physical concern looking at our current waste stream and its proposed track record, if you will, for the next ten years. At about ten years from today, the current cell six will be full and will have to be closed. That's projected assuming that the waste stream increases incrementally -- Was it 4 percent was the level, Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: (Nodded head.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So for us to set a time certain at ten years, if that cell should close prematurely or close at that ten-year point and things not be in place to move ahead, we have to begin on site the construction and preparation of a new cell which is a large capital expenditure. This county is going to have difficulty in coming up with a few million dollars for capital outlay money to build a cell for possibly two years. So I have a physical -- If the time-line were that cell six would be closed out in 14 years, it would be easier for me to step into your argument and say, well, I'm relatively assured that we're not going to have a huge capital expenditure at ten years and our options may be there, but that timing isn't there. The timing is the exact opposite to the time frame that you're suggesting because that's a critical point at which two to three years prior we have to make a decision as to whether or not to make the capital expenditure that the life of that landfill may extend a year or two beyond ten years. So the timing for me isn't working out, and it's strictly a physical question, and no one here can give me assurances that that's not going to be the case. So that's why I am so concerned about having some form of a net or extended contract with an opt-out clause that allows us to move as soon as we can and that we know exactly what dollar figure we're going to pay or get when that happens. That's a new idea that we'd actually get money if you left. I'm trying to find a way to work that one out. Give me time, folks. So that's where my concern comes from. It's a physical and timing question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think that's valid, and maybe there's a way to address that. As far as trying to serve all the people in the county, I agree, we are elected by district, but I think when we do our little swearing in, we swear we'll serve the entire county. And with that in mind, I guess all of Collier County deserves and expects a certain quality of life. In 1976 the landfill was interfering with 10,000 people's quality of life as the community grew around it. So it moved -- Frankly, it was poor planning to move to an area that had already been zoned residential. But for a buck 35 a year or anywhere between a buck 35 and five bucks a year more to assure that all of the county shares in that quality of life doesn't seem like asking a lot. So when we talk about serving everyone, I think you're right, but I like to think that strengthens my argument. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's the basis for -- because I'm intrigued by it. What's the basis for $1.35 to $5? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's based on the per-household cost, and that comes from some figures he said today but also from our -- what the cost to move would be during our public hearing of September '93 and then we've heard that at least one occasion since. MR. DORRILL: That is the boil-down cost to residential users as part of the mandatory garbage program. There would be an applicable increase in cost per ton for all tipping fees for commercial users, every store, every contractor, every condominium, anybody that has a dumpster. So it's -- Just so the people in the audience understand, we're not just talking about a dollar to $5 per home. There's the attendant increase cost in tipping fees because residential garbage is only a fraction of the garbage. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But, in any case, that applies whether Waste Management is operating the landfill or we are operating the landfill. I mean, we still have to set that money aside somehow and do it. So it really is almost irrelevant to what we're talking about. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I think -- MR. GOODLETTE: Madam Chairman, may I just -- Dudley Goodlette, law firm of Cummings and Lockwood. I just wanted to come back to the motion that I understood or the suggestion that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have suggestions at this point, no motions. MR. GOODLETTE: -- Commissioner Norris made, and it speaks to the legal issue you've asked your staff -- your county attorney, and that relates to the contract before you. I think in order to retain the maximum flexibility which I sense the majority of you, if not all of you, are looking for here dealing with the current contract with the alternative or early termination provisions as a component of that contract satisfies the requirements of the RFP, and there is no need to go to a new RFP and to take six or -- six months minimum for what could be done in two weeks in negotiating out caps on these damage issues and some of the other concepts that have been discussed here today. It just -- It seems to me and to us to be a needless undertaking of additional time merely to start over, and the only reason that you would need to start over is to get to the ten-year certain and you're out, and I don't sense that there's a consensus on the board at this juncture that that RFP would be favorably acted upon by this commission. So it seems to me that as some of you are searching for flexibility, that you retain that flexibility in negotiating with Waste Management in conjunction with the existing RFP and to come back in a couple of weeks, if that's what your objective is, to conclude the negotiations to satisfy the concerns that have already been expressed and perhaps are going to be expressed as this hearing continues. So I just wanted to speak to the legal issue of the RFP. And while I'm here, let me say, for the record, I don't know what Mr. Pickworth's presentation was earlier. The letter that he submitted says it was a protest. The county attorney acknowledged that it wasn't a formal protest, and I just merely want to make it for the record clear that to the extent it was a protest under your purchasing policies, it was not timely filed and it's -- and the right to protest is waived under your policies under those circumstances, and I just think it's important that the record state that. And that's -- Those are my comments. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question for Waste Management. On paragraph 7.4, do you have any objection to making the trigger points for exercising the option for early close or early termination -- I mean, do you have any -- do you have any objection to making those trigger points earlier and more often, say, like every two years or every one year after a two-year period? Do you have any objection to that? MR. RAY: We've tried to offer, you know, maximum flexibility. That's not been the direction we had, but certainly we would, you know, sit down with you, with the county staff and work through language to that effect. You know, obviously, it impacts, you know, the costs of termination -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The thing I'm trying to get at -- MR. RAY: Certainly we could do that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The point I'm trying to get to is that this board has control of the early closure or early termination. I'm sorry. MR. RAY: Commissioner, let me just explain. What we do is try to offer you the most -- you know, the most feasible, the most economical proposal and then we've got alternatives off of that so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, was that a yes or a no? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Was that a yes or a no? MR. RAY: Yes. That was a yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: on this. That was a yes, a real lawyer That's a lawyer yes. Paid by the word. Let's move on to the public input COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, what is the decision then as -- We've asked the question five times and we haven't answered it yet. What is the direction of the board on this thing? UNKNOWN VOICE: Hear the public. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I mean, the general direction as far as this RFP or -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The general direction that I'm hearing at this point is that we are not going to approve this contract today. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not what I'm hearing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not what you're hearing? That's definitely what I'm -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That we may approve that concept but not the details of this contract today. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There may be some alterations, but I'm hearing one down on that end. I don't know if there's another. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to continue working within the bounds of this contract -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's three. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and whether or not it can achieve the results of both Mr. Constantine and I have expressed which they're not meshing completely. They're close. But there are some glitches in there that I haven't had answered. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think what I need -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The thing is there's been an awful lot of work and time put in to getting us to the point where we are right now, all parties involved. If we can accomplish all of our objectives by some modifications on this contract, letws go forward. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think what I meant by saying wewre not going to approve this particular contract this day is that itws going to get modified. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, thatls fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. And itls going to come back to us in some modified form. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask one question then if thatls the direction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thatls the best thatls going to happen with this contract, and then the other is whether we put it out for RFP or not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask one question then if thatls the direction of the majority of the board."Flexibility" keeps being thrown out there as a word. As itls been said, I see that as making -- as a lack of making a commitment on time frame which bothers me a little bit and Iim wondering if -- I like the idea youlye thrown out of perhaps some intervals at the very least but Iim wondering -- Commissioner Hancock, youlye made a good argument as far as ten-year cut-off and what some of the concerns there may be. I think probably the argument will be made by the speakers that 23, 25 years is pretty questionable too, and Iim wondering if there may be someplace in between so at least we have an absolute maximum other than 25 years in this thing, and Iim not sure what that is, and perhaps we can be thinking during the speakers to try to figure out what that is. But if the majority of the board is bent on -- Mr. Keller, do you mind? If the majority of the board is bent on moving forward with this particular RFP, at least perhaps we can structure it to give the public some commitment that welre not going to be there for 25 years. If you donlt want to make a commitment that welre going to be out in ten but that thatls an option, I guess weill live with that, but at least we can have some maximum level. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just want to ask all of us to keep in mind what David Weigel has cautioned us about, is that if we move this contract too far away from an optimization contract, we are indeed in a new RFP. So we need to be cautious of what we want to put in the final contract. MR. DORRILL: And I think so that everyone understands, Mr. Weigel has said thatls -- the contract then is going to be a 20-plus-year contract with options for earlier termination provisions but -- MR. GOODLETTE: That are this boardls options? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That are this boardls options. I think the time frame -- MR. GOODLETTE: Thatls what Commissioner Norris was suggesting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think the time frame that Mr. Constantine has asked us to go on, that we commit to identifying the property in 30 days and rank it, negotiate and purchase it by the end of the year, will give this same five people the opportunity to come back in 1997, early 19 -- No -- early 1996, excuse me, and say, Waste Management, youlye got nine yearsi notice or eight yearsi notice or whatever it is. MR. GOODLETTE: Under the guise of the existing RFP and the contract that we have been negotiating for several months now. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think the -- MR. GOODLETTE: And these provisions for early termination that we have been discussing today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that what this board wants to try to do is to keep the flexibility but still be able for this same five people to lock it down -- MR. GOODLETTE: Indeed. And that's what I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- In a year or 18 months. MR. GOODLETTE: -- understood the thrust of Commissioner Norris's suggestion was. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Can we hear from the public comment and seek their comments? MR. DORRILL: What we will do, we'll call two names. And in the interest of time, if the second person would come and stand near the podium so that we don't have to wait for you to come forward, it assists greatly. Our first speaker will be Mr. Coletta, and then if I could have MAry Stamatinos stand by please, ma'am. Mr. Coletta. MR. COLETTA: Thank you. MAdam Chairman, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for the record, I'm Jim Coletta. I live in Golden Gate Estates. I own a business in Golden Gate City. I am president of the Golden Gate Chamber of Commerce. I first would like to start off by complimenting Tim Constantine, Commissioner Constantine, and Commissioner Norris. The business community applauds you for your attempts to make this an evening meeting. The working people do not appreciate when an issue of this importance when so many people have something to say to be forced to miss a day of work and come in here. Please consider this in the future when you're going to have meetings of such an important issue where people are going to be adversely affected for 20, 30 years in the future. You only have a small representation here of what should have been here. Okay. I apologize for my outburst, but I did lose a day of work. September 1993 we thought we put this issue to rest. People of Golden Gate after that one little meeting that we had, the townhall meeting, were very happy. They walked out of there. They felt very confident in their county government. They thought the issue had been solved. We understood it was going to be possibly six to eight years, the landfill would be filled up, and we'd be looking for a new location. Well, thanks to modern science, they found out you can pile garbage on garbage which we've been doing for a hell of a long time here. This isn't the answer. There's been a promise made that's been implied and we expect you to keep to it. You're getting the issues all mixed up. It's not privatization. It's not the gas smell. The issue is the dump in Golden Gate that we don't want there. We've been trying to get this through to you for a long time but nobody seems to be listening. It's very plain. The only thing you have to do here is make a commitment to move this thing, not in ten years, 15 years, 20 years. We just heard six years. Six years is the figure to start with. If you can't make six, I'm sure people would understand and give you another year. If you tell me ten years, you're not going to be out in 15. You're going to have all new people sitting up here and they're going to have reasons why they're not out too. I'm not going to take any more time. There's a lot of people here that want to speak tonight, and I thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Coletta. MR. DORRILL: Following Ms. Stamatinos is Barbara Jenkins, Ms. Jenkins. MS. STAMATINOS: Yes. I'm Mary Stamatinos, and I live in Golden Gate City. And, actually, I'm against privatization of the landfill, but it seems to be going in that direction anyway. So I would like to say that ten years should be tops, and we should look at maybe eight years to conclude the thing. With regard to the contract, though, I did want to say that as has been brought -- has been brought out, that there will be -- when we do sign the contract, you're losing control, and the contract can be subject to various interpretations which can lead to hassles, lawsuits, attorney's fees, and other costs which will ultimately be passed to -- to whom? The taxpayers of Collier County. So I beg your consideration in keeping the cost of these things -- possibly not going on with the contract. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Jenkins and then Mr. Jenkins, James Jenkins. MS. JENKINS: For the record, my name is Barbara Jenkins. I had a speech prepared, but so much has changed since we -- I got here today, I'm not exactly sure what to talk about but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You've been here for a lot of issues. MS. JENKINS: Yeah. I did go over the contract, and I felt that the county had a lot of costs written in that they had to assume, and I wasn't sure that they were reasonable. Some of them I wrote out was $21,000 for a performance and payment bond. I was curious about the $25,000 management fee for the household hazardous waste center. And then on top of that, the county would be responsible for the charges in transporting and disposing of hazardous waste. I don't know. I think I'll skip through some of that because I'm not sure how the new written contract is going to be now. But some of the other problems that I wrote down was the county was going to be responsible for any cost from the activities of subcontractor even though Waste Management was going to receive a fee to manage the subcontractors, and I kind of felt like if they were going to get paid to manage the subcontractors, maybe they should be liable for their activities. And I was concerned about ground water. Not much has been brought up about ground water today, but I think that if it is privatized that it's the county's obligation to take samples. They certainly have the right, but I think it's the obligation of the county to take samples of that ground water at the landfill. When privatization was originally discussed, it was proposed Waste Management own the facility. Many of the citizens at that time objected and felt ownership would give a private contractor too much control. Waste Management stated they had no interest in owning the landfill, and the county changed the plan and agreed to retain ownership. In reviewing the 1981 deed which is in the packet, it said that the county -- when the county purchased the landfill, the seller had the rights to purchase back the property for a period of 21 years. So I was kind of curious if maybe Waste Management would attempt a property ownership in the year 2002. What checks has Waste Management implemented to insure that out-of-county waste will not be placed in the landfill? I saw in their operations packet that they would try not to accept out-of-county waste, but it didn't really say what they would do to try to prevent that. In closing, I'd like to say that this meeting is to decide whether or not to privatize the landfill and turn it over to Waste Management. I think the county is putting the cart before the horse. I don't believe a responsible decision can be made until all the facts are in and the new commissioners have been brought up to speed. Until the commission has looked at all the facts, considered all the options and alternative technologies and heard from the residents of the county, no contract should be signed. A number of people of Collier County have been working behind the scenes obtaining information on the alternative technologies, gas management, even Waste Management and they have a right to be heard. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Jenkins and then Ruth Delate, Miss Delate. MR. JENKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is James Jenkins, and for those of you who are fortunate enough not to know me, I have been attending these meetings for the past three years. Should either of the new commissioners wish to review any of the tapes of the past meetings, I'll gladly make a copy of the meetings to help them bring them up to date. I believe, as Commissioner Constantine does, that anyone should be as knowledgeable as possible before making a decision as large as this one. I believe that we need to re-evaluate and get our priorities in order. First, we need to designate a new site; second, purchase the land and start acquiring the necessary permits to include new and better technology. The life of the present landfill needs to be limited to a minimum, to the minimum years it takes to site and prepare a new landfill as many citizens have said in the past meetings. Then when you know what you want to privatize, you go for bids and see if you even want to privatize. Don't let the contractor write his own contract. Some of the unacceptable highlights of this contract are a 155-foot height limit; the county will pay for the insurance bonds; the contractor will be responsible for ground water monitoring; a tarpaulin will be used for temporary cover; methane gas will be burned off; the county employees are only guaranteed a job for six months, not a year as was stated on the radio; they will lose their retirement benefits; the contractor will install and operate for cost plus 10 percent a gas recovery system; you cannot sell the landfill without written permission from the contractor; and the county will sell all of the equipment to operate the landfill for zero dollars; then the county gets the same equipment back at the same price at the termination of contract. This is an expensive list of heavy-duty equipment. What will it be worth in seven to 23 years? Should I ever go into private business, I would like to do business with the Collier County Government Center. Where else could I have the equipment given to me to get started, get paid for the work a subcontractor does on site, have my performance and payment bonds paid for, do my own water monitoring, and be able to sell back to the county any equipment I have bought to do the job at termination of contract and know that you can't sell the landfill without my written permission? I've had a hard time believing that the contractor can make millions of dollars operating a landfill and our county cannot compete in cost. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Miss Delate. MR. DORRILL: Miss Delate and then John Delate. MS. DELATE: Commissioners, my name is Ruth Delate, and I live in Golden Gate Estates. And it has been stated and printed that by privatizing the landfill, the odor problem will be eliminated. This guarantee is not based upon past performance by Waste Management. Waste Management has been operating the Lee County landfill for 20 years with the gas management system, and the air in the area surrounding the landfill is still extremely foul smelling. The odor is so offensive that a proposed site for the new university was rejected. State officials believe that the Lee County landfill stench would make the area highly inappropriate for a school to be located there. The Gateway community located near the Lee County landfill also must contend with the foul smell. I'm going to read a letter written by a resident of that community. It was written December 11, 1994. "To whom it may concern: Gentlemen -- re: The landfill odors. There's also ladies present. My husband and I have been residents in Lee County in Gateway which is located about a mile as the crow flies from the State Road 82 landfill. As is true with many other retirees moving to Florida, we were not familiar with the Lee County area having previously lived in New Fairfield, Connecticut. Unfortunately, we can now attest to the unpleasant odors emanating from these landfills. On many occasions, depending on wind direction, foggy conditions, rainfall, and cloudy forecasts, we experience these offensive and pervasive odors. Imagine the embarrassment when friends or relatives come to visit. The community is very attractive, but you dare not open windows or doors if the wind turns in your direction. Surely with today's technologies the county should be able to control these permeating gases in accordance with EPA regulations and guidelines." And I won't read who sent that to me. Well, as the letter clearly states, Waste Management has been unable to reduce the landfill odor to a satisfactory level. This performance is what we should base Waste Management's record on, not some lofty promise made in this proposed contract. The contract also does not call for the monitoring of all gas sites other than methane. Odorous compounds such as hydrogen, sulfide, and ammonia are not monitored. The people of Collier County deserve better. I encourage you, Commissioners, to vote against privatization and to have staff seek a more progressive solution. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Following Mr. Delate will be Mr. Jenkins, Wayne Jenkins. MR. DELATE: Good evening. My name is John Delate and as I just gave you a copy of some of the -- Looking over the landfill proposed contract with my brother, we just put together a couple of the sections that we felt deserved your attention. Several of them have been already mentioned today, but I would just like to highlight a few of them which I feel very important. The section 1.0, 4 percent growth. Now, that rate in tonnage, if the county growth is less than that or if technology increases -- Now, I realize there's a provision in there for recycling, but what if the waste stream was reduced greatly and that 4 percent was not lived up to? We're going to have to increase the amount each individual pays. Also, section 2.14, 15 percent is added on by Waste Management for tire shredding and yard waste mulching subcontracts. Now, if the county subcontracted that out, we obviously wouldn't have to pay 15 percent to someone to do that. Section 3.4, the county pays for sewage lift station and related sewer lines. And section 6.4, county pays for performance bonds. Now, these were mentioned, but my point is that the overall costs to us, the taxpayers, or the user payers in the county are going to increase. They're not going to stay at that static figure. I realize no matter who operates it, they will rise, but let's not kid ourselves into believing that this is going to be some inconsequential sum for the life of the landfill. But the issue that affects me and the county residents more than any other, I believe, is the fact that there are two unlined cells out there, three and four. As was mentioned previously, this landfill was built back in 1976. At that time, environmental regulations were not nearly as stringent as they are today, and hopefully they will be more stringent in the future; therefore, a lot of toxic materials have been dumped in there. Now, these unlined cells right now don't have more garbage on them, but under this proposed contract with extending the life of the landfill, you're going to pile extremely more weight on this. You don't need to be a physicist to understand with this extra weight on there, you're going to put a potential stress on that lower toxic material and you could harm the ground water. Heavy metals could leach into that ground water and affect all of us. I speak from personal experience. Many of you were out at the meeting we had in Golden Gate. I suffered lead poisoning from ground water contamination, not in this state but in another state. For two and a half years, I was in and out of hospitals. Believe me, it was a very, very terrible experience. I lost about three and a half years of my productive life. Am I saying that this is going to be occur if we expand the landfill? I don't know, but my point is I would want to be assured for me, for my children, and for everyone else in the county that there is no possible way this can occur. I would want that known prior to any agreement on any issue. The second major point I want to make is throughout all this talk we hear recycling mentioned just a little bit. Folks, we're going into the 21st century. Let's have some imagination. Let's look forward to reducing this waste stream, not continuing to pile trash on top of each other. This is 19th century mentality. I'm not accusing you. I'm accusing all of us. We've got to look beyond this, and Waste Management does it in other states. I know they do it where I went to college in Massachusetts. They did a great job. In fact, they have it up there in Worcester, Massachusetts, where you are charged per bag. Waste Management handles it all. They do a great job. If you have so much as any recyclable item in that bag, the trashmen do not take it. They don't pick it up. We can move into this future. We have so many brilliant people in this county that are willing to give their time to help bring us into this new -- and give incentive. Right now it's -- the only incentive is if you want to go out there and do it and help the environment. If we make it mandatory, we'll reduce that waste stream enormously. So, in closing, I would like to say that I believe -- I firmly believe, even if no one was present here today, that this contract is a poor contract. It's poor for everyone involved, not only from a physical standpoint, from a health standpoint, but most importantly from an environmental standpoint. Let us not move backwards into the darker ages of piling toxic material upon toxic material. Let us use the brilliance of this community and of this commission and move forward and come up with a creative solution that all will be happy with. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Jenkins and then Mr. Marvin. MR. JENKINS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Wayne Jenkins. I'm not going to give you my prepared speech. Most of you heard parts of it before. I would like to just make a brief statement to you, that I do appreciate all of the hard work that I've seen going on in this direction, and I feel a little more at ease of the direction we're taking. My one concern is I left here before feeling fairly confident, and what I got the next meeting was a little change of attitude. I would like to encourage you to follow the guidance and the steps Commissioner Constantine laid out to us today and that we continue on with this, that we don't come back with another alternative to expand or go higher, that we do what we have agreed to here today. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Marvin and Mr. McLean, Gerald McLean. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Marvin is next. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Marvin is next, Mr. McLean standing by. MR. MARVIN: Good afternoon. My name is Bob Marvin, Senior. I'm a waterman in Florida for more years than I care to think about. Since standing here tonight listening to those people over there talk about the landfill, one of the things that came up is they're going to move their landfill from Immokalee to here. When Ann Goodnight sat up there, she said she wouldn't dare have any of our trash move to there. Now, I don't know how big the landfill is in Immokalee, but if we cut our landfill back and dumped half of it over there and kept the Immokalee one opened, we'd cut back a lot of problems. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The Immokalee landfill has about six years of life left in it. MR. MARVIN: Ahhhh. But nowhere to enlarge? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, most of the sites I believe that environmental services are looking at are in the eastern part of the county. MR. MARVIN: I see. Well, I wouldn't want to be offensive to the people in Immokalee. I'm just bringing up that point. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. MR. MARVIN: But, you know, I unfortunately didn't live in Massachusetts. Bless Massachusetts. But I've lived in Florida all my life. I've lived in Hiami, Key West, Homosassa, places some of these people wouldn't know about, and we had a problem down in Key West about a landfill and fortunately we had to truck it all the way up to somewhere on the east coast so we don't have a landfill there anymore. But how we stopped a lot of our resource problem, we were using our water and land up fast, so we had a building moratorium set on the whole county for five years until we straightened out our resource problem. I wouldn't want to see that happen here, but it could happen. Finally, the government upstairs in Washington came in and said, hey, look, this is not good, and they stopped this. But in all the years I've lived in Florida, I've never seen a place to have a landfill and watch a city grow up around it and not notify people who are moving there that there is a landfill there. So I hope if you do design an area to have another landfill, that it's stipulated there that anybody moves within five miles of it is told not to live there. And if they live there, they live there of their own problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Trust me. As soon as we identify the spot, I want it stamped on the map. MR. MARVIN: Oh, yes. Yes, I would do that. But it's -- The thing -- The people like myself, what we're interested in is knowing when it's going to be taken out. It's not a question of privatizing or anything. It's just when the hell is this thing going to be taken away. It's an area -- You're living in the -- 75 goes off there. I call it the Golden Ramp because a lot of my customers come down that way. And we just need some exact times. Tim, you did a great job, Mrs. Matthews. I don't know the other gentleman. Mr. Norris. The only thing I can say is I would think a little bit more about this contract. I would also think about putting a plan together to purchase the land. We want to see it in black and white. We want it etched in stone so we know what we've got coming, you know. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Marvin. MR. DORRILL: Mr. McLean and then Mr. Dunmire. I believe it's Dunmire. MR. MCLEAN: My name is Gerald McLean. It's a pleasure to speak to you commissioners here. Solid waste, new technology, a lot of new things have been tried across the country, and like this gentleman right here said, Key West, they tried it. It failed. Dale Dig Colony (phonetic) tried it. It failed. Sure, down the road these things are going to work. Today they don't work. But one thing that can work and that is transfer. I think what you need to do is to take and have staff look at Dade County, Lee County, private landfills and have this stuff trucked straight out of this county. That will give you the five, six, seven years that you need to take and let this new technology come behind and build up, and maybe it will work. Maybe it won't. But at that time you can still extend. See nobody wants this landfill in their backyard. I don't care where you go. We all know that. Recycling. There is no recycling in Collier County. Well, not the way it should be. We could reduce this solid waste tremendously if we recycle. Your commercial is your biggest, is your biggest producer of recyclable materials, and we're not even hardly touching the commercial end of this here. Residential neighborhoods are hardly getting picked up. We need something and staff needs to do something about getting these people to be aware that there is recycling out there. You need some maybe community recycle centers where it could be dropped off. And I think the county needs to start looking at processing it themself because they're not getting the revenue that they should be getting from this recyclable materials. There's plenty of material out there, and it's worth money today, big money. I was superintendent of recycling. I know what there is out there. There's plenty to be made, and we can reduce that solid waste. Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Dunmire and then we'll have Viola Dunmire. MR. DUNHIRE: Good afternoon. My name is Don Dunmire. I'm the vice president of the civic association in Golden Gate. Briefly, a month ago we were here and we accepted an award for the concern of the Golden Gate area. Just as to -- also to help clean up the area. To move this dump out of Golden Gate was one of our major concerns. Of course, everybody else has been -- has been speaking about this. I just have a couple more comments on this. Commissioner Mac'Kie has stated that she was concerned about the her constituents in her area, that she felt that they have the right to -- you know, of the say in this. If they were that concerned, why aren't they here today? You know, the only ones that I see here are from the Golden Gate area. UNKNOWN VOICE: Pelican Bay. MR. DUNMIRE: And Pelican Bay. And, you know, if you're concerned, you know, the people should be here. Also, I had the pleasure of hearing Commissioner and Chairman Matthews speak at the president's council meeting a month -- or actually a couple of weeks ago, and I was quite impressed with everything that she had said, and she had even said that with the regards of the landfill that they were going to delay the privatization from the January 17 meeting until sometime in February, and, to my surprise, there was a big change in that last week. My own personal concern is, is, will you be changing your mind on a regular basis? Or if -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, sir. I don't normally change my mind, but I do when new facts present themselves, and I think that we all have that right, that when we become aware of information that is different from what we have worked upon, we have the right to change our mind, and you would not feel good if we made a decision and stuck with it even though you've come here telling us information other than that. You would want us to change our mind. So, I mean, that's not a fair comment. MR. DUNMIRE: Right. But from speaking about it to coming in and saying that you're going to privatize it today and sign the contracts today, this was -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think anybody said we were going to privatize and sign contracts today. MR. DUNMIRE: Well, more or less. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But that's okay. MR. DUNMIRE: Well, thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Dunmire and then Mr. Henning. MS. DUNMIRE: I'm Miss Vi Dunmire, and all I'd like to say is, is there -- you're talking about the cost to the county for going into not having the funds of developing another place. Is not the federal government able to supply a helpful hand as the community grows since we are the fastest growing area? And I'd like to point out the fact that Golden Gate is the Golden Gate dumping ground, not Naples. Naples always gets the credit of having suffered something that it doesn't. It's Golden Gate that suffers it. Everything is blighting Golden Gate, and we as a community are getting very tired of having to have everything dumped onto Golden Gate. Now, in a time when there was no one there to voice an opinion, now there is a time, and we're not going to have it, and we're not going to stand for it anymore. We want to see our people being represented justly because I think it's unfair that they take the brunt of the cost of their homes and take it down to the minimum whenever it should be up higher and all these smaller houses being built in our community to bring in lower-paying people so that we have to suffer the conflict of how this town is so much less important than our other parts of our community. Tim has done a good job in trying to lift us all up, and if we didn't have him, I think we'd all be dragging down lower and lower feeling into our community. But I would like to know what this is going to do to the -- if you continue with it, the effect it's going to have to our businesses. There's a development going on near this garbage center that is exploding down there if anybody has ever noticed, and what is it going to say that -- you know, to the people that come into that area, that you just look at our city and say, well, hey, this is where we dump all our garbage. The pride we have in this area is to take everybody's garbage and dump it into Golden Gate. So the way I feel about it is, if you really consider the unfairness of it all, that you should really consider getting out of this privatizing it and move on into an area where there's nobody to be affected by it and making sure that these realtors do not go selling land around these garbage dumps like we had to experience with the sewer plant which we were here fighting over, and I'd appreciate your deep concern about Golden Gate more than about Naples because it is not Naples that is suffering the brunt of this. It is Golden Gate. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Henning and then I believe Mr. Tuff has left. MS. TUFF: I'd like to speak for him -- MR. DORRILL: That's fine. MS. TUFF: -- because I think I'm after him. MR. DORRILL: That's fine. Mr. Henning. MR. HENNING: For the record, my name is Tom Henning, chairman of the coalition against the landfill. I have a pretty elaborate presentation for you. I really don't want to do it, and I believe that you don't want me to do it either, but I must clarify where we stand, and I hear a lot of things what y'all are saying, but are we going to close this landfill in a reasonable amount of time and relocate it? Commissioner -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Henning, I think what we discussed just before the public comment is that regardless of whether we negotiate something from the existing contract before us or whether we put it out to RFP, our intention is to use the time frame presented by Mr. Constantine to identify, negotiate, and purchase land in the next 12 months; right? By the end of next year. And that once that land is purchased -- and I don't know how many acres we're talking about -- this board, this same five people, would make a commitment at that point we have a site, this is where we're going to go, and hopefully be able to establish a kind of movable time frame because permitting is going to be the thing that's going to move the time frame. But that would make a commitment on the government of Collier County that we have purchased land, and that is our intention, to purchase it and move it. MR. HENNING: Commissioner Constantine, is that your -- what you want to see in the next 12 months, is purchase it and move it within a reasonable amount of time? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I think the most important thing we can do regardless of whether we go with the -- some variation of the contract we have here or not is to set that calendar in motion and review those six sites, rank them, end up buying one before the year is out, and begin the permitting process by one January of next year. MR. HENNING: I hear Chairman -- Chairperson Commissioner MAtthews the same way, Commissioner Norris, Commissioner Hancock, Commissioner Mac'Kie? (Non-verbal answers) MR. HENNING: Great. That's really where we're at. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The time frame -- MR. HENNING: Excuse me. This is my time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That's true. It is. The time frame, though, is that we hope to make that commitment early in 1996. MR. HENNING: Okay. Great. 2.13, it states, "The contractor shall use in its best efforts to purchase daily cover material." That's not acceptable to the Golden Gate people. I would like to see it say they will purchase land cover to cover the landfill daily. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which section is that; do you know? MR. HENNING: 2.13. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I have it on my list. MR. HENNING: And Waste Hanagement's contract does not state when the gas management system will be up and running. It is very important that it is in a reasonable time frame also. The odor is very offensive. Commissioner Hac'Kie, I believe that Mrs. Delate answered your question, is we do have a landfill in Lee County with a gas management system. It's not the answer in a residential area. And also one question, the Naples Transfer station, is that still going to be operating? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To my knowledge, yes. MR. DORRILL: Yes. MR. HENNING: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The one at the airport -- MR. HENNING: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- on Transfer? I guess that might hinge on what we do with the Gordon River Bridge. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please, one controversial issue at a time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But one controversy at a time. MR. HENNING: We definitely -- I think we need to make a convenience for the community to get their trash to the closest site, and I don't want to see it coming out to Golden Gate and spilling over a pickup truck and we all have to pick it up. Thank you for your time today, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Tuff and then Mr. Wilt. MS. TUFF: My name is Kaydee Tuff. I represent 150 members of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, and I have exactly two paragraphs of this full-page presentation left to address, but you're glad about that, and I think everybody else is too. I am going to express some concerns on my husband's part too because he had to leave the meeting early to pick up our children. You can tell who wears the pants in our family. No, actually, I'm covering the meeting for him. I would like to disagree with some of the comments that have been made. We have some wonderful things happening in Golden Gate and Golden Gate Estates right now. We have a new Estates library that's just set to open on Monday, and I hope all the commission will be there to celebrate that with us. We have a new pool facility. We have a community center expansion that's under way. We have a new park proposed. It's moving along slowly. We ask your consideration of that too in the Estates, that that project will get moving ahead. We have improvements happening to Lutz Park. We have a code enforcement patrol for which the county has given us a lot of help and direction. With all of those good things going on, the last thing we need is to see our landfill there for an extended period of time. In 1993 we were very -- well, I don't know if we were exactly hopeful, but at least we felt we could deal with the ten-year commitment, seven to ten years. We realize changes have taken place since that time. We still -- and were willing to abide by what we heard then, but we don't want to see it extended any longer than that. What I'm hearing you say, it is encouraging to me, the final comments that you just made to Tom Henning. But it's not just an odor problem. It's also a problem for our business community. One fellow up here before myself called it Golden -- he called it the Golden Ramp. He said a lot of his business is coming in there. Higher mound heights, problems with smell, these do not lend themselves to increasing industry, the kind of industry we hope to attract in Golden Gate. With all the good improvements that we're seeing happening, we don't feel that's going to be as easy to encourage with a landfill there. And I guess he's got some other hen-scratchings here, but it's very difficult for me to read it. But I'm just asking that we put -- we've done our time. We've had the landfill there for the period of time for which we were told it would be there, and we just hope that you will take it -- set a time frame now for closure and then take the steps to move that facility to a more appropriate location. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Wilt, then Ms. Bisbee, Nancy Bisbee. MR. WILT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. You'll have to excuse my voice. I've caught something on the trip. I don't know what it was. My name is Glenn Wilt. I live in Golden Gate. Can you hear me now? My name is Glenn Wilt, and live in Golden Gate, and like the others, I had a nice long speech made here, but due to your good work this afternoon, you've chopped out about four pages of it already, so I'll spare you somewhat. As you well know, of course, there were two issues involved from the start today. The first was the remaining life of the current landfill and also the issue of whether to privatize the operation. As far as any expansion upwards, horizontally or otherwise, the coalition is totally against it. We feel that with the new action that seemed to have been discovered in the last six or eight months, that you can redesign the landfill and fill in between the current sites and other areas. There should be sufficient space at the current site without expanding upward to meet the state's ten-year advance supply requirement if, in fact, that ten years is a locked-in time frame. Therefore, the coalition challenges the commissioners to stand by their action of one year ago, that expansion at the current site was at the bottom of all possible alternatives. Staff has done considerable work towards identifying possible new sites for the landfill, and the coalition realizes that it will take time for an orderly transition to a new site. However, we do not agree that it will take ten years to obtain the necessary permits for a new site, and I think we heard an expert agree today or state today that it certainly shouldn't take ten years to do it. Therefore, we submit the following calendar which I'm glad to give you all a copy of it. That February through April the staff should be directed to select a primary site for those areas already identified. April through July, complete the necessary environmental impact studies. August through November, enter into negotiations and purchase of primary site. December 1, 1995, start the required permitting process on a priority basis. We feel that if county staff is given the necessary guidelines and it is emphasized that the work should proceed on a priority schedule, then the project can be completed well within the remaining lifespan of the current landfill. We, the coalition, ask you to make that decision, target a closure date for County Road 951 Naples landfill, and then make the decision on privatization. What I've heard today, you may have to reverse that, but we're asking you, we want that decision. It may take -- It may take six years, it may take ten years to accomplish a closure, but it is a definite hindrance to future commercial and residential development if it remains at the current site for a ridiculous 23 years. The next -- I had to modify considerably so I'll see if I can read my notes. As been mentioned before and I want to emphasize it again from one point as far as the contract, the use of a tarpaulin to cover the existing pit and then pull the tarpaulin back the next morning and then continue to fill, if you've ever left garbage in a bag for 24 hours and then have to reopen it to put something in, I think you get the point I'm getting at. The current requirement is that it requires them to put a six-inch daily fill out there. That's their current procedures. I can't see if we go to privatization allowing to get away from the six-inch fill, and I think most of you agree with me on that. In conclusion, we're opposed to any extension the proposed lifetime of the current site which also happens to be the southern gateway to Collier County which all of the commissioners should be interested in. It's all of our county. That's our southern gateway. We certainly don't want 158-foot Mount Trashmore out there at our southern entrance. The existence of the landfill at its present location absolutely does deter commercial and residential development in the area. There is no question about that. Again, let me emphasize, we are all one voice, that a target date be established for closure of the County Road 951 landfill and staff be directed toward that goal. My final comment is we're asking you all, you five commissioners, to make that decision on the closure date. Don't leave it to your successors. I might quote you an example which I am quite familiar with. For example, in 1984 the county commissioners granted a permit to Florida Cities Water for an expansion permit at the site on 32nd Avenue. They were to do certain conditions, do this and do that. In 1993 the residents of Golden Gate refought that issue with the commissioners. In fact, three of you sitting up there are quite well aware of what went down and the considerable expenditure of time and money to get the same action that should have been done in 1984 or 1986. I'm closing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. WILT: My only other comment and I close with this, as it's quite apparent today that the contract which you have been reviewing -- it's quite apparent to me and I think it's been confirmed by everybody here today that the document needs serious review by someone other than staff or Waste Management, and I thank you very much for your time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Bisbee and then Mr. Keller. MS. BISBEE: I'm Nancy Bisbee, and I live just north of that landfill. I'll be polite. At times I don't want to call it that, especially if we get a south wind and they're burning, the smoke is unbearable at my place. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're burning? MS. BISBEE: At times we get smoke from there. I lived there before that landfill was put there. I objected to it going there because I could see the growth coming in this county. Unfortunately at that time the commissioners did not see the growth coming, but now we have the growth, and it must be stopped. And the county has managed it financially sound. Why not continue it? Why give it over to privatization? These things usually cost the taxpayer more money in the long run and the homeowner more in the long run. I would like to see it stay in the hands of the county and have it stopped as quick as possible. I know it can't be tomorrow, but then as soon as possible I would like to see that not be used anymore. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller and then Mr. Stewart. And before Mr. Keller starts, we don't burn at the Naples landfill. I think in 20 years, we had one fire that was a subterranean-type fire. Occasionally there will be a load that comes in with some material that is burning in the truck, but we do not and are not allowed to burn at the Naples landfill. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't think we did. MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen on the board of directors of the Gold Gate Estates Civic Association and the appointed member of the Golden Gate Civic Association to speak on issues before this county. This thing has been footbailed around for some time, and I don't think we really have yet gotten anywhere really. In the first place, I don't know why you want to fix something that isn't broken. Now, we've run that land -- We've run -- This county department has run the landfill for 17 years, and they have a surplus of some -- close to $7 million in their -- from their operation. The charges that they charged were very, very reasonable, very reasonable, and they've done a good job. Now, the question today is not how long the landfill's going to be. It's up to you to decide that. But the question today is, do we need an outside operator to operate this landfill. Why? How much are we really going to save if we have an outside operator? After you read this contract over and see all the extras that go into it, how much is the average person, average resident, going to save in a year? Maybe three, two or $3 a year? And if we go into any type of private contract, we are restricting ourselves to the fact that we are limited to the terms of that contract and to the amount of years that that landfill is going to be there. There is a lot of new technology coming forth, number one. Number two, what was good 17 years ago doesn't satisfy the people in the area now; and so, consequently, you know and I know and as you say we're going to have to move it. Let's go on with the job. Let's get on with the job. I hear you said six sites. I've heard recently it's down to three sites. So let's let our department who's been doing an excellent job do their work, find out where a new landfill can be constructed within the period of six or seven or eight years and get it done and don't go ahead and set yourself up in a contract with a private organization that's in the business of making money on landfills who doesn't have the best record in the world as far as running landfills and give them a contract or anybody a contract right now to run this landfill. Keep it in the county so that when the county -- the people in the county decide it should no longer be there, if you can make up the decision to move it, not have to go back to a contractor and have a bunch of lawyers fighting this thing in court for ten years. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Keller. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Stewart and then Mr. Perkins. MR. STEWART: Good evening, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, I'm Jim Stewart, appearing on behalf of the Golden Gate Area of Chamber of Commerce. There are as many fairy tales surrounding the dump as there are surrounding Disney World. The first fairy tale is the location of the dump is an issue pitting, as one county commissioner suggested on the radio last week, the interest of a mere 700 Golden Gate Estates residents against the interest of the balance of Collier County. The fact is that many, many more than 700 people are directly affected by the dump. In fact, the stench from the landfill damages all of coastal Collier County. First, the dump damages Collier County's tourism industry. Tourists who formerly would not risk their lives crossing Alligator Alley are now happy to come across 1-75, but what do these tourists smell when they roll down their windows to pay their tolls? The impression hardly puts them in the mood to spend tourist dollars here in Collier County. The Golden Gate Chamber of Commerce recently opened a visitor's information center in the vicinity. The visitor's information center I'm glad to report is doing quite well. We think that this is a great opportunity for Collier County, a great opportunity for Golden Gate, and we're directly impacted by the stench from the landfill because we're right there. We know what the prospects are for tourism in Collier County, and we know that the visitors information center is a step in the right direction for us, and we know the impact that we feel as a result of the -- as a result of the stench. Second, the dump damages Collier County's economic development. The 1-75/County Road 951 interchange area is a logical site but the kind of economic development our county so desperately needs. The proposed industrial parks in this area can attract the kinds of non-polluting businesses that are needed here, but no business is going to locate in that area and spend the kind of money necessary to comply with the high development standards wisely imposed by the Board of County Commissioners on those areas only to have the dump as their next-door neighbor. Third, the dump damages much more than the immediate adjoining neighborhood. On many days, the dump can be smelled clearly and strongly from as far away as six miles. There are at least 30 or 40,000, most of them registered voters, who live within smelling distance of the dump. The second fairy tale is it will cost more to move the dump than to continue to operate it where it is. The truth is, is that the dump will have to be moved in the not so near future anyway. The cost of future land acquisition and environmental mitigation will greatly exceed present costs. Collier County will save money in the long run by incurring the quite large but clearly lesser costs now rather than deferring the unknowable, the clearly much greater cost in the future. The third fairy tale is that you must decide privatization now. The fact is Waste Management is going to be around for a while. Because the landfill's ultimate location is up in the air to at least some degree, doesn't it make more sense to decide what you're going to privatize rather than to decide to privatize it? In fact, landfill operator want-to-bes should participate in the process by being asked to propose alternative sites. The fourth fairy tale is that you are paralyzed by inertia. The fact is Naples landfill has been moved at least twice before, once from where Coquina Sands is now and once from the Naples area airport area. The landfill was moved when those sites became inappropriate. Let's follow valuable historical precedent. Let's move the dump from its present inappropriate location. And since I can count to three, I'll make a couple of comments on the contract. Ms. Hac'Kie raised a point regarding liquidated damages. I think the liquidated damages idea that Ms. Hac'Kie raised is an excellent idea. The problem being that for a liquidated damages clause to make much sense, the damages that are to be paid by the party breaching have to be high enough to discourage the breach. For example, if the -- if the liquidated damages clause requires them to pay $100,000 in liquidated damages but it cost $200,000 to comply, it's a no-brainer as to whether they're going to comply with the liquidated damages -- whether they'll comply or not. Secondly, the board needs to check very carefully on the issue of whether the scent is an ascertainable standard. Can we determine ascertainable standards for odor at the landfill? If that is possible, then those kinds of provisions need to be included in the contract. I fear, however, that we're not going to be able to determine any ascertainable standards. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Jim, did you say that your visitors information center is doing real well over there? MR. STEWART: It's doing quite well. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Isn't that over there by that -- where all those businesses are coming in that's growing very fast over there? MR. STEWART: That's correct. It's growing very fast now but -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. It's not a fairy tale that those businesses are thriving right next to the dump. MR. STEWART: They -- They -- They are -- They are thriving, but the point I'm making, though, is they could be doing much, much better -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand. I just wanted to shoot another fairy tale down. MR. STEWART: It is true that these areas are thriving; however, they would be doing much, much better if -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's conjecture, is it not? MR. STEWART: I don't think it's conjecture, no, sir. I don't think it's conjecture at all. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You don't know that. MR. STEWART: I don't know it the way that I know that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but I know it as a -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, as one fairy tale teller to another, I just thought you'd be interested in that comment. MR. STEWART: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Jim, I have a question too. MR. STEWART: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The logic that I'm failing to follow is why if the landfill is presently such a disaster is privatization of it in the interim while we look for the new site, why is -- I don't understand why that's a bad idea. MR. STEWART: I don't think that privatization by itself is necessarily a bad idea. The Chamber of Commerce is not taking any position. The Golden Gate Chamber of Commerce is not taking any position at all regarding privatization. My own view is that privatization is something that should be looked at, and privatization may be something that will open up the opportunity to move. My problem with the present contract is that we are being presented essentially with a fait accompli, that we have a contract that is going to put onerous burdens on Collier County to move the landfill if we can find an appropriate site within the ten-year period, and I am thinking that privatization may be a good idea if we reopen the RFP procedure, give everybody a chance to come up with alternate locations, and then consider privatization with a ten-year lifespan and then potentially renegotiating for the landfill operator to move on to the next site. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. STEWART: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just wanted to mention something in reference to Commissioner Norris's comments. As far as the area is thriving, the tollhouse plaza, or the tollbooth plaza or whatever that plaza is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Tollgate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Tollhouse cookie plaza and the McDonald's plaza, actually the -- they've had a total of one, two, three new businesses go in in the past four years, so I would hardly say that's thriving. And, actually, that doesn't include the visitors center who doesn't pay to go there. And the interesting thing at the visitors center, the top two questions from visitors -- and we have several hundred people a day. The top question is, how do I get to the Registry, and the second question is, what the hell is that awful smell? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question -- MR. STEWART: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Mr. Stewart. You were just mentioning that you thought a better way to go would be to issue a new RFP and include in the RFP the concept that the respondent who wins the contract will also operate the new landfill wherever we move it to. MR. STEWART: Potentially. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that we could, in effect, be able to find a single vendor to finish out the current landfill and pick up its marbles so to speak and move to the next one. This morning when I asked Mr. Cuyler how that would work, I was told that it would not. Would that work under what he's talking about, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: I can't speak for Mr. Cuyler, but I think his answer was it would not work under the current RFP format. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Under the current RFP it would not work, but under the scenario he's talking about it would if we were to issue -- MR. WEIGEL: It could. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- an RFP where it was transferable? MR. WEIGEL: It could. MR. STEWART: I would think that would work this way. You'd have an RFP for a contract and you enter into a contract. The contractual terms would continue you to the new location. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the contractor would operate the landfill regardless of where it is? MR. STEWART: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think so and I guess -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Stewart, you know, let's throw in a huge unknown in the contract and decide on a dollar amount? That -- If I was your client, I think that would be bad advice. MR. STEWART: Well, you may think it was bad -- I don't understand how you would think it would be bad advice. The contract that we presently have, the contractor has many, many unknowns involved and they have figured -- based on those unknowns, they think they've got enough control over them to know how much to charge, and I think the same would fall through for the new -- for a new landfill. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- Two things. One is I just have to say I know Jim is a lawyer and he never gives bad advice. And the other one is that my concern with this RFP business is if you move to a new site, I think that that's going to require a separate RFP. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, Mr. Weigel just said, no, that it wouldn't because -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know, but Mr. Cuyler said yes, and I agree with Mr. Cuyler. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. Mr. Cuyler said that we could not -- we would have to issue a new RFP under the existing RFP because of the wording in it. But if we were to issue a new RFP for a vendor to be our landfill operator regardless of where the site is, that that would work. MR. STEWART: You're entering into a contract that potentially would run 25 years or more. The -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Regardless of location. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But the location is fixed under this contract. MR. STEWART: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins and then Mr. Krasowski. MR. STEWART: A1 Perkins for the Belle Heade Groups and A1 Perkins for Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights and for the people of Golden Gate. Now, I want to make light just for a little bit, and I want to make a presentation on behalf of all the people that's involved in this thing to the commissioners. Good guys wear white hats they said. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's beige. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not white. MR. PERKINS: Now, I'm one of the guys that's got the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, he's not perfect. He was kind of good. MR. PERKINS: -- and the brown neck to try to make it happen on behalf of all of the people especially the children. Let's make the presentation, kids. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for adding such credibility to the program. MR. PERKINS: These children represent our future, and when we overlook it, then we are not doing them justice. (Children bring brooms to the commissioners.) COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Careful. Thank you. MR. PERKINS: Thanks guys. Thank you very much. Hold up your brooms, please. The brooms represent the fact that if they don't clean house and clean this mess up, I'm sure the people out here will. We have many more brooms. Now, I've got to get serious. Okay. Waste Management -- Waste Management are a bunch of nice people. Ask them. But they're here for the bucks, just the bucks. And if they don't get the bucks, they'll leave. Now, some of the commissioners know that I have dropped the pebble in the pool and the information is coming in like nobody's business at the same time from Caterpillar, from Gas Groups of Chicago, from Earth-Smart in Atlanta which can provide you with so much information that you'll get a headache reading it. I have just a portion of it here. Some of it I have supplied to the commissioners, but now I need to ask a few questions because I hear a bunch of nonsense, and I need to ask Pam Hac'Kie. Can you see the dump from your house? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. MR. PERKINS: Can you smell the dump from your house? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. MR. PERKINS: Do you know anything about the dump? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I -- I -- MR. PERKINS: Only what you've been told? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. That's not accurate. I don't for a second argue with you that it smells and that it's horrible. I do travel back and forth to Hiami occasionally, and there's a restaurant that I like out there near that toll-something intersection. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The Waffle House? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Actually, Cracker Barrel if you need to know. They cook like my mama does. MR. PERKINS: In 1990 -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So I do know. So I do know, and I don't discount it, not for one second that it is a significant problem. MR. PERKINS: Okay. Let's get down to the brass tacks. The smell is gas. Gas is money. We're losing $12,000 a month out there in the gas, and the EPA is going to force us to take and capture it and use it or we take and get penalized and fined. These are facts. The EPA has also told everybody that on the know -- now, you've got to be on the know, that you're going to go to total recycling. Now, everybody got an opinion about this. But if you check with Earth-Smart in Atlanta, everything is recyclable up to a point. There's a 7 percent leftover. Now, the 7 percent leftover, I don't know what the chemicals are of if, but I ask a question. Can it be put in asphalt and pave the road? Can it be put in a cement block and build a building? Can we dispose of it that way? Are we using our heads? Now, I get a little irritated about the people involved. Are our people incompetent? Is Waste Management so competent? Because this is where -- If we don't take and get our act together, we can do just as good a job as they can for a lot less money if we apply ourselves for your people benefit. It's business. In Pompano -- I'm from Pompano. I've got a home that is approximately five miles from their mountain of garbage, and when I say "mountain of garbage," they supply electricity to 5,000 homes over there a year. The average electricity bill in this county for an average single-family house is $107.32 according to FP and L. If you multiply that out, it comes to a nice profit of $6,420,000 and something. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Wait a minute, A1. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You've got to -- I've got to back you up on this because I read the article that you're referring to, and that's a 4,000-ton-a-day landfill. Ours is a 700-ton-a-day landfill. So you've got to adjust the numbers accordingly. MR. PERKINS: Absolutely. Absolutely. But what I said was their -- over there -- Turn that thing off, will you? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please don't. MR. PERKINS: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It hasn't been five minutes yet. MR. PERKINS: This is important, and I'll take on anybody in this room on behalf of the kids. If we've done such a damn good job, why are we here? Because everybody that's got gray hair here is at a fault. Every one of us. At least I've been able to take a -- blast some of you people off your rear end to come out and participate, jump in these people's faces. And you people at home, get on the phones, call your employees and let them know how you feel. Now, I'm going to -- back at you, Pam. I'm sorry. Do you know how many gases are out at the dump? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, sir. MR. PERKINS: Right here I can give you -- it's methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, paraffin, harbocidrates, arumic, siliahybercardrates, hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and traces compound. (phonetic) Now, do you know that we're borderlining out there getting fined from the EPA for emitting the gas into the air which is dollars? It's just like throwing money away, that we're going to get fined for air pollution and damage to the ozone. Now, you people don't believe me out here, but all you've got to do is ask a question. I asked a question. I asked a question of Caterpillar. I asked a question of Gas Groups of Chicago. And the information is unbelievable. It's coming in here like nobody's business. Now, solutions -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A1, I'm going to have to ask you to speed it up a little built. MR. PERKINS: Okay. I'm going to take and break it up. Solutions. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. It's just that simple. And as long as we eat and as long as we throw trash out, we're going to have two problems. Now, Tim brought up about the effluent and the sewage. To brief you people, we're going to go to total recycling. That leaves us with a last process where you take and you use effluent and sewage sludge to compost, and you come up with a product similar to malogonite which is sellable. In the meantime, you take the gas off the top which you are forced by the government and you turn around and you run it into a gas engine that drive turbines that take -- or generators to generate electricity that we can consume ourselves. We can save $180,000 at the water treatment plant in front of the dump just like putting out a dog-on dies -- an engine and Caterpillar -- Caterpillar wants to come here and explain this to you. Gas Groups want to come here and explain it to you, any one of these different organizations. Now, land, there's 1,000 acres that's been made available under a joint venture by College Properties to participate. Now, College Properties are so environmentally sensitive it is unreal, but these people are willing to put their resources to our advantage and go on a joint property, and they're willing to do it now. Now, I'm going to pick on the county. I'm going to pick on you, Bill Lorenz, over there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A1 -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A1. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- come on. It's time to go. MR. PERKINS: Now, wait a minute. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Everybody has got five minutes. Let's be fair. Come on. MR. PERKINS: Okay. Let me just -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You've had your say. MR. PERKINS: Let me -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Come on. Let's go. MR. PERKINS: Let me get this one thing out. Don't forget. I represent over 3,000 people now. MR. DORRILL: That doesn't make any difference. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I represent 180,000 so I know what you mean, but let's be fair about this. You've had -- MR. PERKINS: The information was asked of this -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- your five minutes, and we're talking about a contract here, A1. We're not talking about -- We're not talking about ozone layers, and we're not talking about land in Immokalee or land in the Belle Heade. We're talking about this contract today and what we're going to do about it and how we're going to move the landfill out of its present position. So come on now. Give somebody else a chance to speak. MR. PERKINS: One more second and I'll make one -- explain one thing and that's it. I asked Bettye Matthews to take and ask for information from environmental services of this county to provide it to Caterpillar and to Gas Groups, and it never showed up, and this was before Christmas. Now, without the amount of gas that we have at the landfill, the kind of gas, and all the rest of the problems we have out there which was a $268,000 survey which was performed by Coastal Engineering two years ago, we don't have this information. And if that information is not readily available, then how can any company take and participate or take and give us information. And with that, John, I will shut up. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MR. PERKINS: You're welcome. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Krasowski and then Gene Cox. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you for the broom. MR. PERKINS: You're welcome. MR. KRASOWSKI: That is a hard act to follow, I'll tell you. I appreciate all these people that have stuck around. You know, a lot of people had to leave and -- I don't know. I have a lot of things to say. It's unfortunate the -- two of the other commissioners are gone here. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They may be able to hear you because there's a speaker in our offices. MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they probably can hear you. MR. KRASOWSKI: You know, I tell you, I saw the rest of the meeting earlier on today and I was thinking maybe I'd wear a dress here because you guys got into that gender issue so much. Now there's two females and one guy. Maybe I would have done better, you know, communicating. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Should we bring the issue back? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's do. MR. KRASOWSKI: Actually, I think it was a good healthy discussion. We've got to cut through that baloney. This country is suffering from that, I'll tell you. But to get in on what's relevant and what people are here for, I read through that contract. I looked through the beginning of it really close, and I only got it Friday night, and I have other commitments and managed to go through most of it. Now, this evening or this afternoon we made it to I think page seven is the furthest we got into that contract. So I'm just really, really disappointed that the workshop that was planned as an evening event was cancelled because we need more attention given to the contract and the various aspects of the solid waste issue than we're able to give here now. I tell you, I really resent this, that, you know, we took a little piece of this, enough for people to chew on. You throw the public a little cut and then everybody can work around that and get their five minutes and really not go through the entire contract. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wait. MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand -- Commissioner Matthews, and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that we're going to go through the entire contract. We just aren't going to do that tonight. If we even can support a concept, then we'll get to the nuts and bolts of going through paragraph -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- by paragraph. That opportunity still presents itself. MR. KRASOWSKI: Is still to come. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think, Bob, we were a little short-circuited in going through the contract page by page because honestly Commissioner Norris kind of came forward and hit the nail right on the head and said, look, we've got to decide what we're going to do about the landfill and how -- MR. KRASOWSKI: To me -- Yeah. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- how long it's going to be there. MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. I remember that. To me, that kind of borders on divide and conquer, you know, because I don't live out in Golden Gate. My issues aren't necessarily the smell as far as directing -- affecting me personally, but I do sympathize with the people that have to live under that condition. But, you know -- So to satisfy moving the landfill without going through a complete evaluation of all the other aspects like to me is a very effective political move because you'll get the people that will be satisfied just by moving that landfill that don't care so much for privatization and they're gone. Okay. They think that's taken care of. Now that leaves a few or a smaller amount of people that are interested in various other aspects. I guess to put my interest in a nutshell, after following this type of issue for many, many years, I've always thought that the best way to approach this would be a comparative analysis of systems and maintaining flexibility, okay, As far as what would be in the best interest of the county. Now, if we get into this -- I really don't see why. It doesn't make sense to me other than serving special interests why we would enter into the privatization contract. Now, we're discussing moving the landfill. We're discussing alternative technologies. Those three alternative technology proposals we got do not represent what is offered as an opportunity. I'm glad I heard A1 and the things he brought up. He shows you what is available, and that's only some of the options we have to exercise. We lock into a Waste Management or -- or it's not just Waste Management. Anybody now. If we enter a privatization deal now, we have another party with vested interests that confuse and complicate anything we want to proceed with. So, actually, I -- what I'd like to see is for us to hire a solid waste director. I believe that that's the intention anyway, put this privatization thing on hold, get our house in order as far as the landfill and where it's located, and then privatize. I'm not totally against privatization. But when you have so many variables, so many things that are changing, you cannot pin them down. Okay. You're -- This is almost to me -- I tell you, I find it offensive. I think in this country -- Okay. This is -- This goes this far with me. In this country when you have a situation where a community must commit to participating in an activity like a landfill, you want to have access to a governmental body so you can take your wrath out on them if they don't do what you want to do. If you -- If you people -- This is three times; right? Disappear. The trap door opens. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have a button here to do that. Tim took it out. MR. KRASOWSKI: I believe it, and then we need one for you guys. Maybe that's the solution. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. We're -- We're -- I myself am pleased to hear from the public what your ideas are. MR. KRASOWSKI: Good. I'm glad because the last time I heard you talk, I thought maybe I'd be setting a precedent coming up here and talking about the issues, you know, but I don't want to dwell on that. Okay. I don't want to make an enemy here. We've gotten along pretty well to this point. I want to maintain my faith. But, you know, to kind of wrap it up, you know, I have tons of notes and stuff and there's a lot of issues. So I'm glad we're going to revisit the contract, but I really don't like this privatization stuff. I'll tell you, there's a lot of legal issues here too. Okay. There's transferring the permit over to the privatization company. Okay. There's this whole concept of adhering to the initial RFP and those responsibilities we have there. And, you know, I think if we go ahead and privatize now under these conditions and don't go out for a new RFP, that a lot of people are going to be looking at these issues, and I don't want to see this whole thing become so divisive. In closing, along with my idea of hiring a new solid waste director but send out an RFP for a solid waste director and tell them what we have here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We normally advertise over a wide area for that. MR. KRASOWSKI: Good. I know you advertise, but do you give these people that might be interested the specs on what we have here and let them submit proposals? If you hire me as solid waste director, I'll do this, this, and that -- figuratively speaking, although I'm available, all right -- I'll do this, this, and that, and it will cost this, and then they can submit a proposal and work on behalf of the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe the solid waste director that you're talking about would become an employee of the county? MR. KRASOWSKI: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that would be under the purview of the county manager to interview the process -- interview. MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, that's another point. Okay. I'm totally dissatisfied with the solid waste department, although they are -- they're nice guys and also Mr. Dorrill. Okay. But I would think if you did that, right, you would make an office of materials reclamation and recycling along with your solid waste department. And, as A1 said, some day everything is going to have to be recycled, and you just transfer the activities over there as that expands. You give bonuses to people. If they save us a million bucks, they get 2 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You want to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bob, as you head back to your seat, I want to share the following item -- MR. KRASOWSKI: What's that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As you head back to your seat, I'll share a thought with you. MR. KRASOWSKI: Yes. Okay. Well, hey, look, look, I sat here since one o'clock. So did you, and we didn't get through this contract, this workshop, or this issue, so, you know, I'll indulge you a bit. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was just going to say I did, indeed, hear you back there and did enjoy your comments about the dresses so -- MR. KRASOWSKI: Oh, good. I figured you'd be able to relate to that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Bob -- Bob, if you would, before you go back to your seat -- MR. KRASOWSKI: I have to go. I have a job fair at 6:30. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We've got a 7:30 meeting too that we need to make. MR. KRASOWSKI: Do you? Okay. Excuse me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just want to ask you, the comments that you have on this contract, since we may be addressing this contract in the future or we may be addressing another contract, I would like to share -- I would like you to share those comments with me on your problems with this contract, if you would. MR. KRASOWSKI: Okay. I'd be glad to do it as always. One last thing because I didn't complete it, your new solid waste director would be put in a position where he would report or she would report -- I nominate Linda, the head of Naples Recycling, 92 percent effectiveness. Okay. You're going to drop it to 75. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: She's getting a cut in pay for that. MR. KRASOWSKI: Well, she's a dedicated individual. She'd do it for the community. But she would report directly to you to knock out all this complication and confusion when you have to go through the manager, directly to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: We need to change paper and perhaps give her a short break. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: A short break? MR. DORRILL: We're about two-thirds of the way through the speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I guess -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got a question before we take a break. You mentioned something about a 7:30 meeting. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's news to me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I believe Mr. Hancock and I committed to go to the Vanderbilt Property Owners Association meeting. UNKNOWN VOICE: You should have thought of that before __ COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: whoa, whoa, whoa. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: will go to that meeting. Whoa. Hang on just -- Whoa, Don't -- I'm just saying -- If we are done here in time, I If we -- UNKNOWN VOICE: I know but we've been sitting here a long time. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wait a -- Would you please let me finish. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're not going to adjourn this meeting. He's just asking -- UNKNOWN VOICE: I hope not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEW: He's just asking -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm clarifying that if we're not done by 7:30, I'm not going to leave here and go to that meeting. That's what I was saying. Thank you for speaking out though. UNKNOWN VOICE: I'm sorry. I just -- I really want to get out of here worse than you do. I'm telling you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can talk about that later but CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need to give the court reporter a five-minute break to change paper. Thank you. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a general announcement that anyone who is here for the United We Stand meeting, that meeting has been moved to the media center down on the first floor. So if that's why you're here, you'll find your group downstairs. MR. DORRILL: This should be Mr. Cox, and following Mr. Cox, I have Ray Martin. Mr. Martin, if you'd stand by, please, sir. MR. COX: For the record, my name is Gene Cox. I live in North Naples; however, I do sympathize with the citizens of Golden Gate. Let me say that in the event that you do readvertise for the RFP, that I've been disappointed with the entire process of privatizing the landfill. The process seems to have favored one company and, as a result, young companies were prohibited from the bidding process. Landfill operation together with the ramification such as recycling, composting, and landfill mining to reclaim recyclables is a relatively new industry, and some companies, although lacking in the years of operation, more than make up for it by the technology and the expertise within their companies. By having said that, I agree with the people of Golden Gate that the landfill should be moved. It should be re -- Excuse me. It should be relocated as soon as possible and the present site returned to its original condition. This can be done by using the same methods presently employed by the solid waste department of Collier County, but instead of reusing the cells, fill them in. Let's not permit the cells to be raised any higher than they are now. To do so would not only delay closing of the landfill, it would create a serious problem in the event of -- in the event leakage of the cells were discovered, and this is possible because cell liners have been known to deteriorate. Just imagine what the effect and additional weight -- the additional weight would have on the liners and the problems it would create trying to uncover the pile and correct the damaged cell. If not repaired, toxic leakage would be a certainty. In closing, I foresee continual escalation of trash pile pickup fees during the life of the proposed agreement if it goes to privatization. Also, when the contractor covers the last cell and moves on, the taxpayers of Collier County should not be required to be solely responsible for the expense associated with the monitoring of the abandoned site for the next 30 or so years. I repeat, return the site to its original condition and move on as soon as possible, not 20 years from now. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Ms. Martin. MS. PHILIPS: For the record, my name is Maxine Philips, and I'm reading this letter written by Ray Martin who had to leave. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I can just for a second, Ray also gave to me a couple of days ago -- he has a -- I think it's 127 signatures. He's president of Par One from the Par One Association which we'll enter into the record as well. MS. PHILIPS: I won't editorialize at all. I'll just read the letter. "To Commissioners of Collier County, ladies and gentlemen, As president of the Par One Homeowners Association, I speak for 530 unit owners in the Par One condominium complex who are strongly opposed to the privatization of the county landfill located near the intersection of Interstate 1-75 and County Road 951 which would result in its expansion in our extension. "The decision of the previous commission to close this facility within the next six or so years was well thought out and recognized the rapid residential and commercial development occurring in the immediately adjacent areas. We are firmly convinced that this is not an appropriate site for a landfill facility that would operate many years into the future. "We would respectfully urge you to explore locations and/or other solutions rather than making an immediate and hasty decision which will adversely affect all the residents of Golden Gate for years to come. "Sincerely, Raymond F. Martin, President, Par One Homeowners Association." Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Haas-Zichella and then I have Mr. Siesky. MS. HAAS-ZICHELLA: For the record, my name is Kate Haas-Zichella. I think it's unfortunate. A lot of the ire that you have here today is a result of the mismanagement of today's meeting. The time that was given to some that was denied others at random I think has also added to this problem. This is turning into nothing more than a public workshop because we certainly cannot vote on a contract which is what is on the agenda, and that is a huge problem. I heard the commission talk about agreeing to a concept, these vague terms. We are talking about a contract or a concept. They're two totally different things. And why the county would even consider putting themselves into an ambiguous position where they have a responsibility with someone that is so much better prepared to fight us in court -- They have tremendous insurance, tremendous legal resources behind them that we do not have. They can chew us up and spit us out because we are not in their league, and I think if the commissioners look at that, they would think about that a little bit more seriously. In my opinion, we are not even talking about the same issue that was brought before us several months ago the original RFP's went out for, and I think that is a huge legal problem, and I think that other people should have the opportunity to bid again just like Waste Management has had an opportunity to change the specifications of their bid and make things different. It was talked about that the county originally was going to be 20 percent higher in costs than WHI would be. Did that include the 18 employees that we are going to now keep? That was included in the 20 percent higher costs? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. MS. HA_~S-ZICHELLA: And that -- did you include in that that with the county, if we only use 500 tons a year instead of 700 tons a year, that we have lower costs? That certainly was not included in there because you have to have an apples to apples bid and you didn't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That probably was not. MS. HA_~S-ZICHELLA: No, it wasn't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't know for a fact but it -- It was? It was not. MS. HA_~S-ZICHELLA: And no matter what we do, the super fund liability is ours no matter who has it. It belongs to the county, and you will be responsible for that no matter what happens. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's also shared -- It can be '- MS. HA_~S-ZICHELLA: It can be shared. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The federal government -- MS. HA_~S-ZICHELLA: Right. But you have to go through the court process of proving that. And if you go through and you research some records, which should not be very difficult to do, I think you will find out that there are many people that are involved in lawsuits, many cities, many towns, many companies that Waste Management is involved in. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to clarify that. It's either the owner or the operator can be strictly liable. MS. HA_~S-ZICHELLA: The owner is -- never loses the liability on super fund. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Neither does the operator. MS. HA_~S-ZICHELLA: Well, the own -- I don't care. That's their problem. This is our problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. MS. MAAS-ZICHELLA: We never lose liability for that -- for whatever damage we cause the environment and that's -- that's what your responsibility is. They can protect themselves. I don't understand the legality of voting on something or even bringing before the commission a contract that some may have been privy to at six o'clock on Friday evening but, in fact, this is the first business day that that contract's been available, and I don't understand how you can expect the public to feel comfortable with this kind of an arrangement. I think it's very disappointing. There was talk about the increase in the fee schedule tied to the CPI. Now, there is a new concept being bandied around by Allen Greenspan about a new method for the CPI. Will Waste Management -- That may mean that in some years you might have a downward adjustment on the CPI. Will Waste Management, Incorporated, give us that benefit as well? I'd like to know who sets the off-site reg -- who regulates the off-site contractor fees on the -- you know, for the trash and disposal there. They mention to you that the county gets to set the rate. Well, in fact, all the county can do is report what the rate is going to be because you really can't set anything. And I am very -- I'm just absolutely shocked that five county commissioners and maybe -- I know everyone doesn't agree with this, but the county commission as a whole would even consider moving forward with this today, and I can't help but wonder what is the tie to WHI. Why is this so important, and how can you possibly talk about a vision for Collier County when you talk about waste and you don't include effluent. Two weeks ago you had a proposal up here to purchase land for effluent storage. None of these things should be considered in isolation. They should all be considered as a whole when you talk about a vision for Collier County and recycling. And I just -- I hope that the commission will not take any action whatsoever but study this further, have a real workshop when everybody can come and people don't have to leave to take care of their children or leave their family hungry so that they can speak. Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: Following Jim Siesky will be Linda Harszalkowski. MR. SIESKY: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm Jim Siesky with the law firm of Siesky and Pilon. I'm here tonight representing Naples Recycling Resources, and I would like to direct my comments strictly to the contract. I believe Linda Harszalkowski may have other comments. But regarding the contract, I think you need to scrutinize its terms very closely as you started to do today. Ms. Hac'Kie has brought up the concept of liquidating damages which I believe deserves exploring. Commissioner Matthews has brought up this section 7.4, and I would like to comment on that later. Also, Commissioner Constantine and Commissioner Hancock discussed the concept of alternative technologies. Those are important, and they're really the thrust of my comments, and I believe that the contract that you have been presented with has a disincentive for those types of services, a disincentive for recycling, a disincentive for the alternative technologies. Specifically -- I've given you a letter before this. The recycler gets a benefit -- Excuse me. The operator of Waste Management gets a benefit if he does not recycle as much as being recycled right now. I used the wrong number in my calculation. I calculated $414,000 if he doesn't recycle 18,000 tons that are being recycled now. I think that's more like a quarter of a million a year, but it's still significant dollars. In addition, when you recycle, you're going to preserve natural resources, reduce the demands on the landfill, reduce the cost to the county for new landfill needs, and provide employment opportunities here in Collier County. To accomplish that, what you need to do is provide an incentive for recycling to Waste Management, and you need to mandate that Waste Management purchase all of the cover material generated as a by-product of the recycling operation. Without that mandate, you're going to put your recyclers out of business because they have no place to put the material. As to section 7.4, the way I understand that -- I've only had a chance to review it during the course of the meeting -- is that Waste Management is going to set aside money to perform post-closing procedures and the gas procedure, whatever it needs to do during this ten-year period, and if it's not used, then Waste Management gets it. It seems to me that the appropriate thing to do with that is for the county to hold that money in escrow fund. If Waste Management needs it for that purpose, could disburse it immediately upon that need. But upon the termination of the contract, when you have the remaining responsibility to perform those post-closing duties, you'll have some money at least. Also, if you next year give Waste Management the notice that ten years from -- or nine years from now you're going to cease operation of the landfill, their incentive to do these post-closing operations and other operations would diminish and they'll -- If you don't have the escrow account, they'll be -- will be reaping a windfall. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Miss Harszalkowski. And then Mr. Bramberg, if you'd stand by, please. MS. HARSZALKOWSKI: My name is Linda Harszalkowski. I own Naples Recycling Resources, Incorporated. I operate on 5801 Yahl Street in Naples. Landfills compete with recycling. The goal in recycling is to keep as much waste out of the landfill as possible. The financial goal of the landfill contractors, to accept as much waste as possible. Landfilling and recycling are adversaries, economic adversaries. When we started the C and D recycling project four years ago, the Collier County contract was set up that 100 percent of the recycled cover material produced by the C and D recycler, which was us, was to be used. It was mandated. It was part of the recycling program. At that time, we were recycling 100 percent of the Collier County C and D waste stream and left the project recycling 93 percent of that waste stream which meant only 7 percent of the entire Collier County's waste stream for construction and demolition was dumped in the landfill. The county today has a recycler at the Naples landfill who is recycling 92 percent of that waste. The county has also mandated that this recycler's cover material be 100 percent used as landfill and recycled cover material. We currently have two private companies recycling 100 percent of Collier County's waste stream. Between the two companies, we are producing about the same tonnage as we did before our cover material when we were the only contractor. The landfill recycler bids his cover material at 10 percent lower than the lowest outside bidder. We contacted the purchasing department when we privatized and told them that we would be willing to do the same. We were told that we would not -- we could not bid the contract in the same way. We wanted to be equal to the recycler at the landfill. We are currently 25 to 30 cents lower per ton than any other outside contractor. On your staff proposal dated August 26, 1994, 1-2-1 under synthetic cover on the third sentence it states,"Preliminary economic analysis indicates that the cost of synthetic covers are about equal to that of the current daily cover and may even be less." If the cost of a synthetic tarp is close to the same price as fill cover material, then why put the Golden Gate community at risk of covering and most of all uncovering a landfill in the hot Florida sun? By eliminating the need for fill cover material, this project is putting the C and D recycling projects at risk. The C and D recycling projects depend on the ability to create landfill cover material. All other avenues have been closed for this material other than landfilling it. The litter ordinance of Collier County prohibits the use of any fill material that has any foreign substance in it. We need to recycle this material first. Example, it took government to first mandate that the paper producers recycle old newspapers. The paper companies didn't like the idea because it meant processing the material in a different manner. It meant that the paper industry needed to purchase new equipment to recycle newspapers. The government mandated that this was to be done, and now the paper industry brags about its recycling effort. We would not be recycling today at the rate of 30 percent if the government had not required us to do so. We as a government need to set recycling goals for our community also. As a C and D recycling industry, we are recycling 95 percent of the waste stream today. We can only do this with your help. Please mandate that recycled fill dirt is used first, and don't allow tarping as an alternative. Tarping the landfill hurts the recycling industry and hurts the community. Last year we met with the solid waste staff, and in Neil Dorrill's letter dated 11-6-93 the county agreed that purchasing 52,000 tons of recycled material from us was reasonable. The 52,000 tons of material was in addition to the landfill recycler and the mining operation. We did not produce 52,000 tons of material; however, it gave us the flexibility to produce whatever we could. It was in the county's best interest to purchase as much inexpensive fill as possible. Because we were the lowest bidder, the county could always purchase more virgin dirt if we were short. We need to use the recycled dirt first. If the landfill is privatized, there is no incentive for the contractor to renew a contract with us. It is in the best interest of the landfill contractor to send the most waste to its facility. Waste Management is a very large company and always can cost shift. If they take over the landfill recycling project, they are capable of cost shifting the price of the material. We need a fair playing field for all recyclers. We are currently the lowest bidder for cover material, and we are willing to extend this price for the duration of the life of the landfill and to tie it to a cost of living increase today. Waste Management wouldn't hear of it; however -- however, in their contract, they are asking the county for the same thing. It is in the best interest of the contractor to have more solid waste delivered to the landfill. The more waste to the landfill, the more revenue to the landfill operator. We are true adversaries. The better we become at recycling, we will eliminate the need for landfills in the future. On page nine of the Waste Management contract, 2-13 on the first sentence, it says, "The contractor shall use its best efforts." What are best efforts when it's not in the economic best interest of the contractor to buy our material at all? On page nine, 2-13 on the next line, "Subject to the facility's needs." If the contractor is allowed to tarp the landfill, the contractor will not need our material, and much of the material that we now recycle will be considered solid waste and a landfill adding to the contractor's revenue. Recycling needs to be used first so that more of the waste stream is recycled. The county will need less landfill space and need to buy less land. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hiss Harszalkowski, are you almost finished? MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MS. MARSZALKOWSKI: The county can save millions of future dollars encouraging recycling today. We are at the frontiers of the recycling effort. The technology in the industry is growing daily. As a government, we need to be bold and take a stand. Handate that recycled fill be used first for cover material at the landfill just as it has been for the past four years. This is not new. It only extends the process we've already been using today. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Olds will follow Mr. Bramberg. MR. BRAMBERG: Did you want Bramberg first? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. BRAMBERG: I've heard him before. I didn't much want to hear him. I'm Bill Bramberg. I'm a consultant with College Properties, and simply I want to verify what has been said earlier, that, in fact, we have 1,800 acres, 1,000 of which we would like to enter into a joint venture with the county, specifically to assist the county in regard to a waste resource recovery facility. If it be your choice that Waste Management be your contractor, we would be happy to work with them as well. I was particularly moved by the young man in the back who spoke about lead poisoning earlier. College Properties is the oldest co-educational institution in the United States. We are very environmentally-oriented, and the times dictate that we become more environmentally-oriented. I appreciate the time to have the chance to speak to you, and I hope that you consider our offer. We would very much like to joint venture with the county. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Olds and then Mr. Hast. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is Mr. Olds here? UNKNOWN VOICE: He's gone. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hast. Mr. Hast. UNKNOWN VOICE: He's gone. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's gone. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gresh, and then it's Mr. And Ms. Roster following Mr. Gresh. Mr. Gresh, go ahead, sir. MR. GRESH: Thank you. I'm Jerry Gresh with Addington Environmental. I really just have one comment which is short, and it pertains to the ten-year opt-out or ten-year term in your long-term contract. A ten-year calculation for a landfill is a totally different calculation in the calculation that we provided in our proposal. And so whether it's a ten-year contract per se or whether it's an opt-out or a shorter-- or ten-year con -- you know, short term, in a long-term contract, same calculation. It's a different number. Our proposal is a different number than would be the ten-year contract. There are certain cost savings involved. So we would request that if you put a ten-year term in a contract, that you put it out for bids. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your request is -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you go too far away, I have a question I need to clarify. Your comment is that -- The contract as it was given to us Friday called for an opt-out ability at the completion of cell six. MR. GRESH: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Since then we have been given a copy that allows us, you know, filling cell six or as of the tenth anniversary. Your suggestion is that by having that option there, we are not meeting the -- in your opinion, we're not meeting the intent of the original RFP? MR. GRESH: Absolutely. I mean, you have -- you don't know what your -- you don't know if you're getting the lowest price because it's a totally different calculation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Mr. Weigel, any thoughts on that? Is that an arguable case? They're all arguable. MR. WEIGEL: It's an arguable case. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's a lawyer's smorgasbord again, huh? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we just say buffet? It's easier. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I like smorgasbord. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A potpourri. MR. DORRILL: Mr. And Mrs. Roster, R-o-s-t-e-r. Apparently not. So that concludes your registered speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. And Mrs. Roster were not here? MR. DORRILL: Apparently not. MS. HA_~S-ZICHELLA: Can I ask one more question in place of Mrs. Roster? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to come forward and we don't -- you know, we haven't closed the public hearing yet on this so COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're pinch-hitting then? MS. HA_~S-ZICHELLA: Mrs. Roster asked me -- she conveyed by her Ouiji board. No -- a concept that she wanted me to convey. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need your name again. MS. HA_~S-ZICHELLA: Kate Haas-Zichella. I have another question too. You had asked earlier about anyone bidding on -- if you would purchase a new site and if you could switch this bid to include that, and I'd like to know how anybody could bid on something that they don't know where it is. And I would also like to know on the growth management plan how it could actually be -- until you have that permit in your hands, it is not a landfill. It is a piece of land that you would like to be a landfill. So until we have that permit in our hands, we need to have a ten-year life on the landfill in Golden Gate whether we like it or not even though we may not intend to use it. And so the idea of having a contract that would include that to me is, you know, just fantasy. Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Lorenz, the requirement is of raw land; is that correct? That's why we have the 300 acres north that are undisturbed right now? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it does not have to already be permitted? MR. LORENZ: No. It's raw land. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's our requirement under the growth management plan, to simply have land available that we could use? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I have a series of questions if we're going to pursue this contract in some form. I still have a series of questions -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I do too. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and I suspect the others do as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wondered if we might go through those. And just prior to that, I'll ask -- I know my eyes lit up a little and I saw your eyebrows raise when Jim Stewart raised the possibility of an RFP to a vendor for a particular amount of time regardless of location. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wonder if there may be some problems inherent with that. I don't know what they are off the top of my head but the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand the pro -- yeah, how can we do it -- how can we do that where right now the landfill is -- what? Ten years away -- I mean, ten miles away from the -- so to speak center of collection and the landfill we wind up with may be 30 miles away or 40 miles away. It's going to make it a nebulous term. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Insert transportation variable here. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I guess -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand that problem, though I have to say it's appealing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I find it very appealing, and I hate to just think, gosh, it seems like it may have problems off the top of my head so let's throw the idea out, because we don't know that it's not possible. MR. GOODLETTE: I'm sorry. Madam Chairman, do you want us to respond to your other specific inquiries on the contract? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MR. GOODLETTE: You want to address those concerns to your staff and have us respond in due course? However you'd like to do it. It's obviously your meeting and we're still available. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I have some questions CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for both. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think we have some questions for both our staff and the management of Waste Management. We also have -- I'm sure the people who have remained with us would like to hear the answers to some of these questions because based on their comments, many of our questions are similar to their comments. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just in answer to my comment a moment ago is there's apparently no interest in exploring the other alternative, a set time with more than one regardless of location '- I'm sorry -- set time regardless of location? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I just -- two problems with it. First of all, I don't think you could get a reasonable cost estimate because of the lack of knowledge at this point of what the factors would be to develop the cost for it. And second of all, the other point would be that the way we're looking at this contract now, we have an option that at some point in the future we're focusing on ten years or so that we can make a decision whether we're going to continue with Waste Management or not. If they're not -- before we can throw the rascals out at that point. Under this new -- under that other proposal, then you would be locked into them further into the future which I would rather have the ability to throw the rascals out if they need throwing out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In any contract we have regardless of its length, I think we're going to have a non-performance clause. If they're not meeting the requirements, we can throw the rascals out two years from now let alone ten years from now. I suspect that would be the same if we had a 15-year contract. So apparently the answer -- I still don't get an answer to the question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I feel personally there's way too many variables to really entertain that fully at this time. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll tell you, I find the concept of it a little bit intriguing, and I think that no matter what we do, if we were to move forward with this contract eventually in the next week or two weeks or whenever it comes back to us, we are certainly going to have to put this out to another RFP whenever we do move the landfill. Our attorney has told us that. And I think that it may be worthwhile to locate the new site first which we're not going to have identified until the end of the year and then look at an RFP because then we'll have an identifiable site. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- I think we'd be doing a disservice to people if we don't take some action, move forward on this contract because although there are a whole lot of problems people have raised, one of them is obviously the smell. If we are going to commit to moving as soon as possible under Commissioner Constantine's proposal, I think it makes more sense to go forward with one clear quantifiable -- to address the issue at hand instead of to postpone until we've identified another site. I mean, it's going to just keep smelling until we do something about it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, that's most certainly true, though I think some of the things that people have said that it's not going to matter too much, it's going to keep smelling, period, and that's a little bit of a concern. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have to come back to something Commissioner Constantine suggested, and that is that we all have questions. I personally have 35 I think I've listed since this morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I've got 14 pages of them so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I think we need to go one at a time as Commissioner Constantine suggested, hammer through them, get your answers. If it's something that can't be answered today, put it on the list to come back, and let's go down the line and get things moving. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to get that going then so that we can wrap this up as quickly as we can, and I'm sure that all of us will wind up seeing some of the questions are similar. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm really sorry and I appreciate in advance your humoring me on one final question before we do that. Mr. Weigel, one of the final speakers -- I think it was Mr. Siesky -- indicated there is an arguable case, and you said perhaps there is, and I need to have some degree of what the likelihood -- and I know you can't give me any definition here -- but what the likelihood of success or someone to challenge that the new wording, in effect, is outside the RFP. And if you sit there and tell me, gosh, they've got a pretty good case -- and I don't know that you'll say that, but if you say maybe they've got a 90 percent chance of getting it, we probably ought to figure out how to address that one issue before we spend the next two weeks, three weeks trying to finalize any contract. MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate the question. I don't think I'll give you a percentage, but what I will say is that the context of the RFP was landfill optimization. The further you stray from landfill optimization raises the specter of a challenge, the defense of which gets more and more difficult the further away you get from the landfill optimization. So there is an arguable case. I don't know if it's a winnable case. There may be a case. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we can just move forward and let's try to go through these as quickly as we can. Page seven, there's a requirement there for ground water testing to be performed by Waste Management. I would like to see some random sampling done by the county's pollution control department with examination by an independent laboratory. Is that -- Can we agree to that or should we MR. LORENZ: The -- I'm sorry. The agreement allows for that to happen. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I don't want it to be allowed for. I want it to happen. MR. LORENZ: Yeah. But that would simply be the county staff, direction from the board to the county staff. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That we'd just give them direction. It's not part of the contract. Just what he's saying. It doesn't need to be part of the contract. Just give them direction. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would just like to make sure that an independent laboratory is examining these random sampling on a regular basis, and if we need to put that in the contract, I'd prefer to see it there. Paragraph 2.8 is a discussion of flaring of gas. I think we all know that flaring of the gas is not the most economical use of the gas. It may be the most economical way of discarding the gas, but it's probably not the best way to use the gas for some other use. I was happy to see in the contract that the ownership of the gas remains with the county, but I'm a little bit concerned about the state of art of the collection system that may be proposed and that Waste Management would institute the collection and disposal system and that they would -- what is it -- 10 percent above cost that they would receive for it? I'm just a little bit concerned that we're instituting a program or a collection system that perhaps should go out at RFP so that we get a good state-of-the-art system at the least possible cost. MR. LORENZ: One of the problems about having a third party to go out and try to operate a gas management system is that that party will have to work with Waste Management. Waste Management has been responsible through this contract to operate the gas management system. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not talking about the operation of it. I'm talking about the design and installation of it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe I may have something that will amend that, and I crossed it off my list. After "blower/flare station," I would suggest that we insert "or other system of similar cost mutually agreed upon by the contractor and the board." What it's saying is that, yes, we can design and install a blower/flare system if it's appropriate; however, if there's a technology out there that allows us to utilize the gas that we own, that we install it, not do it at a dual cost. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But without an RFP, how will we know that we've got the best price? We won't know. We have only whatever we're told. MR. LORENZ: Well, for a -- if this was -- If the county were to get an engineering contract, we'd be subject to the CCNA which would not be a competitive bid in terms of the design contract. We would then just rank engineering firms based upon qualifications. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, can't we do qualifications and based on that an RFB, a bid based on the qualified -- MR. LORENZ: Once we -- Once we would select the engineering firm to do the design, then we'd enter into contract negotiations with the firm and -- except if the board were to go ahead and select the -- agree with that contract. The firm would then design the facility, develop the specifications. Those specifications could then go out for bid, and the bid would certainly -- the construction portion of it would certainly be bid. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, maybe it could be a two-step process that we hire an engineering firm to oversee the proposal that would come in for the construction of it. I don't know. I just think I would feel more comfortable if this went through the process that's established for government rather than move around it and allow a contractor to skirt around the CCNA statutes in order to accomplish something a little bit sooner, but we don't know what the cost is and whether it's actually saving money or if it's the best system. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is your goal to police Waste Management on the design and construction of this so as the taxpayer does not pay more than they need to? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. My goal is not on the flare system. Several pages later or on the next page, there's a clause in there or a sentence that in the future if we choose to go to another technology for the gas collection. That's the one that I'm talking about. That says that Waste Management will -- I'm just saying I'd like to see a state-of-the-art collection and disposal system, and I'm led to believe by this that Waste Management would merely institute whatever system they've been using around the country, and I don't think I'm comfortable with that. MR. SMITH: Commissioner, are you talking now about the gas management or about leachate disposal or -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. I'm talking about the gas management. MR. RAY: Commissioner, are you specifically talking about section 2.24? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. 2.24, page 12. MR. SMITH: Could I just add from a technical standpoint that the management of the gas system, the installation of it, and then if indeed it's found that that can be economically extracted and utilized or integrated or intertwined, you can't separate one and have one company running one and another company running the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not talking about operations. I'm talking about the design and construction of an alternative other than the passive system. MR. SMITH: Right. The way we've tried to write this and the staff and even in the RFP was that the contractor, in this case us we hope, would have total responsibility and liability for the system. If you start piecemealing it out, then you're not going to be able to maintain it. MR. RAY: Commissioner, we would entertain, you know, some concepts along what you're talking about. Obviously our concern is that y'all want us to hold to a strict standard for odor. On the other hand, we want to be able to make sure that we can react to, you know, the situation that's at the facility, and if you folks are having somebody else out there designing it, constructing it, or operating it, obviously that kind of cuts in our turf in terms of responding to you on the odors. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I guess my concern is that, number one, you're first talking about a flare system, and you're telling us that the flare system will handle most of the odor. We all know that it's not going to handle it all. Now, my concern is that ownership of landfill gas and gas utilizations alternatives. Okay. That's my concern. I think those alternatives may need a third party for designing and construction. MR. SMITH: And that's what I'm saying. They're so intertwined. If we're trying to run the gas collection system and the gas contractor that is supposed to convert it to energy doesn't show up one day, we've got a real problem. It would have to be all intertwined. MR. RAY: You know, perhaps there could be -- you could carve out the design and we can give input on that, but obviously the construction and operation we have to have some control over it if we're -- we're the ones who at the end of the day are supposed to be on the hook for it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So you don't have any objection if we hire a design engineering company to do the design work and then oversee the construction of it that it's constructed according to that design? MR. RAY: You can get as much input as you want. We obviously want some input in that design process if we're going to have to operate and construct it and maintain it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I understand. That's what you do. This is a question for our staff. Category one and two, special waste. Do we collect that currently, and what safeguards do we employ currently? MR. RUSSELL: The category one which is -- really we're talking about asbestos, we don't currently accept that material. We advise customers to have it taken care of through a commercial handler. So that would be an additional service that they would be providing. And if you talked about -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And our landfill does not accept asbestos? MR. RUSSELL: Right. Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At all? MR. RUSSELL: Asbestos we do not accept at this time. The category two -- and we've talked about the kinds of materials we might be talking about. I don't think there's that many materials out there that will fall into this category, but typically at this point if we have any material that takes special handling, we just take the extra time and take care of the special handling, and we don't have an extra fee for that, but those instances are rare. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But there will be an extra fee attached to category two in this new contract? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And what is it? Double? Is that what I've heard or what I read? Category two is twice the fee? MR. RUSSELL: Yes. That's twice the fee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And right now we do that at no additional charge. There's not that much of it you say. My next question I think has been answered, and that was, was there unused capacity at the Immokalee landfill. You said earlier today that that will be filled to capacity before it's turned into a transfer station. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, could you keep us advised what page you're on. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. I'm on page eight, paragraph 2.1. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: .107 CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Moving on to page nine, paragraph 2.11, I'm interested in the household hazardous waste amnesty program that we have been running. I don't see any mention of that amnesty program in this contract. We have run either one day -- one weekend a year or two weekends a year where people are encouraged to clean their garages out. What I do see in here is that Waste Management will handle the hazardous waste household program for a fee of $25,000, and they will dispose of it for a fee of $10 a container. Am I correct in assuming that if I bring in a can of spray paint, it's going to cost me $107 MR. RUSSELL: Actually, the $10 fee addresses material like automobile batteries that have been discarded in the landfill illegally, and when those kind of items have to be picked out of the landfill and carried down to that center, that's when you get that extra $10 fee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Who's going to pay that fee? MR. RUSSELL: The user will. The user has been instructed not to mix these kinds of materials into the waste. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm not sure how you're going to identify who the user is. MR. RUSSELL: In this situation when you see this material come off a vehicle, if the operators see that or the waste spotter sees that, then they would address that problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. RUSSELL: As far as amnesty days are concerned, we intended that the pollution control department would continue with that annual amnesty days program. Currently we've got an annual budget of $151,000 that provides for that amnesty days and pays for the disposal of materials that are brought to the collection center, and we would continue to use that budget to address those services. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You say we're taking those household hazardous wastes and giving them to our hazardous waste materials contractor as opposed to the landfill or any other method? MR. RUSSELL: Currently when individuals come on Saturday mornings with this hazardous waste to the landfill, this material is held there and accumulated. And at a point where it's cost-effective, then the private contractor comes to that site and removes the material. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's my question. It will go -- We won't be paying any more? We, Collier County, will not pay any more than we're currently other that the $25,000 management fee? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct, given the same amount of material that comes into that facility. We're a bit at the mercy of how much the public uses this facility. I mean, potentially it could be more depending on what arrives on our doorstep, but history has been that it's been accomplished in that $150,000 budget. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the amnesty program is going to continue, and it won't cost the taxpayers any more money than the management fee that -- MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS; -- we're willing to pay Waste Management under this contract? MR. SMITH: Let me add too, the management fee is just a replacement for costs that you're already incurring with management at a facility. We're just replacing it, Waste Management employees. So that expense is already there. It's just a replacement. It's not an additional expense. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll go back to that. Paragraph 2.13 on page nine talks about the current contracts for the recyclers. What happens when those contracts expire? What's the concept? MR. RUSSELL: Typically on an annual basis, now we have an annual daily cover bid that goes out, and at the present time the private recycler is a respondent in that bid process. Beyond that, it would be Waste Hanagement's own responsibility to secure their own outside cover requirements if they had any. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Now, how much right now roughly are we spending on daily cover? Rough number? MR. RUSSELL: $200,000 a year is the budget. I know last year we used less than that because of our success in using the C-and-D-generated daily cover. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Now, this might get complicated. I hope not. The contracts have expired whenever -- I think it's September or something like that that they expire. Waste Management is a rather large company, and it's got a lot of subsidiaries. What in this contract is going to prohibit them from bringing in one of their subsidiaries to do the on-site recycling, whatever it is, and make their profit off of that plus get the 5 or the 15 percent management fee? MR. RUSSELL: Well, the agreement does provide that they can perform the C and D recycling process themselves after our current contract comes up in July of '95. So they have the ability to do that -- perform that service themselves. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: My question is, if they bring in a subsidiary of Waste Management, will they be able to get a management fee on their subsidiary's work? MR. RUSSELL: If they -- No, they would not, if they do the work themselves. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You're not answering my question. The subsidiary is not necessarily themselves. MR. RAY: Excuse me, Commissioner. We will agree that that's -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not a problem? MR. RAY: -- Not the case. That is not a problem. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. RAY: We will not do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a follow-up on that subject. Hiss Harszalkowski keeps making the point that it's not to the contractor's economic best interest to recycle this material but rather to weigh it and fill it. So how do we avoid that problem? How do we -- How do we insure that all of the C and D material does, in fact, get recycled at some point? MR. RUSSELL: In the agreement it does require that they recycle a minimum of 75 percent of that C and D waste stream. That's addressed, plus 100 percent of the biomass waste stream that we're currently -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And then what percent of the C and D are we recycling now? MR. RUSSELL: In excess of 80 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe the numbers -- MR. RUSSELL: 75 percent is the minimum. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe the numbers that are being recycled right now, Commissioner Norris, are 92 and 95 percent by the two different recyclers, and I'd want to know why we're dropping back down to 75 percent when we have a program now that's 95 percent. MR. RUSSELL: Well, that's a minimum amount and, of course, the waste stream can vary, but I wouldn't see why given the contractor that's having success out there now that they wouldn't be able to continue at that rate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I share Commissioner Norris's concern that it would not be in the best interest of the contractor to recycle this C and D. It would be in his best interest to save the money of the C and D program and just bury it in the landfill and pick up his $14 a ton for having done it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, then we simply require that no tarps are allowed unless an emergency situation and recycled C and D material must be purchased first before virgin fill is purchased. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I mean, that's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we require that -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That would handle it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's going to make it more beneficial to them to use C and D than it is the tarp. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Consensus. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You agree? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Consensus. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I would like to see that 75 percent increased to encourage them to do the recycling, and I would like to see a clause, as you've said, that requires the purchase of daily cover and not allow the tarp. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The other purpose is, is I believe Hiss Harszalkowski employs about 35 people and another one out there employs some other people. You know, let's not put more people out of work. If the fill has got to be purchased anyway and it's better for odor control, let's do what's right. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, my interest is in making sure that we continue our recycling efforts because contrary to the misinformation that one of our public speakers spread this afternoon, our county is doing an excellent job of recycling. I think -- Mr. Lorenz, correct me -- we're in number six, number seven in the state by now. We've got to be in the top ten anyway because we've in the last year increased our recycling to the point that we are now almost reaching the near impossible state mandate levels. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. That's what I understand. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't want to do anything that will keep us from backtracking or make us backtrack on that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I agree. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we have consensus on that. Can we keep moving because we all have a lot of questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to see the 95 percent and the requirement for daily cover without the tarp. I guess I'm a little bit concerned though. I talked with Mr. Dotrill over the weekend about the employees having six months to, quote, unquote, "prove themselves" versus one year. The retirement system that they're currently in, it's my understanding they can't move it; is that correct? They can't take -- They don't have any money in the retirement system? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. In the system that the county has, you're not vested until you have ten years with the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. Even if they are vested, they can't take the money out and roll it over into Waste Hanagement's retirement program? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So it's frozen. The other thing is that I want to be certain that you're comfortable that the fringe benefits offered by Waste Management are at least comparable to ours. MR. RUSSELL: I would say that they are comparable. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: As far as -- okay -- sick leave, vacation, health benefits, and so forth, comparable. Is there anything we can do with about the six-month attrition versus one year? MR. RAY: Commissioner, you know, the six months was added at the staff request, and that was not in the RFP. You're now asking us to take that to a year, and that's something we can consider. You know, in light of all your other comments, we'll kind of take those into account and then address those with the administrator and staff. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I just make a general comment? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just -- Excuse me. It would seem to me appropriate in this process that we go through and identify our problems with the contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what we're trying to do. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, but instead of, frankly -- you know, I'm sorry. But instead of requesting resolution on the spot at 7:30 at night after we've all been here, that perhaps we identify the issues and instruct the staff to go cut the best deal. They come back and bring it back to us and we can say yes or no, but not that we try to negotiate point by point this evening. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I disagree because if some of these points you've been able to say, "Yeah, we can do that. No problem," there's no sense to send that off and have it discussed again. And, also, I guess I take a little bit of offense when you say, well, we'll certainly consider that and take it up with your administration and staff, because ultimately you're going to have to take it up with this board. So we're making the decision, not the staff. MR. RAY: Excuse me, Commissioner. All I'm saying is we're not prepared on a line-item basis to agree to some of these things tonight. We'd like to be able to address most of them, but we're simply not prepared to do that right now. That's all. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems to me that unless we give them a comprehensive list of these are the issues -- I mean, I'm just trying to be fair. These are the issues that we have, go through and tell us what you can agree with; otherwise, they're going to agree with the few at the beginning of the list. By the time we get to the end of the list, the economics aren't going to permit them to agree anymore. It's not the prudent way to negotiate a deal. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, let me -- I'm going to finish talking about what my concerns are. Whether they agree to address them or not, we're going to be addressing them in negotiations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: My next one is on page ten. Paragraph 2.22 deals with the financial responsibility of Waste Management to federal, state, and local laws. I'm having a little bit of heartburn on this, mainly because of the EPA regulation that's coming up we're told now in May. That clause, if I read it right, says that Waste Management will be responsible for the regulations in effect at the time the work is performed. Based on the draft that I saw of the EPA regulations promulgated to come out in May, they're making this retroactive to working landfills opened after '76 or something like that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So, I mean, if that were to happen two years from now and they made it retroactive to our landfill because it's been opened since 1976, Waste Management is only going to be responsible for the laws in effect at the time they did the work based on what I've read here; is that correct? I mean, well, that's something that we need to address. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear what they say when you say "is that correct." I don't want to just breeze over it and then start from scratch in two weeks. Is that correct? Is what she said how this is written? MR. RAY: Well, I'm trying to digest your comment. Maybe I should restate it. What you're saying is that if laws that change in the future, that they might have retroactive applicability, is that a change of law under this contract? Is that what you're asking? I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. We're talking about financial responsibility, and what I read in the paragraph is that you will only be financially responsible under the laws that are in effect at the time the work is performed. So if the laws change in the future, yeah, I agree, changing laws, you can come in and get a rate increase because of the changing law, but I want to look at financial responsibility for you to have the same responsibility that we would, that we're going to have to assume if you don't, and that is, at the time the work was performed. MR. RAY: Okay. I think I understand your question now. Yes, we -- to the extent that financial responsibility requirements increase, that we would meet that financial responsibility. Now, having said that, you're right. To the extent there was a change in law, then we would come back to you under the change in law provision, but we would be financially responsible -- to the extent that the financial responsibilities increase, we would have increased responsibilities. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess we need to rework that paragraph a little bit because it doesn't quite say that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you making notes of this, Mr. Lorenz, all of these because we're going down through here without giving you some specific direction, and I think we need to make sure that you have specific direction on this. And as far as the board's concerned, I mean, Commissioner Matthews, you're saying this, but you're just one. I mean -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- we need to give consensus on whether we're going along with you or not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would hope that you would jump in if you're not. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Let's leave it at that. If someone has an objection, let's say so as we're going through here; but, otherwise, assume that we have consensus and that it's direction to Mr. Lorenz. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Also, I agree with Commissioner Constantine. A couple of things I've said has raised the ire of these gentlemen, but they didn't have a chance to yell at me about it. And if I'm saying that is a big problem, you've got to let me know because then we identify it as a potential sticking point and we work on it from there. But, you know, please, if something you feel just isn't going to work, you have to let us know so we can -- we at least know what we're dealing with, which may be everything we just mentioned from here through the rest of the evening. I don't know. But let's go with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I want to make sure that our solid waste department will have adequate staff on hand after the transfer of the operations to monitor the correctness of this contract and what's being done and that we have the staff who can make appropriate decisions based on the contents of this contract and state-of-the-art landfill. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Matthews, is that Mr. Lorenz's responsibility already? The contract would fall under his department? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, it certainly would, and I'm seeing that we're going to lose 18 employees. I'm hoping that we're not going to lose the very employees who would be most knowledgeable about monitoring the contract. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All that time Bill's going to save, he's going to spend at the landfill. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Page 12, 2.24. Okay. This goes back to the gas trap, and I think we've already covered it, that the county owns the gas, and the contractor will design, construct, operate, and maintain the new gas collection system. I don't know whether the rest of the board agrees to me that we may have to look at some other design concept. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other than having the contractor design it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One question on that. I see potential difficulty in 2.24 in that it states, "The county and contractor shall jointly develop the gas system." Then it later states that, "The contractor shall design, construct, operate, and maintain." I guess I'm asking what is the joint responsibility, and where does the county enter and where does the county exit in that process? If we decide on a -- I just didn't know -- we come up with a decision and you make it happen -- MR. SMITH: The way it's written now is we would identify when you have recoverable amounts of gas, and we would identify the best way of extracting that gas and doing something with it economically. And then once we identify that jointly, then we would design it, permit it, construct it, and operate it because, again, it's an intertwined facility, the gas collection and the recovery. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to know where the joint started and ended. MR. SMITH: I mean, we're going to be doing everything together. We're not going to be out there working by ourselves. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just another sort of general comment along those lines, I think that it would be appropriate for us to say this is what we want the contract to say. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's kind of what we're going through. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, but not, you know, what do you guys -- how would you interpret it, with all due respect. It's another one of those lawyer's fees things. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. We're hiring them. We should tell them what we want, not ask them what they can do, and he may come back and say, gosh, we can't do that specific thing. But our role isn't to ask you what you can do and see if you can do it for us. It's tell you what we want, and that's not the way we've been going about this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Page 13, paragraph 3.3. I'm concerned about Waste Management getting management fees and the county has the responsibility for what the contractors do, what the subcontractors do. Is that agreeable? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like a reasonable comment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What section is that? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 3.3. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 3.3. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just not sure 3.3 states that. It says, "The county shall be responsible for any costs or other liability or expense related to activities of county subcontract .... In other words, if we subcontract somebody, they go off to the site and make a mistake, we're responsible for it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have subcontractors under contract right now -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- That they'll be managing. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would need clarifying. That would need to be clarified, that we're only responsible for our subcontractors. You're responsible for yours. MR. RAY: Correct. That's our understanding. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we might clarify that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's how I was reading it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So the existing subcontractors are where? MR. RAY: Well, primarily existing subcontractors, but to the extent you have future subcontractors, it would also apply, but that's why we contemplated that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had quite a few questions on the leachate system. I don't now. They were answered for me. If anybody else has any questions on the leachate system -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question on 3.5. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I do have one question that I think staff needs to answer but not tonight, is on this lift station, and if we move into an area that we want to close this landfill in eight or ten years, if that's what we finally do, this lift station and the piping is fairly expensive. I'd like to know how long it's going to take us to recover the cost of doing that, and I know it's in our current permit, but there's a certain cost that we're going to lose if we close the landfill, and I think we need to be aware of what that is, and that's the piping from the landfill, I believe, to the 951 or 75. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a more simple question on that, Mr. Lorenz, and that is the cost for the lift station, metering, pretreatment, access lines, and so forth for leachate collection, has that been budgeted and provided, or is that something that we are to budget in the future? In other words, who is going to pay for it and have we addressed that already? MR. RUSSELL: The cost of that whole project is in the order of $450,000. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we have not really budgeted or approached that amount as of yet? MR. RUSSELL: I have -- you say it has been budgeted? It has been budgeted. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question on 3.5, Mr. Lorenz, is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question first? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we just -- I thought we were going through one person at a time because there have been a number of areas we've gone by that I was going to wait my turn to ask. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Oh, okay. I thought we were moving ahead paragraph by paragraph. Jump in if you've got a question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was a change in there, Commissioner Constantine, and it was rather subtle, but why don't we go back to the way we're supposed to being doing it. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My God. Let's go all of our comments at a time for God's sake. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. I'll go back and start where I left off then. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you want to catch up? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On page seven, I don't think we got any answer earlier today. I said it about four times. But gas management and odor control, nothing indicates the extent of odor control. And, again, as I said earlier today, it could be a minimal system which meets the legal requirements and could smell to high heaven, and right now short of severing the contract for default, we don't have any way to respond to that, and I think we need to obligate you to some level of odor control, and there need to be penalties. We need to have some bite, some ability to make that happen instead of just saying we hope it does, and if it doesn't, maybe you'll default because there's a lot of room between the two. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I couldn't agree more with that, Commissioner. MR. SMITH: You know, let me -- We have committed to meet all the rules and regulations and abide by all the federal, state, and local laws, and that includes all the penalties that go along with those. Once we take over the landfill, we'll be facing up to $10,000-a-day fines as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code. That's a pretty good bite. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And those -- As I've said at least five times, that's meeting gas management requirements. That doesn't necessarily meet odor. It could still smell 200, 300 days of the year even if you're meeting that. Hopefully it won't, but it could. And if it does, we should have some bite to require you to control that odor as has been promised by Mr. Varnadoe and others. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because my concern is I was -- came to this meeting perfectly happy because if you're going to have to comply with the existing laws and regulations and we could come up with some penalty to try to have -- would you say some bite for that, then I'd be happy, but now they're telling me that that's the existing law and it smells awful right now. So obviously the existing standard as enforced by DEP or EPA is not sufficient for our standards. MR. SMITH: There's a double standard. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Tell me that, please. Let's hear about that. MR. SMITH: Well, I -- I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there input from the rest of the board in having some sort of penalty if they are not controlling odor on a regular basis? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was, I mean, one of the reasons that privatization was so attractive to me was that it was going to make the landfill situation better for the residents out there, and odor is a major concern of that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In fact, this whole discussion started because they told us that they could control the odors to the owners' satisfaction, and we said in response if that does not come about, then we're going to move the landfill, and that's where this whole thing started. So, you know, I agree that meeting the specifications and regulations are one thing, but we are interested and we have asked you to control the odors to the residents' satisfaction, and you have responded by saying you can do that, and now what we're asking is how do we know. I mean, what happens if you don't. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It appears then we have consensus and we can define that sometime in the next two weeks. I'll move on to the next item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe I have one just prior to that, Commissioner Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Page six, section 2.2 talks about the baseline studies performed as a requirement. My concern here is that there are elements that may come up down the road that were not discovered in a baseline study such as cell leakage in an area that is being reworked. In other words, there was no leakage when the baseline study was performed; however, five years down the road leakage begins to occur. You pop up and say, well, it cracked because you guys designed it, you guys built it, you know, yeah, we're working it, but it's not really our fault. I think I see that as a reasonable situation that may happen, and I just don't know what our protection is. If it wasn't addressed in the baseline study or found in the baseline study, are you wholly responsible, or are you going to come back and say, look, you guys need to share the cost in this, it really was your design, your construction. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine, if I could suggest -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's right next to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I think that regardless of what they think it says or what, you know, it presently says, we should direct our staff to make it say that the contractor's liable for everything forward from the baseline study period and that they should contract to that effect. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The fact that you're an attorney and suggested that, I'll go with it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it says that already. MR. SMITH: I think it does. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The environmental audit, 2.2, earlier I mentioned. Again, we didn't get any agreement. That I thought it should be an engineering firm selected by the county rather than by the contractor. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I thought -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought we had agreement on that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we'd generally agreed on that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we agree on that? Okay. Thanks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good idea. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On page eight, section 2.9, unacceptable and special waste, third paragraph,"Contractor shall not dispose of any category three special waste as defined in Exhibit C unless it's been processed in a manner which would allow lawful disposal." An example that comes to my mind is it's illegal to release Freon into the atmosphere when you're processing white goods. The county currently has a program to reclaim Freon from white goods. Will the contractor continue to do that, or will the Freon reclamation program be discontinued? Because I fear if that is discontinued or not included as part of this, you're going to have one of three things happen. People are going to dump their old refrigerators and what have you illegally, or they're going to take an ax handle and, whoops, Freon got out before they take it to the landfill. I hope we're going to continue that. MR. GOODLETTE: It's part of the hauling company contract. I think with most of these issues and consistent with what Commissioner Mac'Kie was saying, as we're going through these, if you give direction to your staff as to the issues that you think are of concern and they can focus on those and get language to us that is acceptable to them, we can respond. This is a little like, you know, shooting in the dark. With all due respect, I mean, I don't want for our clients to be here indicating a willingness to something. Then we get language and the language is -- you know, makes it more problematic. I'd rather you give direction to your staff, ask your staff to focus on these issues, give them the benefit of your concerns, let them address those, give us the language, and then we can agree on it. And I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to expedite -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a census from the board the scenario I just -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- raised could be a concern? Hopefully we can deal with the Freon thing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Mr. Goodlette's comment makes sense. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Next paragraph down, "Contractor may require lab analysis of a sample of any waste." Again, the lab chosen by the contractor, I would like to see that chosen by the county, or, as a matter of fact, we have the lab ability to do much of that work. My preference would be to see the county choose that. MR. LORENZ: We'd have to get a contracted lab for a lot of the hazardous waste. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Household waste collection center. I mentioned this earlier today. We didn't get a specific answer with it, but that's Exhibit G, first page of two. The out-of-pocket costs I mentioned. Disposal can be a very high cost. That can be -- We talk about $25,000 per year, and then out-of-pocket costs can potentially be hundreds of thousands a year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We covered that because the household hazardous program will remain with our hazardous waste disposal company now, the one we have right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is currently budgeted -- Was that the one that's currently budgeted at $151,000 a year? MR. RUSSELL: (Nodded head.) MR. LORENZ: (Nodded head.) We could take the term "disposal" off of the fee schedule of Exhibit G and then we have that in there. That's currently listed in Exhibit G. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 2.15 on page ten,"County Employees: Right of First Refusal." Maybe this was discussed. I've got two or three questions on this. How many employees do we have right now? MR. LORENZ: 36. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many of those has Waste Management suggested? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To hire? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To hire. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 18. MR. LORENZ: We have a total of 36 on staff. Eighteen would be associated with the landfill. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other 18 will still have positions with the county or will -- MR. RUSSELL: We have -- We currently have some vacant positions. We have 36 allowed budgeted positions, but we have some vacancies that we -- because of attrition. We recognize it may be privatized, and we have to fill those slots. So we haven't discussed specifically how many staff they would require. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My concern is, are there any current employees who are going to be potentially be left out in the cold strictly by numbers? I'm not talking about qualifications or -- MR. RUSSELL: That's never been indicated by Waste Management. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, what I have heard from Waste Management is that we're talking about operational personnel. We're talking about who's out there on the landfill running it right now, and that they have reviewed their status and pending -- that the only thing that could stand between them and keeping their jobs were things like the drug test and those kinds of things, that they were prepared to hire our people right now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dudley, does that include 100 percent of the people that are out there? MR. GOODLETTE: Of the operational people, I believe that's correct. Yes, that is correct. That's our understanding. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It mentions in here -- my page is slightly creased, but it says something to the effect of terms and conditions of employment generally applicable. Do our current employees assuming -- as Commissioner Hac'Kie said, drug tests and so on, as far as we know, do we meet those generally required? MR. GOODLETTE: Yes. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: And I have a concern on the retirement system. I'd hate to think we've got somebody that's got nine years in to the state's system and is now going to be moved over to this and they lose all of that. I'd like to see us look at either leasing employees with, say, more than eight years' service for a time frame to them or doing something to protect those employees who have the vast majority of the time they need to be -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To be vested. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- vested and protect them. MR. GOODLETTE: If your staff and human resource people tell us how we can do that and submit language to us, you know, we're happy to try to work with them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd suggest we approach that at seven years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm over to page 12 if anybody has more before that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hine's been answered. Okay. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I had something on page 11, section 2.19. One thing I'd request -- I understand most of the complaints that Waste Management would get would be via telephone, and they have a form that they would fill out and record it on. What I'd also request is that they enclose in that paragraph that we will receive the -- you know, a copy of written complaints in original form. They talk about filling out a form for phone complaints, but if they ever receive letters, written complaints, I'd like to see those submitted in original form along with all of their phone complaints just to make sure we have the chance to review all forms of complaints that come to the waste facility. Does that sound reasonable? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I'm on page 13,"Responsibilities of County," 3.1, "Waste Haulage." The county -- It reads, "The county shall deliver or cause to be delivered all solid waste to the facilities. The county shall cause its franchised or licensed haulers to control the flow of solid waste to the facilities." Mr. Weigel, I need your assistance here. But according to -- and I can't cite the case, but a recent supreme court ruling went down six to three, I believe. Government can't control where haulers dispose of their waste. We don't have the ability to cause to be delivered. It's not going to be a problem if we award this because it's Waste Management and I suspect they'll deliver themselves, but it just doesn't seem appropriate that we require something of ourselves that the supreme court has said is illegal. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. There's no question there obviously. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We need to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you'll address that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We need to correct that verbiage. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Request a change in language in that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 3.2, "Closed Portions of Landfill." "Contractor shall not be responsible for any costs of closure excluding gas control." And this is different, I guess, than what I read in the RFP. I apologize. I don't have the page. I have it here somewhere, but I get so many papers I don't have the page of the RFP referenced which says, and I quote, "Take over and operate landfill," and a couple of lines later again quoting, "You are to provide closure, post-closure," period. So I'm a little concerned here that this is not in compliance with the RFP, that we need to do our homework and make sure that it is. If it's not in compliance, we need to correct that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it is your intention to be responsible for those closure and post-closure expenses? MR. SMITH: Commissioner, if we -- again, if the landfill contract runs its full course and we have accumulated all those monies, then we would be responsible under this contract for the 30-year closure and post-closure. Under the early termination, then the way this is written the county would be responsible for the post-closure costs. We would be responsible for the closure costs. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there's nothing different -- Your statement applies to all of the existing cells whether or not they are filled or open or -- I mean, it includes two and three. MR. SMITH: That's correct. MR. GOODLETTE: And to the extent that there's inconsistency with the RFP, if your staff would focus on those and provide language, I'm sure we can work through there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The leachate disposal you answered somewhat this morning when you said in Immokalee the stockade or the juvenile facility out there will be located nearby. How nearby is that? What is the expense of getting a force main in there, and what additional expense will be incurred by bringing it to the Immokalee site? MR. RUSSELL: Engineers are looking at those costs right now. Originally our leachate management plan was incorporated in the expansion of Immokalee landfill where the additional cells became temporary retention areas for leachate and the treatment of that leachate. But under this scenario, an alternate was needed because there wouldn't be any future cells and that we will be filling only the existing capacity. As it happens, the development of this boot camp provided for a lift station a very short distance -- I'm going to say less than a quarter of a mile from our existing cell, so there was an opportunity there to have this lift station send this leachate in a force main that short distance to that new facility. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you get a breakdown of that for me before we do whatever we do with this? A point was brought up earlier today, the item at the bottom of 13, goes on to 14, "Scale House Personnel and Procedures," the RFP asked to include the scale house. At our request, that's since been changed, but the statistics did show 56 cents a ton for scale house operation. And since that time, the price certainly hasn't been dropped 56 cents. It depends on whether you use my math or Mr. Pickworth's math, but it's somewhere between 4.7 and I think he said $6.7 million. We were just multiplying a different number of years, but it's a lot of money there, and I'm wondering why that hasn't been -- if that was originally contemplated in the RFP and since those were opened, have been removed, why the cost hasn't dropped accordingly. MR. GOODLETTE: We'd have to -- That's the county's number. That's not our number, I'm told. So I think we need to find out from your staff why that number is what it is and focus on that in due course. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to assume there was some value to that -- MR. SMITH: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- from you all. MR. SMITH: There was some value, but it wasn't nearly as much as the value you're putting on it. We just -- We operate a little differently. We -- MR. GOODLETTE: But we can work through that. I don't think again -- and to expedite this, we understand your concern, and we can work with your staff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a concern just about -- I didn't understand why -- Can you tell me again why we chose to have the scale house operated by county personnel? My concern is circla, and I don't want us to be an operator. I want them to be the sole operator for future environmental liability purposes. So what is the reason why -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: ton and -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think I can address that. Okay. Because we're paying them by the Thumb on the scale? Is that -- Do they have their thumb on the scale? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- MR. RUSSELL: Matter of verification audit, and we face the problem of, you know, how do you write a certain verification of all those numbers into a contract, and it just became apparent that the best way to go is to be in control of those numbers and that activity there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My next question was on page 15, 3.10, "Purchase of Landfill Equipment." The RFP used the word "acquire," and the original RFP did not say "at no cost." I understand the addendum that went out thereafter said it could be assumed that equipment would be transferred at no cost and that it would be given back to us at the date of termination at no cost. This, in my mind, appears to be giving away one to $2 million worth of equipment. I don't know what the exact value is. Some of that I know has some age on it, but some of it does not and -- MR. RUSSELL: I think the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask the question? MR. RUSSELL: Sure. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Equipment has a life span. Iwm told some of the big pieces out there have a life span of 10,000 hours on them, maybe five, six years. Even if we go only with a ten-year contract, therews not going to be anything left to give back to us out of this. So I feel like it seems to me wewre giving away a million dollars plus in equipment knowing full well welre not going to get anything back, and Iim wondering why we would do that. MR. RUSSELL: The premise was that whether you sold this equipment or not, that the net effect is just going to show up in the tipping fee that youlre offered by the proposer. So whether they have to come up with the cash amount to give back to the county and then cover that in the tipping fee, the net result is the same. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So welre subsidizing the tipping fee by the granting of equipment. I had a suggestion on this, and Iill go ahead and stick it out there, and that is that it only makes sense that we have a fair market value of the equipment we give to them as they assume operation, the time at which their operation is terminated, we have a fair market value of the equipment that is available, and the county has an option either to pay them the difference if welre going to reassume operation or for them to pay us a difference if whatls left is less than what we gave them. That would make sense to me. We know what we started with. We know what we have in the end, and we adjust accordingly at that time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, you know every time itls going to go down because equipment -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They may buy new equipment in the meantime, but I want the county to have the option of either acquiring their equipment for our future operation or for another vendor to assume it. I just want to know what do we give them -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we have -- This contract gives us the option to buy their equipment at termination. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, it doesnlt. It allows us to get back the equipment we gave them but not all equipment -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: At no cost, but we also have the right to acquire their equipment, if I remember reading that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would just like to see more equity placed in that and that we know what we give them, we know what fair market value is when the operation is terminated so that we can determine whether or not they owe us money, we owe them money and that we have an option either to purchase or not. I just -- I donlt want to just give them something and then be asked later if we want to buy back whatever it is they have left. That was the inequity I was concerned with. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Iid like to back up to page 14, paragraph 3.7. And as I read that, I noted that there was no time requirement or measurement to cure the deficiency that we might want to point out to them. What is the standard? What -- you know, like to make sure that therels something in there that has whatever the standard time frame is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It references 7.1. I believe that controls it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 7.1. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While youlre digging that up, did we have a consensus on doing the fair market value of what we turn over to Waste Management and receiving fair market value of what we either take back or have an option to purchase? Does that make sense? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We can try to do that. I'm not sure that we don't have to allow them ordinary wear and tear. If we don't, they're going to pump up -- pump up the tipping fee and that's probably -- you know, I don't have any opposition to that as long as we know that that's what's going to happen. If they have to start paying for their ordinary wear and tear on the equipment that we pass to them, they're going to pump the tipping fee up, and that's okay as long as we know that's what they're going to do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. It just puts it on an even keel because they're operating like every other business on the face of this Earth. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Paying for the equipment that they're using. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're getting a true dollar amount of what we're paying for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: (Nodded head.) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Were you okay with yours? Back to page -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I haven't found it yet. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Back to page 15 -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Specified in 7.1. Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 4.2, "Termination of Operations." Again, I'm just concerned we have the possibility now of 21, 25, 27 years, whatever. I'd feel more comfortable if we put some cap that -- Everybody's not happy with ten, but something so we know we're not -- under no circumstance would we be there 27 years. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where are we in the contract again? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 4.2 on page 15. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we'll refer to that in more detail I think when we get to 7.4, but I just wanted to bring that up. 4.3, "Closure." Never mind. We'll get to that too. 5.3 on page 16, "Changes in Law." "In the event of any change in law .... This is the third paragraph under that .... which increases the contractor's costs of operating the facilities and is not compensated for pursuant to section 5.2 hereof .... I love those legal terms .... the county shall adjust the current fees to compensate the contractor plus a profit margin of 10 percent of such increased COSTS ·" This jUSt kind of flies in the face a little bit, I guess. If they are already making a profit on their services that apparently is enough to satisfy them, I'm not sure why if I have a change of law there needs to be a profit on that change of law over and above what it is. It seems like if there's a change of law and they're already making their profit, they shouldn't be penalized any by it, and we should adjust the tipping fees accordingly, but they shouldn't be rewarded by a change of law by having yet more profit that year either. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The way that was explained to me is that the change in law requires the contractor to put the money up front to make those changes. In other words, we're paying them a per-ton fee over a period of ten, 15, 20 years. When the change of law occurs, whatever it takes to get it done they have to pay for immediately. So the 10 percent is a compensation for that money being pulled out of what may be another revenue-producing area and put into complying with the federal law. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the way I read it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That's how it was explained to me, and it kind of made a little more sense when I heard that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, apparently it makes sense to -- I don't know about you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think it's just saying that they get a maximum of 10 percent on the increase in their costs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would their costs be -- Well, I don't know. We're getting into too many details. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I just want to know whether we're going to give staff direction on that or not because how -- I read it a little differently. The bigger the change in law, the better for Waste Management is how I read it. If there's a big change in law that requires some dollars there of $10 million, well, then they've made another million dollars profit on this contract and I -- to oversimplify it. But to guarantee 10 percent on any change, the more changes and the bigger changes means the more money and bigger money for them is how I read that. So that's why it raised a red flag for me. Can we play with that wording? And if there's not a consensus of the board to do that but -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I see the concern, but I see the explanation also. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's my opinion that the 10 percent is justifiable and reasonable. I agree on the surface it looks funny but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See, I guess because all change of law may not require an up-front capital cost. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, this is only addressing any increased cost. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. The change in law may have an increased cost but not have an all up-front capital cost as suggested by you at which time then there's no need for the extra 10 percent. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: If we set a maximum profit margin of 10 percent, would that satisfy you? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: (Shaking head.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. If there's a change in law, again, the bigger the change, the more money they make. I don't understand the logic there. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't want them to be able to -- We need to cap. We need to define what is the profit margin we are willing to accept or -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it says in here,"Plus a profit margin of 10 percent." I'm just saying why because of a change in law should they get an additional profit over and above the base of the contract. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I understood that to mean only that whereas right now their profit margin is something either 13 or 26 percent, depending on who did the math, that the profit margin for that new enterprise would be limited to 10 percent. And if that isn't what it says, that's what I'd like for us to instruct our staff to make it say. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, perhaps you can before we see this again have some -- MR. WEIGEL: I believe that's what it says. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think so too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that acceptable? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if it could be clarified, for God's sake, let's do. It's an important provision. It ought to be crystal clear. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 17, 5.4, "Unusual Increases in Cost." The contractor may, not more frequently than once annually -- the same number of times we hear from Lely Barefoot Beach -- petition the county for an adjustment in the then current fees based upon unusual and unanticipated increases in cost thereof not otherwise provided for in the CPI or in changes of law. I realize this isn't binding and the county can say no. Right now once a year seems like an awful lot to come back and ask for an increase over and above -- you're going to get an increase for CPI every year. I would like the question that was asked earlier if by some odd reason CPI declines, if we can expect that as well. But change of law will allow an increase and an increased profit now. It seems to me somewhere you've got to draw the line. There's a risk in doing business and to come back and say, well, there might be some unusual things. Yes, there might be. But that's the risk you take when you enter into the contract, and I'm just wondering if this isn't asking a bit much by having this over and above the others. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would just suggest that we can take it out and the net effect is the same because all it says is they can ask us. Right now it says they can't ask us more than once a year. If we take it out, they can ask us whenever they're in the mood because contracts can be amended by the parties. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we disagree, it goes to arbitration based on another clause in the contract if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just as soon leave it in so that -- and if you want to make it, you know, less frequent than once a year, that's one thing, but let's at least limit the amounts of time -- how often they can come back would be my goal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three years. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I'm having a difficult time visualizing if we have already made provision for changes in federal or state law that affect the operation -- just the title "Unusual Increases," I guess I'm having a tough time putting my finger on exactly what would trigger that. You know, to have a blowout in the tire? I mean, you know, what -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sure they'll find something. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What would be an unusual increase? I'm a little lost there so -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For heaven's sake, let's limit the number of times they can come back. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's not only unusual, but the word "unanticipated" creates a problem too for me because that term "unanticipated" begins to cover the fact that, oh, geez, when we went over the last price increase, we hadn't considered such and so, and that's an unanticipated cost. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wouldn't mind hearing from them as much as once a year but not more often than that. I want to leave something in there to protect us from the Lely Barefoot Beach situation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your preference is to leave it as is? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mine is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'd like to see the time frame increase. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Biannual or would it be bi -- No. "Bi" would be half. I don't know. I forget. "Bi" is two. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: "Bi" is two. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: "Bi" is two. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm fine with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Every two years then? Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Have you got three over there? Three for two. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: "Changes Requested by the County." It's the fourth line down in that. This is under 5.5. "Within ten days of receipt of the county's request, the contractor shall prepare and submit to the county a budget estimate in line-item detail showing estimated amounts for labor, materials, subcontractor costs, design costs, and contractor profit." And then the county shall advise the contractor of the county's decision as to whether to proceed. It appears that that is going to be a simple yes or no, I take a leave -- take-it-or-leave-it-type thing, and I guess I'd like to have a little more leeway in that the county would like a change. You all tell us how it's going to be, and if we don't like that, we can pound sand. That's how I read that, and I need that softened up a little bit so there can be a little room if we require some change for some negotiation there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How about if we add the language, "In the course of its review, the county may request a conference with the contractor for purposes of discussion and negotiating specific details regarding scope, cost, and time requirements for the requested change"? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who's the lawyer? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Off the top of your head that's pretty good. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wow. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Almost as if he read it out of the existing contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to say, that's already there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dear God. No wonder you said it so brilliant. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What? Are you saying that John couldn't be that brilliant otherwise? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. No. No. No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just proves I can still read. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one question for the attorneys in the room as many as we have still remaining in the room and that's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the only people remaining in the room. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the indemnity clause. I kind of read that, and I'm not an attorney so I'm going to have to rely on the attorneys, and I just want a general -- I want a comfort level of how secure we are with the wording in that clause. Can we -- Knowing we're going to be named in any suit if it comes up because we're the landowners, is this strong enough to go into court and say, "Here, Judge, we've got this clause. We want out of the suit." MR. WEIGEL: Well, it doesn't quite work that way. Indemnification is a contractual obligation between the parties, and so we say -- if we are sued and improperly sued, we say,"Here, Waste Management. We've been sued. Our contract says you indemnify us." We, the county, will continue to be named in the lawsuit, but we will be assisted, held harmless, indemnified, carried through the travail by the other party. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All the financial responsibility will go to Waste Management. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. And in somewhat similar manner, we indemnify them under this agreement too. Now, typically the county, the County Attorney's Office, we prefer to have contracts where the county doesn't indemnify anybody, but in the cost of doing business negotiations, this has come out with a -- well, it's somewhat limited but indemnification from the county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because our indemnification as I read it of Waste Management is only relating to liabilities arising out of or incidental to the county's operation of the facilities prior to the effective date. Theirs is -- They indemnify us for everything from the effective date forward, and we've defined that by that environmental audit that sets the baseline. MR. GOODLETTE: That's your traditional indemnity. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just wanted some comfort level as to the indemnification clause that we were properly indemnified. I think we all know landfills could get you into a lot of trouble not knowing what the future regulations are going to be. It's just an unknown. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I was just going to say, just to be clear about it if we're not, then our lawyers are certainly fired and, you know -- I mean, it's their job to be sure that it does that and it better. That's their job. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel is not sweating. I think we're okay. MR. WEIGEL: And I'm not vested either. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He's not what? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Vested. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Page 20 under 6.3,"Insurance, .... Environmental Impairment Liability." We've heard several times over the last several months the $10 million combined single policy. I'd like to know -- I've had a couple of numbers thrown out at me that I haven't had verified, but I'd like to know the cost of the average cleanup over the last four or five years for landfill disasters across the USA because ten million sounds like a lot, but if it takes 40 million to clean these things up, then it doesn't do us much good. And by the same token, if it takes five million, then do we need to go that far over and above. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We ought to -- ought to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have some track record. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- Make our staff determine industry standard and be sure that these levels are high enough. I think that's a very good point. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I would agree with that. Always nice to know how much of your back side is covered. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: That brings us to 7.4. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm at 6.4. We had a lot of public comment regarding the county shall reimburse the contractor for the annual cost of the bond. Did we come to a consensus that that's okay that we chip in I think it's 21 grand for that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Boo. Hiss. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if not, do we need to direct staff to give us some indication as to -- I know that was a part of the RFP; is that correct, Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: Yes. That's right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why? Because we weren't sure what it was. I mean -- MR. LORENZ: When we developed the RFP, we weren't sure what level we wanted to specify so we wanted to go through the negotiation and understand what the cost would be; and, therefore, we negotiated it separately. You're looking at ten cents per ton for the purchase of those performance and payment bonds. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would be my opinion that we fold that into the contract and add price per ton so the county doesn't have to pay for it. I mean, if it's a cost of doing business, let's make it a part of the contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Then you need to make it -- Then you're going to have the rate payers pay for it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you know, we keep coming back to this, but if it bumps the price up and it's a more realistic view of what it takes for someone to step in and assume the operation, then I think we owe it to the rate payers to show them that true dollar amount. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, guys, we ought to have people paying their share based on their usage, not on the value of their home. And, you know, if the county pays it out of general funds COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a good point. I agree with what you're saying. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bump it up and include it would be my choice. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess I would say like to ask the board to -- for our staff to look at other contracts around the state, and possibly the United States, as to what the norm is in other contracts for refunding these bond payments. I mean, if it's the norm, fine, we can push -- you know, include it and bump up the rate payment. But if it's not the norm, why should we do that at all. So, of course, that means they're just going to increase the tipping fee anyway. MR. LORENZ: I guess that was the question. Are you asking Waste Management to accept that ten cents a ton as part of their fee in the first place. If not, we've basically shown it is that, yes, we will have to -- ten cents a ton is going to have to be passed through to the users whether it's passed through to the users from Waste Hanagement's side of the house or passed through the users through our side. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we pass it through our side, we do it through ad valorem taxes. MR. LORENZ: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No. It's included -- MR. LORENZ: Still continue the -- still -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, then I don't care. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's included in -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't care. They're paying for it so I don't care who pays it. So I agree with Commissioner Matthews. MR. RUSSELL: I think the point is that the RFP specifically asked so we would get an apples to apples price out of the proposers that that variable cost be left aside so we specifically asked proposers not to include that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The users are still paying for this, and the county just chunks it up front and gets paid back for the user fees; is that correct? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: fee or in the user fee -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: it. So whether it's in the tipping It's still paid through the -- The rate payers are paying for COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and that's what's important. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough for me, kids. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me see if I can try to pull together a majority of what we talked about on this because we talked about a lot. Upon this decision of filling cell six or as of the eighth anniversary, tenth anniversary, 12th anniversary, or 14th anniversary of this agreement, that will get us option of years so that if we want to opt out and have our permits ready in eight years, great, more power to us. But if permits run slow as Commissioner Hancock had indicated, we can still have an opportunity. We don't close the window of opportunity on ourselves. I'd like to include the idea in here -- and I don't know the legal wording would be but the -- I think it was Commissioner Hancock's idea to have the escrow for closure and post-closure regardless of who does it. That seems -- Was that yours? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It wasn't my idea, but I wouldn't mind getting credit for it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. That seems to make an awful lot of sense. It doesn't matter whose -- Take credit where credit is due. We want to -- but I think the important thing is the rate payers will have paid that regardless of who's running it, and that money should go toward closure as anticipated regardless of when we opt-out. So I'd like to see that escrow included in there. I have a real big concern here. "The county shall reimburse .... This is -- Third parties are mentioned several times in the contract. But, "The county shall reimburse the contractor for the cost of terminating third-party contracts which cannot be terminated by the contractor without liability to the contractor." Waste Management has a whole slew of subsidiaries, and if theoretically it would be to their advantage to enter into 25-year contracts the day after this is signed and if we opt-out in eight years, we would be responsible. I'm not saying you'd necessarily do that, but theoretically that could work that way. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we could get them for major damages if they did. I mean, that's just bad faith. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's a literal-- an extreme example, but there are other -- you know, you could be on a shorter time scale. I don't want to end up paying because y'all have your subsidiaries in there. MR. GOODLETTE: Draft language that covers you and that sounds like something very reasonable. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, frankly, I'd like to see on -- getting away from 7.4 just for a second, third parties are referenced a number of times. I'd like to see any third-party contracts bid out by Waste Management as opposed to automatically being given to -- I'd like to see that written in here somewhere if it's not. I don't believe it is now. So I think we need to have that written out. MR. GOODLETTE: I believe it is addressed in the contract, but we can work with the staff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you'll help me find that after. Apparently we cannot -- We've been told by Mr. Weigel one of the updated versions that was given to us had an option to move the vendor or the contractor with us to another location. Apparently we can't do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would we want to anyway? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's the situation we're at now. Probably not. I don't know if there are other areas we need to cover in 7.4. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, there was. On 7.4 one of the things we need to make sure that we put in there because of the commitment that we made today to the public was that this board gets a decision point, we get a trigger point, and so I think we should say that 18 months, for example, from now is the first trigger point to make the decision on moving the landfill. Let's make sure that we cover ourselves in there because that's what we promised today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that be appropriate as an element of this contract? And if so, I'm just -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I guess it is. It has to be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- particularly in fairness to Waste Management so they wouldn't have capital expenditures, if we can tell them 18 months from now we're going to opt-out in eight years -- I don't think we'll have that luxury, but if we can tell them that, they should know that so they don't spend any unnecessary funds four years from now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words, we have an 18-month notice provision under our opt-out at either eight, ten, 12, or 14 years we have to give -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But -- yeah, but I didn't mean that that would be the only trigger point. I'm sorry if I give that -- because there's also -- in 7.4 there's always the million tons before cell six is closed. There's always that one. I didn't mean to extract that one -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- or delete it. I just meant that we need an additional trigger point because we made the commitment today to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What you're saying is not so much to do with notice to Waste Management as that we in the contract commit that within 18 months of its effective date, we will review -- we will make an initial review and decision on whether or not we're ready to opt-out. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How about if we just -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that what you're saying? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- include something in the contract that says that the contractor will accept a first notice of termination within 18 months -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, okay. Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- or something like that so that -- so that we can't do it sooner than 18 months unless we want to unless you want to make it 12 months. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I just want to make sure that we consent to these five people right here, this board gets a trigger point, and I think Mr. Weigel fully understands and will be able to get the language in there with no problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure you can. MR. WEIGEL: I'm already writing, but in regard to the 18 months, there may need to be a parameter of not before 18 months but perhaps not protracted 18 months until when the county has the ability to give that first notice -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would think not sooner than 18 months but also not after -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Eight years. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not after November 1996 because we want these five people to have a decision. MR. GOODLETTE: That is almost 18 months. You may be talking about not less than 12 or more than 18 months. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I think we're talking 12 to 18. MR. WEIGEL: And in all cases, the 18 months starts running from the effective date which is not the date of the agreement that it's entered into, but it's a date that's defined in time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you may have to adjust the 18 months back to some -- MR. WEIGEL: Pick a time so it can work. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You may make it August 31 of 1996. MR. GOODLETTE: You could also date it -- just a suggestion -- not -- you know, not earlier than March first or not later than October 31. Then you've got a date certain, and the effective date isn't going to be the controlling method. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As long as we fulfill the commitment we made this afternoon, that's my concern, without disrupting the other opt-out provisions that were put in there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Based on Commissioner Constantine's suggestion of eight-, ten-, 12-, and 14-year opt-outs, I think this board would be well served to have staff direct Waste Management to prepare the cost of the opting out based on the projected waste stream. We need to know what dollars and cents we're talking about on each one of those steps. So, again, on proposed waste stream at a 4 percent increase, what's it going to cost at eight, ten, 12, and 14 for this county to opt-out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask something else, something that Mr. Varnadoe and Mr. Goodlette and I had discussed, is at the those -- at the time frame, at the time we were just talking about the tenth anniversary, but I'd like to see a public hearing required on those anniversary dates so that the public is assured if we have not prior to that made the commitment, but at the very least we have some public review at that time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a public review and at least a public update as to what the process is if the permit -- if the permitting has run into difficulty and what our staff anticipates as a probable permit date. I think that's a good idea. MR. GOODLETTE: We agree with that and have drafted language that we think is appropriate and can be incorporated. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A secondary concern prior to finalizing conditions in 7.4 is we have the financial complication that if we reduce the waste stream, we are making the termination of our contract at either eight, ten, or 12 or 14 more expensive for ourselves, and it was mentioned this evening that these two things are counterproductive. They work against each other. As we try and find increased recycling opportunities, we're putting ourselves further and further behind in the financial picture. I don't know that there is a real solution to that because understandably any contractor out there has got to have some level of minimum payment each year in order to keep the rate at a lower point. So I wish I had more than just a question for that, but I'm concerned about that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a fair concern. I think anytime -- It's difficult for us to juggle or to balance cost. We want to get the best cost we can, but we need to take care of the community. And the Lely sewer example again, it would be cheapest to put 32 million gallons on that site, but it doesn't serve the best interest of the public. So I think you're right. It may end up a little bit higher but serve the best interests of the public in the process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Also, we were talking earlier today and, as I said, on Sunday when I was going through this, I ran some numbers based on the tonnage collected and tonnage buried, and if we can commit to the 700 tons a day that we're doing right now and look at eight years out, in order to have that same tonnage which would presumably be at the same rate except for CPI, we're going to have to be recycling by that time 52 percent and that's a significant number. It's a good goal. I'd like to see it higher even, but whether we'd be able to do that in that short a time -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 52 percent more than we are now or 52 percent total? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 52 percent total. Right now we're at 28 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that include -- because we actually recycle more than 28 percent, but we only get credit for 28 percent. MR. LORENZ: Total recycling rate is 46 percent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'm just using the numbers that were in the proposal of what the tons collected are, and then you gave a 30 percent allowance for what was recycled, and 70 percent went in the landfill. What I'm saying is that eight years out, if we can find a way to commit to keeping this at 700 tons a day, that we will by then in order to do that have to recycle 52 percent which would be -- what is it? 24 percent more than we're doing now? Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, no. If overall we're recycling 46 percent, we only get credit for 30 because of C and D. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know, but these are based on 30 percent. MR. LORENZ: Disposal portion of it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. We would have 24 percent fewer. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A little slow but I'm with you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Good. But I'm just saying then that -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, it's unrealistic that the waste stream would be reduced so significantly through recycling that we're going to be in deep whatever that -- but it may happen, and I think we need to recognize that and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It may happen, but we'd have to increase our recycle efforts 24 percent in order to achieve that. MR. LORENZ: You'd have to go to a significant volume reduction technology to hit those levels. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Not saying we won't do that. But, I mean, to go to a significant volume reduction method like that, we're talking also about a significant expenditure and, you know, whether we would commit to that all at one time or phase in is -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have we fairly exhausted 7.4 to a consensus of the board? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think so. MR. LORENZ: May I make a clarification? I missed the concept of the escrow for closure. There's a requiring that the Waste Management escrow monies for closure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Right now if we opt-out after ten years as it was written, there would be a three and a half million dollar cost to us and the monies collected in the meantime it appeared -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Post-closure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for post-closure would be pocketed by them and they'd be on their way. That seemed inappropriate if that money has been set aside for the purpose of post-closure. Regardless of who is responsible for that, that money should still go toward post-closure. So we're suggesting rather than them taking it with them, that should go into some sort of escrow for that purpose. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or that some reasonable alternative -- I'd be willing to listen to other alternatives that maybe our staff would develop with the goal being clear that we want that money to be available to us if we have to do the closing and post-closing. But whether or not the methodology is escrowing the money, I'd be willing to listen to whatever proposal was made. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. That's fine. I agree. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. Come up with something. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our next one is 8.6 if anybody has anything before that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Quite frankly, when I got to 7.4 I said, "Whoops." COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 8.3 just for informational purposes, I know "force majeure" is another one of those legal terms. It's kind of fun to say. I know it's kind of a standard deal, but the word "strike" hit me like a ton of bricks, and I was assured that Waste Management certainly does not use union employees in these operations. Is that fairly accurate? Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I didn't think they did. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I had 8.6, "Charges, Levies and Taxes." The contractor shall have no liability under this agreement for the payment of any governmental taxes, charges, levies, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah for any such obligations imposed upon the contractor. What kind of dollar amount is likely here, and what kind of dollar amount is possible here, and why wouldn't we want Waste Management -- and, again, I know it comes back to the rate payer -- but to pay their own taxes and fees related to the job that they're being hired to do? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition, I requested specifically information regarding the Green Valley situation where -- Did you receive copies of that article? In an area where Waste Management has had some experience and some operation called Green Valley, the landfill was in more or less a tax-exempt status, but since they privatized the operation to a for-profit company, a later decision was made that they were subject to taxes ranging between three and $22 million that Green Valley is now responsible for. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Talking about real estates taxes, ad valorem taxes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And in reading that, I wondered, one, how does it apply to this situation; and, two, how do we make sure that our residents aren't subject to it? And if I'm out in left field, tell me and I'll go away. But I want to make sure that we cover that because it -- again, it stuck out and caused a question in my mind to make sure we protect our residents against that kind of situation. MR. GOODLETTE: It's our brief understanding -- again, I don't know how much detail, but there was perhaps an overzealous tax assessor, tax collector tried to impose some tax, lost at the trial level, lost at the appeal level, lost at the most reasonable appeal level, and it's just -- it's one of those situations that you've -- you're involved in a lawsuit that you win but it's still a lawsuit and we -- Waste Management has prevailed at every level in that litigation. I think that's correct. And so I'm sorry but, you know, sometimes you're -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they've exercised without success at every level possible? They just haven't run out of levels yet? MR. GOODLETTE: I think they have run out of levels. So that's -- We think that's an anomaly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, my three questions, Mr. Lorenz. What kind of dollar amount are we talking about here, and what kind of dollar amount is possible here? And the third one, of course, is coming. MR. LORENZ: This year the solid waste enterprise fund paid $40,000 -- MR. RUSSELL: 46,000. MR. LORENZ: -- $46,000 payments in lieu of taxes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And why is that not included in there? Why wouldn't we want them to pay their own taxes? Again, I know it goes back to the rate payer, but it seems like it ought to all come out of one place. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was that in the RFP? Was it excluded? MR. LORENZ: It was originally -- well, I guess that some of the generations from our staff's perspective was that the county still owns the landfill. It's a county asset in terms of owning the landfill. The solid -- the rate -- the enterprise fund owns the landfill as opposed to Waste Management. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So what you're saying is either the rate payers are going to pay -- is again the same thing? Either the rate payers are going to pay these taxes on our side of the enterprise fund equation or they're going to pay them on Waste Hanagement's side of the enterprise fund equation? And, again, I don't care which side, but I think the point is appropriate that it be paid by the rate payers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have anything until we're on to Exhibit B, page 29. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have a question on the proposal that staff brought to us for the staff's optimization. I think your proposed tipping feel was like -- what? $22? Is that what it was, Mr. Lorenz? MR. LORENZ: $20 I believe. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: $20? All of these additional fees that we're looking at in this contract, were they imputed in the staff's proposal? MR. LORENZ: Give me -- For instance -- Some of them were. Some of them weren't. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For instance, the 5 percent management fee and the 15 percent fee, the $25 -- the $25,000 fee for the hazardous waste program. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We don't have apples and apples. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now we've got a $46,000 thing, and was all of that included in the staff's proposal? MR. LORENZ: The hazardous waste fee was not part of it because we're looking simply at the disposal cost, what it takes to bury a ton of garbage. So the hazardous waste was not part of the staff's proposal. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: When we compared your proposed rate with Waste Hanagement's proposed rate, were the elements used in coming to those two proposed rates identical or somewhat different? MR. LORENZ: They were as close as we could get. They were closer by excluding those components than if we would have included them. So when we propose the -- our tipping fee, it was the tipping fee to simply bury the garbage, not to run the cell -- the construction demolition debris, not to run the hazardous waste collection center. So when we compared tipping fees, our tipping fee would be directly comparable to the tipping fee that you have in your executive summary of -- well, $14.02. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So you're comfortable that we've got net comparisons here? MR. LORENZ: Yes. We tried to back that out as best we could, and we felt comfortable we had apples apples comparison with our costs. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Start seeing all these fees. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess before we leave the body of the contract, I have to bring up one more time that dreaded liquidated damages provision. And I don't want to throw a wrench in the works and if this board is happy to go forward without such a provision, then so be it, but I'd like for staff to investigate the enforceability and at least report back to us on the possibility of having a financial penalty associated with violating the smell standard. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's kind of what we were talking about earlier too. When we were -- When I was reviewing the deficiency paragraph, I didn't see any measurement nor did I see a time frame by which they would have to cure it so -- and possibly liquidated damages would come in there if they don't cure whatever it is in a given amount of time, these damages come in -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want you to know that I think the concept of liquidated damages in this process in this scenario is going to be difficult. I wish that we had an ordinance. I wish that we had an ordinance with the financial penalty and that it was already in place and that we could -- it's not going to be completely simple. I don't feel like we can tell David Weigel go draft us a liquidated damages provision that will be enforceable. So I don't want to hold that carrot out, but I do want -- I do want our staff to investigate what are the possibilities, what are our options for financial penalties. And I think it's very important -- it is to me -- that the penalties be imposed not necessarily based on federal and state standards since I've been told that those standards apply to Collier County in its operation of the landfill right now and we know that's unacceptable, that we somehow define a smell standard and impose a penalty for failure to comply with it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we need to do some things with that, and we can get into those details later. But there should probably be an allowable number of days just because you're going to have certain days and certain weather conditions that cause that. But once we're beyond that number of days or beyond consecutive days or some limit, I think you're right, and I think you're absolutely right, that we need to set a local standard or have some impartial person, someone from the state, DEP, or someone who comes to protect you all from Mr. Smith who lives down the road and just doesn't like Waste Management and calls every day and says it smells. We need -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It can't be the number of complaints. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. We need to have a -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, that's just -- It's got to be more quantifiable than that for God's sake. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I -- Yeah. I do hope we can do that. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm real interested in hearing -- I never got to hear -- You say that there's a double standard, and I am presuming that you're saying that the state and the EPA are stricter enforcers on private operators than they are on governmental entities. I'd like to know more about that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In your completely unbiased opinion. MR. SMITH: I've been in the private sector and the public sector. MR. GOODLETTE: We'll be happy to discuss that. I mean, that's clearly one of those issues we're going to have to see language worked through and then come back and revisit at a future date. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Goodlette, although we'll be requesting staff to work on that type of language, it's certainly something that the number of years you have in the industry, knowing which chemicals are detectable and what amounts that would indicate odor problems, those kinds of things would be beneficial to our forming that language. So any information you have that would help us arrive at it, I think staff would appreciate it. MR. GOODLETTE: We have been and will continue to work with your staff. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got just a couple of questions in the exhibit portion. Exhibit B, page 29. During our most recent public hearing in Golden Gate, we were told that the additional height from 108 feet to 155 feet only gave an extra 2.4 years total. The extra height really wasn't a big portion, and I wonder if the board might agree to just keeping that at its current height of 108 feet. That would still allow at the maximum 21 years. It wouldn't put any -- We were told by Mr. Varnadoe at the Golden Gate Community Center that would not put any undue burden on them, and would I think leave a lot of concerns as far as visibility and as far some other things. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll agree. MR. GOODLETTE: Just again -- and not to belabor this, but that was put in at your request, the 155. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. GOODLETTE: I just want to make that for the record. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You mentioned something about a motion? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I have a couple of other items if I could find them. The -- let's see. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In the operating plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. It's in the -- page six of the operating plan under 7.0, bottom line, first paragraph. Screening .... Future fill areas on the north side of the site will be filled from north to south," which is good but,"with screening berms on the north side since the closest residences are on the north side." I wondered if we could put some definition on what those screening berms will be, height, width, what their impact will be and so on, just to make sure that we don't get into an argument if the neighbors don't feel they're being protected down the road. Next page, 8.4.1, "Initial Cover." I think we've addressed this. Commissioner Hancock, refresh my memory. You said you didn't want a tarp, period. That would not be -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was my suggestion that a tarp only be used in emergency situations where a soil cover is not -- in other words, not enough time to put a soil cover down. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. That takes care of that issue. Page nine of the operating plan, 9.0, "Gas Monitoring and Control." The second line there concerns me some. "A gas management system will be designed." I assume we're not starting from scratch on this, and perhaps before we sign this we can have a little more detail on -- we have some here -- but a little more detail on what that gas management system is anticipated to be. I know it says we'll get that in 120 days or something anyway, but I'd like to have some idea assuming y'all will use something similar to what you've used elsewhere to what that will be. I hate to just leave that wide open. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're asking just for more information prior to signing of the contract as to the design of that management system? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I hate to just leave that wide open. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: By the way, whatws the best guess on having the gas control system up and running? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Time frame-wise? COMMISSIONER MACwKIE: Like how fast can you do it? MR. SMITH: About six months. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Six months. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we can put that on paper as well because I don't know that that's outlined. 9.1, "Gas Control Systems." It talks about minimizing off-site odors, and I think through Commissioner Mac'Kie's suggestion we can address that. Minimizing isn't eliminating, and we need to have some quantifiable level there. MR. GOODLETTE: What provision? I'm sorry, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 9.1, page ten of the operating plan. MR. GOODLETTE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Minimizing isn't eliminating, but I think Commissioner Mac'Kie has addressed that. Don't get excited, but I think I'm getting close. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: While we're on this, we spoke a moment ago but I'm not sure we reached closure on the issue of the -- the odor control is one of the main impetus for going into this project. If we're not happy with the odor control, do we allow ourselves an opt-out for that reason specifically? What did we do on that? We discussed that a while ago, and I don't know that we brought that to consensus. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we have penalties for individual problems and then if -- Mr. Weigel, I need you to help me with this section, but there's something in there if they're not performing. MR. WEIGEL: Under the contract in chief, for repeated defaults there can be termination. We can specify that repetitive odor problems without an improper cure, et cetera, we can define that. That falls under a default. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the real operative problem is to get a determination of what the measurable odor quantities are. That would be our problem. MR. WEIGEL: Determination or termination? I thought you were talking about termination for odor that was not being cured. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I did -- I did both. I may have misspoken. MR. WEIGEL: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's getting late. MR. GOODLETTE: You're talking about the standard on the one hand and a remedy on the other hand. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We need the standard so that we can enforce the -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're playing DCA. Give us the stick by which to beat you with. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The third and fourth to the last pages are the equipment list. Again, did we get three of us to agree that we want to do the -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: What was this? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The third and fourth to the back. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to look at fair market value date of turnover and fair market value date when it comes back. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Explain to me again -- you corrected me once before on the Exhibit G, first page. We talked about out-of-pocket costs and I had my question helped correct me there. Help me again. What is it we did to correct this problem of CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Which out-of-pocket costs? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: $400 disposal drums. MR. LORENZ: Under operation of weekly household hazardous waste, we took out disposal on out-of-pocket costs on page 35. Is that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yep. That answered my question. Finally, I guess understanding the 52 percent recycling requirement that would be there to make the volume go down. But, again, just for our comments sake, I wish we had a straight rate we could expect instead of a quarter pay system because I do fear that right now they're not affordable, but if alternative technologies come in that are affordable three, four, five years down the road and it can reduce by 70 percent, I don't know that's going to happen, but if it does there's a disincentive for us to do it here. For what it's worth, it concerns me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. And it's a disincentive until we opt-out of this contract. In other words, if the technology becomes available and we'd want to avail ourselves of it in eight years and we're not opting out for ten, we have two years that we're just biding time. So I don't know that that can be fully solved, but I agree that maybe we can try and address it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The other thing too I think, you know, if the alternative technology -- many of them exist today but they may not be affordable. And even -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or may be too smelly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That too. But even if we were to make a decision to go into that tomorrow, it's going to be a period of time before we have it up and running. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's true. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I'm not sure that that's a concern that we have to really look at at this point. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my final item as promised, I have a motion. I'd like to move that this board of commissioners set the following time table with which to work on the alternative site; that within 28 days of today, we review the six sites as outlined by Mr. Lorenz and his staff and any other sites that may be applicable and rank those sites, again according to economic and environmental liability and whatever criteria may be appropriate; that within 91 days of that meeting, we audit. In that time period, we look at those top three choices for suitability, and I guess we referred to that as the fatal flaw studies, but see if there is any reason why any of those top three are not suitable; that by whatever that date that leaves us in June after the 91 days, we assign final rankings to those and enter into negotiations to purchase the top-ranked property. Perhaps I'm naive but it seems to me between June and December we ought to be able to close on that property in six months of negotiating; and January 1 of 1996 we begin the permitting process; and that once the other land is part of our possession, that we move forward with declaring the other or we consider -- I'm not sure we can say that we will at this point, but that we consider declaring the existing 300 acres surplus property. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have a difficulty in agreeing with trying to maintain that schedule. One problem is where you give six months to close on the property. What we're going to run into is not just the people who own it but everyone who lives within a couple of miles declaring that they have a devaluation of their existing property and that they need to be compensated, and to say that we can do that in six months I agree is very aggressive. We can try, but I do want to caution that that is not likely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to set that as a calendar and then -- I realize there may be some people who object, but of each of these sites, they are agricultural zoning surrounded by agricultural zoning and so the value -- taxable value anyway is minimal anyway. So there may be some questions there, but we're not looking at residential property. We're not looking at -- As I said earlier, I think that it's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: (inaudible) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yep. I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've been using my lap-top here to take notes, and I think I have sort of a summary of where we are. And I don't know, Commissioner Constantine, if it's appropriate for all of these items to be included in your motion instead of just the time-line or if the time-line -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to add some things? Let's hear what they are. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. What I understand that what we're directing staff to do tonight is privatize the landfill; the contract is going to go to Waste Management; we're going to incorporate changes that we've articulated tonight, and those are early termination at eight, ten, 12, and 14 years; develop a plan to ensure that all the funds for closure and post-closure are available no matter who does it; that we require public hearings at eight, ten, 12, and 14 years; and that we include language to require us to keep our commitment to the schedule that you've just outlined. In other words, that's the 18 months we have to be talking again; that the current height be the limitation; we define the screening berms; we tarp only in an emergency; that the gas control system be in place in six months; that we investigate some kind of a penalty provision for smell violations; and that we address fair market value on the equipment coming back to us. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to amend the motion as it stands because I'm not ready to say that we are going to privatize and we are going to do it with Waste Management. I think we're obviously headed in that direction, but I'm not ready to say for sure that I'm going to vote on yes on a contract which they have said we can't give you an answer to some of those questions, and our own staff can't give us an answer to some of the questions. We have a number of questions that have been raised, and I think we need to give staff direction and Waste Management direction to address all those. And if we come back in agreement on all those, then perhaps we'll all vote for it. But until we see what the response is to all those questions, I think it's premature to say, yes, it's a done deal. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. The direction that we are going in, however, is toward -- our goal is to privatize the landfill and to make a contract with Waste Management that if -- if they accepted the terms we've described tonight would be something we would seriously consider approving. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We may be putting a little too solid a nail in that. I think what we're saying is we have given direction to staff this evening to modify the contract as we have set forth. I know you went down a long list, but for fear that you might have left something out in there, I would not want to include that into our motion. I think if there's any amendment to Mr. Constantine's motion to incorporate the full of the evening is that we've directed staff to work with Waste Management to bring this proposal back to us, this contract back to us including the modifications we've requested this evening, and at that time we'll discuss the merits of the contract. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend the motion to include that and put a time frame of not to exceed 21 days. If we can do it in two weeks, great, but that way it will give us an extra week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we do this in three weeks? MR. LORENZ: To be back on the agenda for the first of February? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Three weeks, whatever -- MR. LORENZ: The next Tuesday in February. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would be the 7th. MR. LORENZ: That should give us two weeks to work out the language. MR. GOODLETTE: Not later than the 7th if we can-- you don't meet on the 31st, the 5th Tuesday. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. We don't meet on the 31st. MR. WEIGEL: We'd do our best to get it into the agenda package or distributed. You know, this time it was distributed in -- close to the agenda time. The contract itself ideally could be in the agenda package itself, although in large contracts we will not put them in the agenda. We will just tell in the executive summary where they are available from staff. MR. GOODLETTE: We would certainly hope that because some of the concern that has been expressed about the contract, the lateness of the hour of it, we would all work toward getting that done at the earlier date so everybody has more than adequate time, including the interested citizens who are interested in it, to review it before that meeting. That certainly is not an unreasonable target. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My motion then is simply the time table I laid out -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- And to bring that back within 21 days. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would -- I agree with what you've laid out there. I think from the perspective of the citizens who are here talking tonight and my own perspective of reviewing my notes on the contract given us today, I'd like to try to have this contract by the 31st so that we have a full week to review it and the citizens involved have also. Now, that gives us a two-week time frame. Can we do that now? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But we don't meet on the 31st. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I know but I'd like to have the contract on the 31st. MR. GOODLETTE: Commissioner, we will certainly work with your staff in that vein and in looking at the 31st as a target to give you adequate time and others who are interested in this important subject time to review it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. We have a motion from Mr. Constantine. We have a second from Mr. Norris. Is there any further discussion? MR. GOODLETTE: Let me just say on behalf of Waste Management, we do appreciate the time that you've spent. I know that this has been a painful, excruciating, time-consuming process, but I think it's important, and we're hopeful that this will culminate in a contract. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Eight hours later I'll call for the vote. All those in favor? Opposed? There being none, motion passes 5-0. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My only other motion would be to adjourn. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. Third. Fourth. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We -- we -- Are we going to like -- We're going to avoid staff communications then. I had several issues that I wanted to get out, and I will get a memo out to that effect. And I guess we have a quick public comment, please. MS. BARSH: Yes. I see that it is scheduled on the agenda and so I thought I would take the opportunity of making public comment at this time. I'm Frances Barsh. I'm a voter and resident of Collier County. I have some questions. Will there be any public workshops on this item scheduled in the evening so that the people can be well-informed and especially want a public workshop to replace the scheduled one that was cancelled. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which item is that, Miss Barsh? This landfill item? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This landfill item? MS. BARSH: On this item, yes. The item in the contract COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Barsh, you've had a number of evening workshops '- MS. BARSH: Yes. But I understand -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- hearings '- MS. BARSH: -- that there was one that was -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You know, it's time to get on with the decision at some point, and that's what we're going to do now. MS. BARSH: There was a public workshop that was scheduled and cancelled. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We've had several of them, Miss Barsh. MS. BARSH: Regardless, there was a cancelled public workshop. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's evening now and this is a public workshop. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are eight hours later and I want to say '- MS. BARSH: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- with all -- with all due respect, had this been a six o'clock meeting, it would now be 2 a.m. Okay? MS. BARSH: I don't think that the people would mind. There are people that could not come this afternoon. There were many people that took time out from work this afternoon. After hearing the sentiments that were expressed by the people, that you had spent so much time in discussing this contract is really appalling. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well -- MS. BARSH: And I know that the eve -- that the time is late, and I know that the chamber is empty, and it reminds me of the session of Congress when they scheduled their time at midnight so that they could award themselves raises. This is very, very, very -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Barsh, you're going to have to make up your mind. You say you want evening hearings, and now you're saying you don't like evening because no one's here. Now, would you please -- MS. BARSH: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- make up your mind. MS. BARSH: The people would have been here if it were scheduled for the evening. They were here in the afternoon and had to leave by the evening. It is unfair, and I feel that there should be more public information on this. I think that this is being approached without sufficient thought. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why don't we put this under board communication to discuss time certain at our next meeting for this particular decision. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't have any objection to that, that next Tuesday we'll discuss a time certain, and if that time certain by this board's decision is in the evening, fine. I don't object to having an evening meeting. I think we've made great progress today just in going through this contract item by item. It's my intention to have this contract available for all to consume by January 31. We have a week then to review it, deliberate it. If it's necessary that the next meeting be in the evening, I don't object to that. But what we need to do is to make sure that we can get through it in a reasonable amount of time. I mean, if it were 2 a.m., this room would be just as empty at 2 a.m. As it is right now, maybe emptier but -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, we'll put it on the schedule to have that discussion next week if that's acceptable to the board to make a time certain. MR. PERKINS: Can I make a comment? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Real quick. It's time to go. MR. PERKINS: In that period of time frame, how about getting the agencies, all the agencies that are in -- that could be involved such as Caterpillar, such as Gas Groups, get these people down here. These are experts on this thing. Now, they're willing to come in here, and I've got the information. You people couldn't discuss it, and I tried to provide some of it for you. I have it here with me tonight. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They did not submit qualifications. They did not submit proposals. They showed no interest in Collier County whatsoever when we put an RFQ and an RFP out. Now, I know you can get information from them, but they didn't want to do business in Collier County. They simply flat out did not submit anything. MR. PERKINS: Apparently they're not up to speed on it, but you've gotten a letter from Caterpillar because I've got a copy of it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Moving onto a different item, I hope the newspaper reports that John Norris stormed out in a huff before the final -- MR. KENNY: Commissioners, just a point -- Michael Kenny, Waste Management. Just to put this Caterpillar to bed, I wrote you a letter, Commissioner Matthews. Unfortunately the mail didn't go out yesterday. We are in joint -- We have a joint venture with Caterpillar. We -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I read that in the newspaper. MR. KENNY: You know, we develop these systems. So Caterpillar and Waste Management work hand in hand. So it's not like we don't know the technology. We helped develop it. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only other item I have under BCC communications, as long as the hour is late, do you want to talk about those raises now? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're not even told those. MR. PERKINS: Put your broom on the wall as a constant reminder. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're adjourned. Thank you. Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 WATER MASTER METER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR SILVER LAKES - CASH BOND ACCEPTED See Pages Item #16A2 ACCEPTANCE OF LETTER OF CREDIT FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.523 "VALENCIA AT ORANGETREE LAKE 4-1", LOCATED IN SECTION 23, T48,S, R27E See Pages Item #16A3 - Withdrawn Item #16A4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND COLLIER COUNTY See Pages Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 95-49, AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "MANHARDT SUBDIVISION" See Pages Item #16A6 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR PARADISE POINTE, PHASE I - CASH BOND ACCEPTED See Pages Item #16A7 AUTHORIZATION TO PERMIT STAFF TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO LEVITT HOMES FOR A TEMPORARY SALES TRAILER ON PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMHOKALEE ROAD TO SERVE THE HUNTINGTON LAKES PUD - FOR A MAXIMUM OF SIX MONTHS Item #16A8 RESOLUTION 95-50, AUTHORIZING THE RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "BAREFOOT ESTATES" (COMPANION TO ITEM #12C1) See Pages Item #16B1 PETITION AV-95-001, TO VACATE A PORTION OF A CANAL EASEMENT LOCATED ON A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 2 EAST, (PELICAN MARSH) See Pages Item #16C1 BID #94-2308 RE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED WITHIN EAST NAPLES COHMUNITY PARK - AWARDED TO HANNULA LANDSCAPE, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $5,433.40 Item #16El BOARD EXAMINATION OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF BONDS OF COUNTY OFFICERS Item #16G1 RESOLUTION 95-51, ADDING UNITS TO THE 1995 COLLIER COUNTY MANDATORY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION CORRESPONDING TO THIS RESOLUTION See Pages Item #16G2 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 AND 1995 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRM_A_N TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATES ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMHISSIONERS See Pages Item #16H1 CONTRACT AWARDED TO HANNULA LANDSCAPE FOR BID #94-2304, VISUAL BUFFER LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $11,583.65 Item #16H2 BID #94-2306 FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO COHPUTERS FOR AUTOCAD DRAFTING WHILE REJECTING THE LOW BID AND ACCEPTING THE SECOND LOWEST BIDDER - AWARDED TO SPEEDY BLUE IN THE A_MOUNT OF $9,400 Item #16H3 STIPULATED ORDER FOR DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEHENTAL 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 Item #16H4 RECOHMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE REIHBURSEHENT TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHHENT ADVISORY COHMITTEE FOR EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED DURING ATTENDANCE AT THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BEACH PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY TO BE HELD JANUARY 25, 1995 THROUGH JANUARY 27, 1995 IN ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA Item #16H5 SUPPLEHENTAL AGREEHENT NO. 8 TO THE CONSULTING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MCGEE AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION H.S.T.U. Item #16H6 See Pages LISTING OF CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE VINEYARDS COHMUNITY PARK PROJECT AND AUTHORIZATION FOR A NEW TEN PERCENT (10e) CHANGE ORDER LIMIT FOR FUTURE CHANGE ORDERS Item #16J HISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16J1 CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRIASER'S OFFICE 1994 REAL PROPERTY No's. Dated 106-109 12/28 - 12/30/94 Item #16K1 BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO CLEAN UP FISCAL YEAR 1994 DEBT SERVICE APPROPRIATIONS Item #16L1 RESOLUTION 95-52, SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS AER SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 8:56 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan, RPR, CM Christine E. Whitfield, RPR