April 22, 1993 (2)�l OKEECy
1 a 0
V 111
City of Okeechobee ed./
RLOA10
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
APRIL 22, 1993 MEETING PM SESSION
VERBATIM
cau_
afgr
NOTE: 11 indicates you cannot understand what that person is saying
on the tape.
indicated a person was interrupted while speaking.
HARVEY> Before we leave me might want to get back on this city /county joint
workshop deal. Is there anything any board member wants to add to these
things here right now so. You know the way I understood this thing, we're
going to discuss what's on this agenda and that's all we're going to discuss.
PORTER> No. 4 says other points concerned by both parties.
Yea. So that basically says you can discuss anything you want to.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> Our thrust is to try to keep the discussion to this
general format. In other words lets talk about this and this and this and
then when you get down here towards the end of the meeting if you want to let
your hair down, let your hair down.
HARVEY> I don't have a problem with this thing.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> We can modify this thing if the board so desires.
HARVEY> No I kind of agree with it. I was thinking that we were going to
rather than get there and say, "well I didn't know we was gonna present $2
million I didn't know you was gonna do this, you just sprung this on me
tonight."
CO ADMINISTRATOR> That can be discussed Mr. Chairman if you want under item
3A number 6 where it says should we decide at this juncture what both parties
plan to do with the appraisal once it's been received that may be something
you want to talk about. In other words if it's real expensive maybe we don't
want to proceed with it. They may give you the opportunity to discuss that
if you want to unless you wanted to get more specific and you could do that
too. The phraseology a lot more specific as to how you want to address.
CLOSE> Mr. Chairman, this page was this drafted by the City?
CO ADMINISTRATOR> No. It was drafted by the County and given to Mr. Drago.
Mr. Drago reviewed it, made some suggestions. We've made a few
modifications. That was the direction you all gave, you said for
CLOSE> So this is jointly?
CO ADMINISTRATOR> Yes you said for the two of us to get together and work
it out and we did that. I just felt it would be easier if we had something
in hand. So I typed it up and sent it over there, he looked at it and he
made some changes. The council has not necessarily approved it.
CLOSE> Mr. Harvey should we,,,,,,,
PORTER> They'll be no City Council meeting
they going to approve it?
CO ADMINISTRATOR> They may no need to. You
just giving it to you if you want to make any
approve it.
prior to this meeting, how are
didn't way you needed to. I'm
changes to it you don't have to
CLOSE> Under #3 where do we go from here? Do we proceed to have an
appraisal performed on the City's system. After system under the
right with the that South Florida Management
would in fact fund that appraisal through the, not grant but cooperate
agreement with the county, that $1.5 million cooperate agreement. There's a
good chance that they, if we said that, that would eliminate that discussion.
There wouldn't be well, you know, you mean their not going to pay.
HARVEY> They commented that before they would have to approve this
appraisal before they would consider paying for it. And I hope to if the
board so wishes I'd like to try to set up a meeting with Sonny, myself and if
you all want to come or something you can and all these Water
Management District people and try to get a feeling of what they'll pay for.
I got one feeling that unless they would kind of a figure set in there kind
of like what you said at one time. That they might not fund this thing
unless they was pretty assured that something was going to happen you know.
I want to try and nail that down before this meeting as best we can.
CLOSE> I totally concur with you on that one issue because I think its
maybe a mute subject if they did not agree to that, we would need this
meeting because I think it was a agreed on by yourself and the mayor that
basically the last item that we're griping with is the value of the existing
utility system and this was a way to get this out of the way and since then
the problem has dropped out with the South Florida Water Management District
and have become more involved on that one issue. But then if you have this
meeting, not trying to complicate things you might not need to
HARVEY> Is there anything else anybody feels like we need to put on there.
Maybe we need to give them a littler prior notice and let them try to be
coming up with their feelings or their decision, if not we'll just go with
what we've got.
CLOSE> Mr. Chairman, #4 under 3A. I don't know if this is even a valid
concern. This firm with the, the City manager chose. I was just wondering
if they haven't been too involved with the process to this point to possibly
use one of the other two. I hate to use the word because there
were a lot of issues like you know letters from the three consultants that
the city uses saying that they object to the scope of the appraisal and you
know based on this firms scope and that this firm in fact was picked by the
manager verses picked by the City Council and I really, really apologize for
bringing that up but its been something this I kind of wondered about. The
other side of the coin is they spend a lot of time and he's spending a lot of
money through the interview process and maybe answering some of these
questions I don't know maybe their in it too far.
2 o-r Z.3
PORTER> There name is next to comment #4.
Lot's of people are talking.
BETTS> Well that's when we can ask how involved they are and we can decide
whether we think we ought to we don't have any real straight
information as to how much they may have or may have been
influenced.
CASSELS> implication of the amount of feed back and
BETTS> But this would be a pretty point blank forward question. Say
okay,,,
CASSELS> I'd like to think that the caliber that we settled on to give
the city the choice character that they are not going to be easily
tainted but if you go back to the original,,,,,,,
HUGHES> I would like to see copies
didn't we have a sample he sent to us
research done to determine what was
utility system.
requested and what we actually ended
HARVEY> I want somebody to tell me if they can.
changed?
of the original, the amended scope and
as the recommended scope? I think some
the usual scope for an appraisal on a
yes what was recommended what was
up with after it had been revised.
Has the scope been
CO ADMINISTRATOR> I have seen documents and I am not the expert on this so
please forgive me but I have seen documents that indicate there was a scope
prepared in early January, comments were received from the consultants for
the city. The intent being to clarify some points and some language some of
it was that clean up stuff some of it was technical errors. Scope was
modified as a result of that I think all three consultants, Knepper and
Willard and PMG and Reese, Macon reviewed the scope and made comments. Most
of them I think were technical. There were some areas that I thought were
outlandish in terms of what they wanted but that was in terms of other areas
not really directed to the technical review of the project that was more of
a well let's have a big open ended kind of thing so that we shouldn't say
it's only going to cost $3,000.00.
THERE'S A LONG BLANK SPACE IN TAPE HERE
HARVEY> I don't think the general scope has changed very much.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> I don't think the over all premises (TO MANY PEOPLE
TALKING HERE CANNOT UNDERSTAND) did the document say it was a 3.12 mgd
and 3.2 mgd okay that's just technical things.
HARVEY> Things of that nature is the only thing that I saw that changed.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> nature that was changed but no but
you can hang around
CLOSE> the way it was presented to me there was a ton of substance. The
Pnn 3 oP23
way it was presented to me. I guess it really doesn't matter,,,,,,,
HUGHES> I was under the impression it was a lot of,,,,,,,,,,
CLOSE> The bottom line is and then they come back with what I and
this will be my third time, they came back, instead of council deciding on
these three that we felt like were creditable top notch firms and I agree
with Mr. Cassels and I think that is a very correct statement. Instead of
them picking from that short list they let the manager do it which puts him
and the city in a very precarious situation by doing it under those
circumstances verses in the sunshine in the open. And then the next thing
you get the three letters from the three of the city's engineering
consultants questioning their scope of work. Even if they weren't of
substance. There you go and we're still in the same firm and I don't
want to be pessimistic or anything else I think that's an issue that I rather
not hammer it out the way I'm saying now, I know it will not work with them
across the table. It just isn't going to work. I think they would become
defensive over that and I know, let me put the shoe on the other foot. I, no
I can't say it that way. I know I would be against if our county
administrator was just, I mean walked on water. I would, you know, I'm
totally supportive, that just doesn't fall under administration when you pick
a consultant, a CPA firm and engineering firm. That doesn't fall under
administration like a policy decision does.
And it falls under that category and statutory there are areas for instance,
you know we've hammered this our, CPA's, engineer's statutory they have to be
interviewed, you have to short list them and so on and it has to be done
before the entire commission or school board or city council. Okay, and
this, because of that because it wasn't competitive I guess excluded
them from the City Council making decision verses the manager, I guess, I
don't know. I've never seen it done like that, that doesn't matter it just
makes my devious mind wonder. You know I just rather go in saying you know,
everything's lily white and everything's above board and you know, the best
I can because they're going to pick holes in it like I'm doing now so at
least I want to try to do the best I can and let them shoot as few bullets as
they can. I don't want to give them more arrows to shoot at us. I think if
you sit across the table, in that scenario they would become defensive and I
can understand that. I don't want to do anything or say anything to make
them become defensive and I guess if you said to them we feel like you ought
to pick one of the other two firm they might become more defensive. I guess
my question is, just leave it like it is? It's just a big concern I've had
from the very beginning.
HARVEY> It is a concern. I don't know of John do you have any
idea?
CASSELS> You've got to weigh a lot of factors to decide whether you feel
that it is worth while to expend the funds on an appraisal. One of the
factors you've been dealing with is minimum and maximum numbers $10
million if your going to have here $50,000.00 why spend money, point those
things out. Another factor you've considered is whether you feel comfortable
with the independence of the particular appraising firm in light of the
attempted input by the consultants from the city. That's just another
concern that you've got. You've got a concern about whether South Florida
Management will agree to pay for the animal once you've done it. So all
these things go into your decision as to whether you're going to proceed with
an appraisal. But I don't have any clear direction. I think one of the
things that was somewhat offensive in the feed back that we had gotten from
the city was that not only. It was almost like everyone jumped on the
appraisal to pick it apart before it was even formed and to make sure the
scope would preordain a result. That bothered us. It also bothered us that
they, which just bothered us. And another thing that bothered us was not
only are they going to have in the wings all their specialized consultants
ready to pounce on it, but the County should pay for them to be there for
that function, that bothered us.
PORTER> There could be to follow what John's saying what you may
want to do is whether you want somebody as a consultant on this particular
expertise to be paid for under this contract as they want their people to be
paid for and you want somebody to represent you. Like a who you have
used and /or retained and whether you want them to review the plan. That may
be something to think about. And informal discussions with them is that they
understand that just as they have somebody look at it. In other words if you
were in the process of doing this do you want to go with both your guns or do
you want to just go with one gun and let them have both of their's?
CASSELS> If you weren't talking about such expensive appraisals. Normally
if you went into these kinds of negotiations, the City would get its
appraisal so they know exactly what, how valuable, what they have to offer.
The county gets its appraisal done strictly no allegiance but to the county
so that you know what you think it's worth. And with no problems with
either. Usually when you get together and agree on a joint appraisal you
have agreed of what your going to do once it comes out. If it's this amount
or over, all bets are off, if its this amount or under all bets are off, but
if it's within this range we will do this with the appraisal. But it seems
like with something that should be that simple just cannot come together.
Maybe your workshop will help that.
HARVEY> I kind of still feel like that maybe we need to have this range in
there somehow to discuss what we have in here, you know you can argue that
both ways. I just feel like we're going to need it because we're going, if
we're not, we're going to fool around here and have an appraisal that's
probably going to be to these people or could be. And I kind of feel
like that range needs to be in there. I can't "if" it. At one time I didn't
think so but there was as Mr. Close mention at that time I just,
you've turned me around and I'm pretty strong on the other side. And I still
can I might be wrong, if it is ya'll speak up because I think that
should be there, maybe not.
CLOSE> Mr. Chairman, along the same lines Mr. Cassels alluded to about
maybe we would want somebody like Craig. A. Smith. The thing that is
important to me, and Gene Shrinner pointed out to me. I really didn't think
about it until he pointed it out to me, but you know we've been, and I hate
to use the word, "the good guys cause we've sat here I think
possibly weeks and talked to you know what we're doing is fair. And we
haven't had any professional support, expertise. And what I mean by that is
the City's got these three firms that are monitoring every move that we make.
For instance we paid a large amount of money for a report from Neighbors,
Givens and and they had their consultant literally shoot holes in the
rough draft before it was even presented to us. By some, one of the
stupidest things I've ever heard in my life, it got presented to a ready
committee, never even, the dollar amount that we spent on that thing and
never even got presented to us. It never got past that ready committee and
it was a very poor administrative decision but it happened. One fellow
happened to call the shot. come down to make his presentation to them
and it got shot down.
Then we came back in January with this appraisal offer and again we're
naively thinking we're doing what's right. I was the only one that
questioned you and you straightened out real quick and said you know why they
didn't go in halves and all and again we go in again thinking dog gone, we're
doing what's right. There is a source of money there that could be used and
the key is your know we need this unbiased appraisal that's not from somebody
that's ever been associated with the city or county and everything's moving
good and next thing you know the city brings their guns out. The three
consultants and boom, boom, boom. So you know and Mr. Cassels again brought
up, I need to hush and let him talk cause he's hitting right on the key
issues to me. It's just got to be, it will not work unless an agreement is
made. We're going to take this and it's so important to use this "unbiased"
this clean, this accurate, it best as can be appraisal and we got to agree
with it comes out of the wash we're going to take it and we're going to do
something with it. But we can't have people shooting holes in it before it
even starts. What your saying, it has a lot of validity I don't know how you
come up with a dollar amount verses coming up with a commitment. You know we
want to make this thing work.
HARVEY> But you know its kind of like said this morning "x" number
of dollars we can go with Beach Water, have a new facility $1 million you
know and right where we really need to be and be sitting in an ideal spot
here for any plant because we'll be spending the money on the area
that everybody's concerned about. We're in a good position if we go that
route. And if you stretch your dollar too far just to go in with the City
just because it's the City you know are you doing this guy forgot to
mention him right and out here in the County that's not going to
receive anything, direct benefits from this thing, if so it's going to be
quite a while you know, and try to be fair to the people in the city also and
be fair to everybody, I feel like we need a range in here and I don't know
were the range is at.
Before we go spend $70,000.00, you know that's $70,000.00 and I don't care
where the money comes from, why spend it if it's not going to do you some
good, except just to let you know. And when you get it one side or the other
is going to say well I don't agree with him. Well, you know we're not
suppose to say that, probably one side is going to say well I don't agree
with that appraisal I think it's too high or I think it's too low and it's
more or less going to be wasted.
And you know I kind of feel like we need and I don't know what the figures
should be from 2 to 7 or 2 to whatever in this range to know because we need,
we don't never to forget the idea that $3 to 4 million we can join up with a
brand new group you know. And not have no big debt. I mean, and start where
we need to start, start where we really need to be cleaning up our act so to
la aP2s
P m
speak. So that's the reason that keeps coming back to me about this figure,
we need to be thinking about it. And I really don't know whether I'm right
or not. Whether we need to say well we just need to have an appraisal anyhow
or whether we need to include fee?
MR. CASSELS> Let me say something here. There's been some recent quotes
and all contributed to me that I'm against the utility authority or against
the city or against settlements. I would like nothing more than a good
working relationship with the City. Nothing more than an appropriate utility
authority that serves the best needs of al the county and as recently as last
monday we reaffirmed that to the city that na appropriate authority is in the
best interest of all residents. I do have a fear based on some recent
developments with the City's special attorney in Tallahassee that they are
taking exception with the proposed franchise with Beach Water. I don't see
those things a mutually exclusive I think you can have relationships with the
City and still have a relationship with the Beach Water I don't think you'll
have to do either or unless one of the parties forces it that way but I do
see a pollination starting here that you need to make peace, a lasting peace
with the City or it's going to fall apart and your going to have litigation
or an antagonist situation. I just don't see you can just sit out and have
business as usual because the city has basically upped the stakes to a
certain degree in the comprehensive plan litigation. That they have
referenced in the comprehensive litigation plan litigation the new franchise
proposal with Beach Water so they take exception with that. They look at
that as an infringement upon their future plans so they are not going to in
my opinion take that lying down forever. They see it as an infringement
although we don't intend it to be an infringement. So I guess what I'm
saying is try to go into your workshop in good faith trying to settle
something with them because I don't think if you settle it's going to get
worse and worse.
CLOSE> Mr. Chairman you know it's interesting it pretty much what was said
a year ago. The rock that's in the way is the appraisal and right back at
that same old immovable rock and you know its.
HUGHES> I don't recall, I was in the audience at the time any promise to do
anything with the appraisal other than look at it from the initial discussion
to determine to go ahead and fund this appraisal. I don't recall their being
a promise to commit to it or not. But to get the appraisal, and after the
appraisal t determine whether or not it was feasible to form the authority
from that point and I don't think we can make a commitment of any kind before
you get the appraisal. I don't see how you can do that.
PORTER> Let me ask one thing. John, what advantage would the appraisal
have, if any, from a qualified firm, licensed in the State of Florida, does
this type of work, on litigation for the State or DCA. We're saying
we want to form an authority or handle the water /sewer situation around the
lake or highly populated areas and this thing comes in where it's ridiculous.
I'm not saying it's going to, you know what I mean? Would that help our
situation any? Or could it hurt our situation any?
CASSELS> Well one of the premises applied to the City's challenge of our
comp plan was that we were not committing to maximum the use of their
existing facilities. Which meant the water and sewer plant. Our position in
(9P-03
Prn
the comp plan was that we need to weigh our options and be free to make the
best decision for all the citizens. But when it became time for us to make
decisions they wanted us to basically join with them and as I gave you that
in depth briefing a couple of months ago that we feel some of the
comprehensive plan litigation is designed to get the county's assistance
behind and Beach Waters liability. If an appraisal comes in
showing that there is no value or negative value to the system as a result of
the debt that's been loaded into it or the condition of the facility it's
going to show fairly clearly why it's important for the County to retain it's
options and why we wouldn't want to write in our comprehensive plan the
commitment to only maximize city facilities so in a way yes, but of coarse if
you're,,,,,
PORTER> couldn't the other way around.
CASSELS> That's also true. If it's a gem in the rough then we should be
rethinking how we maximize the facilities.
PORTER> Well if it's a gem in the rough. Then wouldn't be opposed so
much to the authority.
CASSELS>
HUGHES>
PORTER>
CLOSE>
HUGHES> That's all it can be. Now we're looking for commitment for
something that the original agreement. The agreement was of this
three they pick one of the three and the appraisal would be done.
CLOSE> Not the City Manager but the City Council and not have their
consultants shoot holes in it and want to make changes,,,,,
HUGHES> And now it seems were that were building that we want commitment in
dollar figures, that was not part of the original agreement. Unless I am
totally gone.
HARVEY>
here to
want to
CASSELS>
That's true too.
It's all speculation until the appraisal is finished.
That's right.
It's just like a dog chasing it's tail.
No. You are correct. But then Water Management District came in
and said they may not finance that thing unless there is and they
have some insurance here and I can see where they're coming from.
If it's just a fishing expedition then why spend the money.
HARVEY> Why spend the money. You know what purpose are you going to get
out of this appraisal? I mean they want to know,,,,,
CLOSE> Plus there's a little more to this behind the scenes also with
South Florid Water Management. As far as one party saying why are you taking
tax payers money South Florida Water Management to finance an entity, another
governmental entity that would essence put us out of business or bankrupt us
if you're catching at what I'm saying? And that's a very important issue
cs-P 25
pm
that is, that you have to keep in mind.
HUGHES> My next question is why wasn't all this worried about prior to
making a commitment to doing the appraisal with someone else's money?
CLOSE> Because the one entity never came up with this objection and word
it that way until after the fact,,,,
HUGHES> I just like to wonder not going to help us out of this
predicament.
CLOSE> Well if it was just the seven of us sitting here I could. If
you'll just think of everything that has been said today. And I'm not being
biased and I'm not being, you know I know how Tom is I'm and I know ya'll are
sick of me saying this. My whole business is in the city, my residence is in
the city, our county attorney, the long tall handsome marboro man, his
business os there's, we all have so much at steak here and we say and I
believe in all my heart we want to do what's best for the community and the
community is the county and city together. But if you listen to everything
that has been said today. How many times has one of the entities we've
discussed sprung road blocks up? Their engineer was never involved. Their
consultants were never involved. the entities. Look at the things
that we've discussed just today. Listen to the road blocks that have gone
up, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
HUGHES>
CLOSE>
done beat
know,,,
I understand you completely.
Okay so that's I guess the whole point I'm trying to make. We've
this poor old horse till there ain't no hid left on it. You
HUGHES> But we're not getting anywhere. And that's what's,,,,
CLOSE> One of these days, we're going to have to have the political world
and the courage to make a definitive statement and say this is it. You know,
call us a failure, do anything you want say anything you want but this is it.
That's it no more. We're going to do what we believe in our hearts, we've
tried to do everything we could whether we've failed or not is irrelevant.
Now we're going to do this. We're going in that direction and that's the way
we're going and until that time happens, that horse don't have any more hid
on it, we're going to kicking bones now cause we done beat that poor ole
horse to death.
HUGHES> I am very hopeful that this workshop will put an end to this.
PORTER> Tommy, I'm going to say this, and you hit on a very good point.
Politically, I think what were taking a stand on what we're trying to do
politically, now, the authority would be the worse thing we could do,
politically. The best thing we could do is go with Beach Water.
CLOSE>
PORTER>
we want
Absolutely.
So we're sticking our neck out here when we're saying to that cit
to form an authority now they may not think so but you start
spreading that debt service fee out over these county customers buddy you're
going to catch,
HARVEY> I think the best thing you can do is set back and do nothing.
PORTER> Yea, the best thing to do is just say hey we don't want water and
sewer let it go and say we don't care. Cause I do care about the people
being impacted about the debt service. I care about them no being able to
hook up to sewer, impacting the lake. There's a lot of things here.
Charlie's got the best point I mean it may come down to Beach Water's the
best foot to move and that may be the way this thing goes if things don't
work out,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CLOSE> The city can come in later. Nobody's closing any doors. That's
the way it is and we've said this before and it's a little embarrassing to me
personally cause I'm in this thick as everybody else. The city's never
slowed down. They got a plan, they got direction and them fellers ain't
slowed down. Beach, they got a plan, they got direction and they haven't
slowed down. I ain't even going to discus the other folks.
HUGHES> Isn't this a little particular? We have no interest technically
right now in either one but we're fixing to split all of our funds by joining
with a system, it is not adequate.
HARVEY> Let me tell you what's going to happen. If you form this
authority, Beach Water pulls, you give them this franchise, they pull out,
their water customers is going to be paying more money, you know. The City
people, if we going to join in with them, well that dang county bunch joined
in, look at here what by bills is now since they joined in. Well since they
give Beach Water that franchise now look here what my water bill is. We're
the black hats I don't care what happens or what comes of it.
HUGHES> We're the black hats riding a dead horse.
CLOSE> But we got to make a decision. We've got to do something, that's
the key. We've got to do something.
HUGHES> I understand that, but like you say to benefit the highly populated
areas we're throwing everybody else in the county under the,
PORTER> That may be, but I think this one workshop will,,,,,,,
HUGHES> And either bury the horse or cut it up and eat it one of the two.
CLOSE> Exactly if you could the ole marboro man and give him the
floor and let him make the same identical speech he made this morning that
was eloquent with the exception of one little,,,,,,,
BETTS Repeat that to, include the whole thing,,,
CLOSE> Darn right,,,,,
HARVEY> You got that on tape have you? I want a copy of it.
Pnr) to 0e05
CLOSE> You know you'd think we know everything about it. But by gosh
you've opened my eyes up on a few things and that is we're excepting a ton of
liability but in turn the city is also going to suffer because of losing the
revenue. But you know,,,,,,,,,
PORTER> They probably think we're all gullible or opposed to something like
that. I'm not opposed to something like that. I'm not opposed to them
getting a little revenue out of there if it helps run city hall and pay for
some of the employees down there, that don't bother me in the least
somebody's got to do it, somebody's got to run it. Why can't they just come
out and say, hey look it's going to cost us a few dollars here if we form
this authority. Why didn't they come out in the very beginning and say we're
going to have to raise our taxes a little bit to off set this loss of
revenue.
HARVEY> John, on this law suit with the city you know on our comp plan deal
here, if we start to grant this franchise can they, is there anything the
city can do, being they're already servicing that area? Can they get an
injunction against us? Or can we legally give a franchise to anybody we want
to? Like to Beach Water?
CASSELS> We can legally give a franchise to whomever we want to in my
opinion. They are going to argue and object to the franchise that we are
infringing upon their service area. I think one of the Councilmembers asked
at the cit council meeting isn't' this just what Beach Water has been
servicing all along? And it was said yes, basically and what's the big deal.
And that was sort of our situation. I also seem to recall some comments from
the City in the past that they really didn't care whether Beach Water was a
customer or not. That they were going to go through with the plant expansion
regardless of whether they had Beach Water. But then I see more recent
information that maybe they do care. Maybe they all of a sudden realized
you've got to pay for this plant. So they are going to look at this as an
infringement upon them I believe. But I think it's your right to do it.
HARVEY> My question was I guess, can they get a injunction against us for
doing this?
CASSELS> I wish I had a crystal ball. I think the can try. I don't think
they will be successful in getting an injunction against us for issuing the
franchise. Now they might be able to prove that they have a service area
that excludes Beach Water and that some judge may ultimately limit the
territory of Beach Water, that is a possibly. But we have the power to give
the franchise.
HARVEY> Okay that's the meat of their law suit against us on the comp plan
deal about this service area their wanting.
CASSELS> I think that's the true hidden agenda. When you get right down to
what they are complaining about it all leads into they staked out what they
thought was the service area which was the south end of the county and even
though they cannot presently service it they want it still sitting there when
the get to it.
CLOSE> They pretty much exposed their hand Wednesday morning in the paper.
Pin 110
That was the thrust of that article Wednesday.
CASSELS> I think we pretty well had that figured out some time ago that's
the thrust. And that's why as you indicated they are moving ahead with the
well field. Their moving ahead with the water treatment plant their moving
a head with sewer because then the argument will be we've incurred all this
debt to get the capacity to serve this area now you're going to give it to
someone else. They've been moving and they've had an agenda for some time
and we're just playing catch -up.
HARVEY> If we go ahead and give this franchise then their successful in
their suit against the comp plan were does this leave us with the franchise,
us giving the franchise to somebody if their going to come back later on ad
redeem so to speak or say they're entitled to it?
CASSELS> Keep in mind the comp plan litigation in and of itself is not going
to define a service area or really impact directly on Beach Water. What they
city wants the county to do is agree with their service area. And I think
the next step would be to try to stop Beach Water from expanding it's
facility based on the fact that it would violate the county comp plan. So
their doing this in phases. Phase 1 is to get the county's comprehensive
plan to be favorable to their view of the utility service area. The second
would be to then use that comprehensive plan to try to limit Beach Water's
impact on them. Now to try to answer your question more directly. I feel
that the worst, if we had a total loss of the comp plan litigation, all that
would mean would be we would have to go back and insert more language into
the comprehensive plan and re -adopt it. That's why staff has felt that the
complaint from the very beginning is somewhat frivolous.
HARVEY> Explain what you mean by go back and insert more language.
CASSELS> An Administrative Hearing Officer is not going to re -write your
plan for you. He's simply going to say whether you've complied with all the
requirements that must be in the plan or not. If he says either we haven't
put in all the magic words or that we didn't give the city enough notice you
have to go back and do it again. So that we take the plan we correct the
things that the Administrative Hearing Officer found lacking and re- advertise
and re -adopt it. So that's one of the problems we've had with the
comprehensive plan litigation is that it's and you hate to say this but it's
a lot of to do about not much. Because on it's face their complaining that
we didn't give them adequate notice of our adoption and the material that was
going to be in it so if we were 100% guilty, which we do not sa that we are
all we'd have to do is go back and fix and re -do it.
HARVEY> Give enough notice? I thought it was more we didn't give them
their service area?
CASSELS> Now that's hidden down in there.
CLOSE> That is it but,,,,
PORTER> Their not admitting to that.
CLOSE> Right. This is their way to accomplish this by this ridiculous,
LZ cC 23
Pin
not ridiculous but,,,
HARVEY> Wouldn't they have been better off coming out and say your comp
plan did not, we're already servicing this area, this is ours, why not let
your man spell it out?
CASSELS> Because, ad that's an easy question to answer because they are not
servicing what they would like to say the are. They have outlined this but
their only servicing so they want protection for the entire
HARVEY> During the hearing could the thing be amended, well at least give
me the area I'm now servicing?
CASSELS> That's one of our negotiation points that we had been negotiating
with. Alright we will recognize what your actually servicing and then we've
got to deal with, let me back up. We intended to accurately reflect what
you're servicing but we we're not conceding that we were going to recognize
that you have staked out all of the rest of this area. They say oh yes we've
staked it out we have certain rights in it. Then you've got rights and a
court will uphold those right's if you've got them. But the comp plan isn't
the place to recognize them. So that was part of the negotiations we had
been dealing with.
HUGHES> Are they actually providing service to everyone in their current
service area?
CASSELS> No. They do not have the capacity to do so.
HUGHES> Then why do they want that much?
CASSELS> To spread the debt.
CLOSE> To spread the debt and also to stop these other two entities.
HUGHES> To me their whole reasoning behind their litigation is ridiculous.
CASSELS> They could have handled, in my opinion,,,,
HUGHES> If they can't service what their current service is,,,,
HARVEY> They can always. They may not at this particular time. But they
always had the possibly they can in the future. What your going to do now is
eliminate his service area then with all this debt he's going to have
then,,,,,,
Shhhuuup!
HARVEY> That's right
HUGHES> Exactly.
HARVEY> You know, well if I had this service area I could expand and we
could, you know service his fit. But now being they gave his service area
away you people are going to have to pay for this.
1 3&223
HUGHES> That point makes no sense to me that they can continue bonding and
go further and further in debt without seeing on this side where their
showing any fruit from their labors. You know they keep going further and
further but they don't seem to be improving.
PORTER> Beach Water customers have never paid any debt service.
CLOSE> When you go into rival or go into war or get in a fight with
somebody a lot of your tactics or your way of dealing with it, you can go on
the defensive or whatever, but anyway, a big part of it is assessing your
and their style and how they fight and again and I don't know how to say
this in a nice way. But if you look at this other entity and you look
historically how they operate and everybody knows this is the way they do it.
They don't come out and lay it on the table and say these are what our
objectives are these are what our deficiencies are this is what we need,,,,
HUGHES> It's all some kind of game of monopoly. We have a need here. A
desperate need for water and sewer and infrastruction in Okeechobee County
and fancy foot working avoiding the issues and not sitting down and saying
look this is what we need now how do we get their and let's all be honest
about it. This is not happening. Now I realize this is government and this
is politics town but that doesn't mean I have to like it. We're not
accomplishing other than wasting a lot of time and whose suffering for it?
But every resident in this county.
CASSELS> Maybe I can say something that can clarify a little bit of this.
HUGHES> Everybody needs to just needs to grow up.
CASSELS> Chapter 180 of Florida Statutes. Chapter 180 discusses service
areas. Now they, the city, maintain have properly staked out the chapter 180
service area. Either they have or they haven't. They say they did years ago
in 1983. Whether they have or they haven't will ultimately be determined in
court. I can almost predict that. It's staff feeling that the major issues
of the comp plan litigation are just trying to set the stage for the ultimate
chapter 180 process because it would help the city in a chapter 180 battle
with whomever, if Beach Water or somebody else it would help the cit in that
battle to have the county comprehensive plan that supports their service area
as opposed to remain neutral about it. So, you've got a long term strategy
that's being played out here a comp plan litigation is just one part of it,
chapter 180 is a part of it.
CLOSE> You know, I take a little bit of offense to what you've said there.
What we've done. You got to go back historically. And you go back and you
see what they've done. And you see what we've done and in essence we've done
nothing, good, bad, we make a lot of suggestions and we got a lot of dialogue
but as far as actually doing something and you watch it. Look at our report
and you just watch how they do it and frankly I had a belly full of it
years ago and it just keeps going on. And it's not childish and it's not
politics is a bunch of boom, boom is what it is and if you want to grow up,
we want to grow up, hey let's take a stand and let's say. We're going to go
in this direction because Beach has never meandered. The city it's just been
a trucking down the road and we haven't. You know we've been what I think is
just a good ole naive plow boy just hanging back saying we want to do what's
23
best, we know that we're deficient in water and sewer infrastructure because
we don't have any. We know that we can't attract light clean industry.
We're smart enough to figure out a few things. We at another entities mercy
because they have water and sewer infrastructure. We know al these things.
HUGHES> You're right we have to take a stand. We have to quit chasing our
tails and determine what we want to do.
CLOSE> I think we've finally, and I'm proud of us, I think we've finally
making some statements and I think we're by this franchise agreement with
Beach, I think we're finally, by gosh I think we're finally going in a
direction and frankly I'm proud of it. So you know I'm ready. I'm just
tired of this other entity just continuously undermining and you could just
use example, after example, after example. Our engineering facility doesn't
interfere. We just go on and on and on.
HUGHES>
CLOSE>
HUGHES>
to do and
We've been flappen up here for an hour and a half.
You know what their feelings is now since this franchise has kind
of come out, well we knew they had something in the back of their mind
anyhow, they're going to go with Beach they're going to give them a franchise
and they never did want any agreement any how that's how come they offered us
this $2 million and duhdu duhdu duhdu you know. So we're kind of worked
around behind their back.
PORTER>
HARVEY>
CLOSE> We finally did something and it made them mad.
HARVEY> Their thinking and their saying is that all the time thought boy
they was up here and were really going to, you know, and all the time they
was working with Beach behind the back.
CASSELS> I think when you read the franchise it's clear that's not
necessarily the case. We have said consistently that we want the utility
authority. And I don't think any of the commissioners have wavered on that.
And if the first part or step towards that utility authority is a franchise
agreement with Beach Water, maybe that's what you've got to take. But, it is
not mutually exclusive as a matter of fact it specially deals with some
pricing if the Beach Water facility is to come into an authority. Beach
Water had it's concerns about the debt that the city had and we tried to
address by having segregation of the debt to a certain degree. We tried to,
we bent over backwards on the discussion on the Beach Water
franchise
HARVEY>
Mr. Coker
boys owe,
you know,
We told him not to. We told him to stay out of it.
And,,,,,,,
I hope this will give us some clear direction of what we're going
make a decision and either go or say no.
LONG BLANK SPACE IN TAPE
county, after the 2nd and 3rd meeting we've had or something.
he just made it real clear that, you know, with the debt that you
you go ahead with other $5 million, you can forget Beach, I mean
he said my board absolutely is not going to join up with you with
this debt, you know, you boys just county, but we're out, we are
out. You know what I mean? And maybe we should have done the same thing.
CLOSE> Mr. Chairman, my own ears tell me I'm just a drumming on and,
anyway this latest $5 million bond issue. This might not be a proper thing
to say in a public meeting but it's to finance the new water plant. It's to
finance bringing their system into compliance, it's to finance some
antiquated, replace some antiquated, etc. but I've never yet once heard or
read or whatever where it's going to help other areas that aren't serviced
right now.
HARVEY> It's not.
CLOSE> Okay, I wished somebody would say that out loud. Hey you know it's
still not going to get us water and sewer infrastructure in the County. It's
still not going to attract light clean industry. It's doesn't enhance the
county whatsoever, it doesn't enhance Beach whatsoever. I mean are we that
stupid to just lay back,
PORTER> Now we're getting down to the nitty gritty.
CLOSE> Yea, say it like it is, you know.
HARVEY> That would fit in some of our meetings I tried to stress to the
Mayor. And you know, our last meeting, we had a meeting and just a few days
after that you read in the paper where they already that other $5
million bond.
CLOSE> We don't want to have a piece of pipe, we don't want to have the
pipe, give us some crumbs, just give us some, god almighty. Let us lick the
plate the pie came in.
HARVEY> On our agenda, #3 says, where do we go from here? Do we proceed to
have an appraisal performed of the city system? What is the board's position
here?
CO ADMINISTRATOR> Excuse me Mr. Chairman I believe you've re- worded that to
say do we proceed to have an appraisal performed on the system funded with
SFWMD monies via a cooperate agreement?
HARVEY> Yea. Are we going to leave that with no figures to come in on, you
know? Go in high?
CO ADMINISTRATOR> We can make that a question.
CLOSE> I can tell you if you start polling the board in this direction I'm
impressed with your idea of meeting with Mr. Williamson as a member or
anybody from SFWMD in coming up with that determination since their funding
this and dog gone, I think their going to come up with that answer. But my
opinion is one of the five. I think that meeting is imperative that ya'll
have before this workshop. And I think that question could be answered.
HUGHES> If their looking for us to contribute percentage. 50% of whatever
the figure is, we can't make that commitment. We don't know what it's going
P1)) 1(0 0Z3
to be yet. And they're saying, will you guarantee 50% of whatever the
appraised value is, No.
PORTER> I think their talking 50% in cash and whatever we can do later on.
They're wanting the landfill money.
HUGHES> My whole point is if they we're asking us to guarantee that the
county would obligate itself for 50% of whatever that figure is my answer
would have to be no. What if it's a totally off the wall figure? I mean
we've only got some 31,000 odd people here in Okeechobee County? If everyone
of us gave $10,000.00 you could pay off the existing debt.
CLOSE> My idea is for none of us to show up except the chair and Mr. P to
make his speech.
HARVEY> I'm going to let Mr. Porter what their going to do about that money
their taking out of there now and spending. I want you to ask them that.
PORTER> I beg your pardon?
HUGHES> You can't talk at the workshop either Steve.
CLOSE> I know he is. Just like he said the first five minutes,,,,,
PORTER> I don't mean to get them mad I guess it's the way I say,,,,
HARVEY> It ain't how you say, it's what you say Steve.
Lots of misc. talking of everyone.
HARVEY> Are we all clear on the scope of this appraisal?
PORTER> Providing it's done by a professional appraiser and it's done with
impartial.
CLOSE> You know, and real quick cause this could get a little bit lengthy.
A point, just real fast. You get three top notch firms which we felt we had.
impeccable repretation, etc., etc., who in the hell is this other entity
think they are with their consultants and questioning integrity of a
professional consultant that is an expertise in that field?
HUGHES> the consultants were recommended, have been to this
point, are they non biased anymore. I mean it's like Steve you submit house
plans and we keep moving walls around until what we paid you to do isn't what
we got.
HARVEY> We need to be kind of clear on what's been moved and what's been
changed. So now you see Mr. Chinault that evening that we had that meeting
over there. I kind of made the statement the scope had been changed and this
and that and I was corrected pretty shortly that the scope had not been
changed, there had been a few technical things changed a few suggestions but
the scope of the work by the firm that was going to do it by their engineer,
by Mr. Drago that the scope had not been changed.
P/� 17 ov zs
PORTER> I don't know that to be true or not.
HARVEY> I don't know that to be true or not either and that's why I'm
talking about this scope because I was lead to believe there was some major
changes in the scope of that work. And I was foolish enough to make that
statement and then I felt kind of bad whenever the said the guy who was going
to do the thing he was the first one to say the scope has not been changed.
CLOSE> But whose engineer was that saying that?
HARVEY> This was the guy who was going to do the actual appraisal. And he
said no sir the scope had not been change. He said there had been a few
technical things here changed, you was there Mr. Chinault.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> And I saw the technical changes and I've seen some of
those but I haven't looked at it close enough to see if the changes were
substance or not. So we will prior to the workshop and you'll have copies of
it too. Well I guess we're still back to your question Mr. Chairman, is
there, does the board want to or does the board just want to let it lie or do
they want to be more specific in the language on the agenda with regard
to,,„
HARVEY> I think Mr. Close hit it pretty good when he said when we have this
meeting with SFWMD and we can get a determination out of them. If we can get
it I think we need to get that information back to the city. Maybe saying we
do need a scope here and here and kind of here's a figure, maybe a range
we're thinking about, how about you presenting us with a range that you think
this thing should be you know. Because I don't thing SFWMD is going to agree
to fund this thing unless there is,,,
CO ADMINISTRATOR> If ya'll are comfortable with that, that's find, we can
run it that way and modify this agenda as we go along and put in that proper
language that clearly reflects what the SFWMD wants if that's okay.
HARVEY> Okay.
CLOSE> Would it be asking too much. And this is another one of my crazy
idea's. You know how we could just, by gosh totally eliminate all my
concerns with this appraisal if it wouldn't be out of the question to ask
SFWMD would you in fact approve this scope of work and possibly periodically
review the since you have so much at steak, could you not only approve the
scope of work but monitor it periodically so because and I get tired of
hearing my own self saying it because it's got to be an unbiased evaluation.
And you're an independent party. Do you think they would consider that?
HARVEY> I believe they would.
CLOSE> That would eliminate all my concerns.
HARVEY> I think they would.
PORTER> That's a good point.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> Mr. Chairman I remind you all that the contract with
Deighan or whatever their name is, is with you. Deighan will work to do an
appraisal on the city's system but you're going to be paying them. It's your
check, you're the one going to be monitoring and approving their operation.
You're the one that they have a contract obligation with, you're the one they
need to make happy. So regardless of what the says or doesn't do.
The city isn't involved.
PORTER> I don't care if I'm happy or not I just want it to be a 100% honest
appraisal, that's all I'm asking for. And I think the city would like to
have that also. To me it would be in their benefit to have it, no question
about it.
CLOSE> This is going back years and years ago, 10 to 15 years ago. Just
reading news paper clippings over the years. Historically it's appeared to
me that the problems always come down to the city said if the county made a
study or used their consultants you know it was in the paper, the county and
the county's said like wise, so that's been a problem forever and. I need to
be a little clearer, that's why, kind of about that monitor, you get an
entity that has nothing to gain to favor one side or the other and they do
have a tremendous amount at stake and although it is with the contract with
us and so on, in other words it's not worth a hoot if the city can't say yes
we disagree with the number and the same way with the
county if they can't say when it's all over with it wasn't tainted it was a
fair price then we just haven't done anything.
HARVEY> That's kind of the way the Mayor and I when we decided on this
thing regardless to how it came out, that's the reason we picked the three
firms and let them pick one, we felt like we was going to get a fair,
impartial appraisal, we wouldn't be discussing or fussing or arguing about
the appraisal if it just be whether you want to accept what it says or not.
HUGHES> What is the benefit to the county to join in this?
CLOSE> I wish you wouldn't ask that question.
PORTER> I think there's a lot of benefits but it would take a long time to
explain them. I think we'll be helping the lake, the authority, agricultural
people in community by putting a sewer system into the north end of the lake
I think it may be start to complete surround the entire lake and put them on
a sewer system and get them of septic tanks. There' a lot of benefit's to
it. Politically we're dead meat. I mean you know, I want the people to know
where we're coming from, if they don't mind paying a little higher bill.
HARVEY> They're not going to understand when that bill comes in.
PORTER> Your asking me for reality, I'm going to tell you like it is right
now.
HUGHES> I understand the benefits to a water and wastewater facility but
does it require a utility authority too accomplish those items?
BETTS> No, we can take our money and start our own.
PORTER> Yea we could.
Pfi) lq E)5
HUGHES> I understand the benefits of water and sewer absolutely. The
benefits of the authority.
CASSELS> One of the benefits of an authority is to try to remove some of the
political process from decision to what rates should, where lines should be
extended. The equity, right now the county residents are paying 25%
surcharge, that's
HARVEY> Keep them for paying policemen out of the revenue,,,,,
PORTER> Let me give you an example, a 5/8" meter, now this is me, cost me
$8.50 a month, a 1" meter is $85.00. But the 3/8" is costing 10 times the
amount of money. I said L.C. I've got a 1" meter to water my
lawn down there, sprinklers, you know, I said why 10 times, he said when you
turn that on your impacting the water plant. I jut about gagged and laughed.
I said you can't be serious that when I water my lawn at 2 o'clock in the
morning on a time clock. I said what would you rather have water them for 20
minutes with a 1" meter or 1 hour with a 5/8" meter? He said that's your
decision I said well I don't understand how you justify me having to pay 10
times the amount that is a political decision because all your residents are
on 5/8" so there's your votes.
CLOSE>
two ago.
they go
PORTER>
with the
it, they
I've seen the figures on paper, the laundry mat you built a year or
Their on a well with an agreement to go on city water. And when
on city water it will literal bankrupt,,,,,
They have the option thank god. They have got a signed contract
city and we put that in there that even if they run city water past
do not have to hook up and the city agreed to that.
CLOSE> And if think about it, it will literal frighten you do death, if
they were forced to hook -up, which everybody is this just happens to be a
very special tailored agreement that the impact fee of tapping into that city
water plus the cost of the meter being installed plus the impact fee is
several hundred dollars a month, just the impact fee on a 1 -1/2 bankrupt.
PORTER> They've got almost $85,000 in that building alone.
CASSELS> At one point, you're talking about the political aspect and if you
don't get involved in the process, then the service area that the city has
staked out that Beach Water is not trying to stake out will continue to have
the surcharges and that's where are they going to extend lines. Where they
get 100% or 125% rate their going to extend it into the county.
PORTER> And the can go up to 50% can't they John?
CASSELS> If they can justify it mathematically. They arbitrarily can change
25
CLOSE> You know we're talking about 3 businesses that are going to be
severely impacted just on the water and sewer. It just compounds the
problem.
PORTER> You know I have to think what it would cost me for those two
i 2 &2-
buildings today, to have those two identical buildings hook -up to water and
sewer. I've got $45,000 just on lift stations down there on that one
building and $8,800.00 in meters, today it would probably cost you
$100,000.00 at least.
HARVEY>
PORTER>
about it.
HUGHES> You could almost put your own water and sewer package plant cheaper
that you could hook -up.
PORTER> You can go commercial but it's very difficult because you've got to
have a daily monitor at the water plant and all that stuff I mean it's a
project.
HUGHES>
That would prohibit you from even doing it.
It would prohibit you from building a building there's no question
You cannot in this community.
We need a free -lance monitor running around here.
CLOSE> There is a law that city water pass a resident they can't use the
well water, they've got to tie into that city water. Or let's say in a
better way to make it have a little more sense, they have a well and
at the time city water and now they literal can't afford it. They
can't say put a lock on my meter because I'm going back to my well water.
That's against the law. So you get into some emotional issues like retired
people on fixed incomes and it starts getting to be a serious, serious issue.
HUGHES> How can you encourage people to hook up to this when the price is
so
Lots of people talking.
CLOSE> There not there keeping you from trying to help
yourself, but their not they'll ever be able to expand
because of the debt service and it's additional $5 million.
CASSELS> I'm not a mathematician but when you take the total principal debt
service that they currently have and projected to have and divide by the
number of users that's not higher math to know that's an astronomical number.
That's got to be paid plus you've got to pay interest on top of it.
PORTER> I think it's about $5,700 per customer
CASSELS> Without ever touching interest.
Lots of people talking.
TYLA VALENTINE> On the city's debt this is assuming they go ahead with
the other bonding issue on wastewater when you put it all together with the
interest and divide it out among the residents it works out to $8,500.00 for
every man, woman and child within the city limits of Okeechobee.
Lots of people talking.
t 21 23
CLOSE> The mystery to me right from the beginning is why this one entity
that's hadn't been courted the other two entities and I never
understood i t,,,,,,,,,,,,
Lots of people talking.
CLOSE> Because it subsidizes a part of their general budget.
Lots of people talking.
HARVEY> #5 Are funds being provided to engage separate consultants for the
city and for the county to review and comment on the appraisal? What's the
position of our board?
PORTER> Who's going to pay for that?
CLOSE> Absolutely not.
HUGHES> No.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> The intent in putting it in there is that the city has
maintained all along that they have to have it reviewed by, the appraisal
needs to be reviewed by their consultant and that in fact that should be paid
for by SFWMD money.
HUGHES> No.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> My part was, if that's the case, if they in fact will
have their consultant review it at SFWMD cost then you should have the same.
You know. Now,,,,,,,,,,,,
CLOSE> By funding their consultants to review it, is like buying their
weapons and ammunition and so and so, it just makes no sense. No.
Lots of people talking.
CLOSE> I wish we could take these statements so other statements, send it
over to them and say this is our feelings this is pretty much some of the
points that have been brought up give us yours and is there anyway we could
blend the two together and but do it through the mail or something.
Lots of people talking.
CLOSE> See what bothers me is they have always walked away as the good
guys and we're the bad guys, since that last one at the HRS building, dog
gone it at least let us walk away with a lick or two in, that we tried, you
know. So, like I say have this thing through the mail. Transcribe Steve's
statements, shoot it to them and let them shoot it back to us and go from
there.
Lots of people talking.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> You've not requested anything unreasonable.
Pn� 22.ef 23
CASSELS> It would be their decision to not have the workshop because it's a
request from your part.
Lots of people talking.
PM SESSION ADJOURNED
END OF PM VERBATIM
4 101110 0
'divii1
pkipotto/44
�(e
City of Okeechobee e-L
9/dI43
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
APRIL 22, 1993 MEETING AM SESSION
VERBATIM
NOTE: indicates you cannot understand what that person is saying
on the tape.
indicates a person was interrupted while speaking.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> We have one additional item that is not on the agenda and
that is the City /County Government Workshop. We've talked about it. You
gave me direction to work with Mr. Drago on an agenda. I've provided you an
additional sheet that basically sets forth the ground rules they want to play
by. I need you to confirm the date, time and location are okay. We
basically said Thursday, May 6th at 7:30 p.m. which is a normal board meeting
day. We will have you in here all day and then we will take you to HRS. The
City has put some provision and conditions that they want you to go by. Mr.
Drago says the Council did insist on the following provisions and that is
Commissioner Harvey and Mayor Kirk will both chair. And the only people
involved in the discussion will be the five Councilman, the five
Commissioners, City Attorney, County Attorney, County Administrator, City
Administrator, two clerks and as well those be the only people sitting at the
table.
HARVEY> What about Dave Rivero? He has been in on this thing since the
word go.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> He can talk through my ear, but he would not be involved
directly in discussion under their,,;,,,,
HARVEY> „Have they got the right to set all the ground rules?
CO ADMINISTRATOR> That's up to you.
HARVEY> I don't mind quite a few of them, but you know, I think this board
has a right to set some of them, wouldn't you think? It is a joint meeting,
that's 50/50. And one of mine would be that Mr. Rivero could sit with us
because he has been on this thing since the word go.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> So, you want to amend that to allow County and City
Finance Directors to be involved as well?
HARVEY> What else have we requested? This other is what they have
requested.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> Mr. Chairman I also have for you a list of kinds of
questions that will be projected that we are trying to provide for the media.
Focus on the appraisal, this is the general thought.
CLOSE> Going back to the requests that the City has come up with. How do
you personally feel as Okeechobee Board of County Commission Chairman, co-
chairing this meeting, keep that meeting down that narrow
path. a mediator that has no city /county ties, maybe no
AaY) i (4 1
knowledge whatsoever in city water or city or water, sewer infrastructure
with the problems in the past or whatever.
HARVEY I thought about that, and my feelings are that, I feel like its
pretty bad, and it may be that bad, but if we cannot meet five Councilman,
five Commissioners with our staff. If we can't meet without someone else
there to run the meeting I think we are in pretty bad shape. And I just
personally felt like you know, do get in a
knock down drag out battle that we alt to kind of do this It's
kind of bad when your City and County has to get a facilitator or mediator or
you know. It kind of makes me feel like its a union deal verses you know or
something you've got to get someone in to hold the two together. It
shouldn't, but it may be to the point. But it certainly shouldn't be like
that.
CLOSE> Not to blow this point because I can't disagree with anything that
you have said. But, I know in the past it just hasn't worked out and using
the example that's pretty fresh, the fact that it appears, it is so obvious
that the City' Comprehensive Plan, it was a typo or a human error that took
all this commercial, some industrial area and put it in the future land use
and made it single family residential and we've got a situation where we want
to do something that's going to help the entire community, County and City.
Building a recycling facility we can help three or four non profit agencies.
It's just a plus, plus for the whole entire community. And they can't say,
you know, go a head and build it their, it's your property, you own it, it's
commercial, it's got it's the ideal site. So, yea that's true,
it's pretty bad when can't, the Mayor and Chairman can't co -chair something
like that. But, I know with past experience in this situation here, it's not
because it's fresh, that's sad that they are taking that position. And I'm
not a pessimist, I'm no quitter, Lord know's I believe in fighting to you
just literally run out of breath, knocked out or the bell rings. But, I also
do not believe in wasting time. When I mean a facilitator or mediator,
somebody out of town, boy that would be beautiful, come out
here free and donate service, just a person, not really a mediator, just a
person that says you know here's what's on the agenda, I'm here tonight to
keep ya'll on that subject and that's all. And I respect your position and
not only do I respect it I agree with the exception as it's just a real
different situation and hey, there's nothing wrong with this.
BETTS> I kind of agree with Mr. Harvey though Tomey, but I look at it a
little differently, if you're planning to fight you better hire a referee.
But if you ain't going to fight, why bring one? We aren't going to fight.
CLOSE> Well, I not talking about a referee, I respect both ya'lls views
I'm just also a realist and I know for two and a half years the first meeting
we had in another meeting we had upstairs and the other
meeting we had at the HRS building, I might be leaving some out. Zero.
Nothing. Nothing. And unfortunately we we're dealing with the life blood of
this whole entire community, the most important thing and I can't emphasize
it enough, I get plum emotional thinking about it how critical and important
it is to this cit and county is this water /sewer infrastructure and for 2 1/2
yrs and I'm ashamed to be 1 of the 10 and I'll tell the whole world I am
ashamed to be 1 of the 10 participants, for 2 1/2 yrs we've struck out, we,
and I'm right there in the middle of it and I thought what the heck it wasn't
Lai
my idea anyway. The sharp idea came from a community leader that I have a
lot of respect for, but I thought what the heck it's impressive to me but, no
a referee, again I respect ya'lls opinion. I think we have gone forward by
having an agenda, I think that's a big plus and I don't want to say any more.
PORTER> Tommy, I agree with what your saying. I felt bad their for a long
while on the water and sewer task force I chaired the committee. I kept
thinking, where did I go wrong, where did I drop the ball, what happened here
and the longer this thing drags out the better I feel because
I knew it was not going to be an easy task but I didn't think it would be
near this difficult. I thought for sure we'd have put together long before
now. I'm
going there to this meeting with a very positive attitude, but the first five
minutes of that meeting and this will be it. I agree
with the chair, if we can't work this out without a mediator, I think you've
got a good point, right on track 2 1'/2 years and nothings come
about let's hope this will work. Let the chair and the Mayor do their thing.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> Mr. Chairman I believe what we need is a motion of some
kind to just indicate that you all are okay with the date, time and place and
general conditions with the one change of allowing the County and City
Finance Directors to be at the table and participate and some support of
where with agenda is.
HARVEY> Do we have a motion?
Motion was made and seconded.
HARVEY> I still think we need a figure in here, County's maximum or some
range that this thing can be put together in if this appraisal comes through.
And I'm not sure if Water Management District can finance this thing if there
is a possibility of this thing being throwed in the trash once it is
completed and nothing good comes out of it or nothing at all comes out of it,
except an appraisal, I'm not sure they're going to finance this thing. And
I'm not to sure that we still don't need some kind of figure in there and
maybe not pin point it right down but we need a range in there somewhere to
or some kind of assurance that water management district will finance it
without this range or something. And I would propose that later on this
evening that we probably have our meeting with the city, our staff and maybe
Sonny from the water management district and some of his personnel. Try to
get a feel here of what's going to happen here at this. They've made the
commit that this thing may not if they approve the
appraisal I would •like to and I was all
for an appraisal just nothing binding or anything just to let everybody know
where they are at, the City and also let us know just what this thing will
work. Close kind of mentioned he mentioned the $75,000.00 throw this
money away. Why and it made a lot of sense. And I would
imagine Water Management District it probably looking at something just as he
was talking about. Are you going to do it if we spend this money. Is there
a good chance you're going to if there's not why spend it.
CLOSE> Mr. Chairman I total agree, before this study was made
but I think a commitment and I tend to lean towards the angle if it's
feasible. That systems got a lot of liability and worth minus a negative
3 on
figure, whatever comes up we're going to work together and we're going to
make a joint effort out of it because I think no matter, if its unbiased,
unprejudiced evaluation of their system that no matter what it cost through
grant money, through CDBG grants through whomever the State, Federal, etc.
South Florida Water Management, what the City can grants that are available
to them, so on and so on. We make this thing work and make a commitment
unless its a liability that the County literally can't adsorb, let's do it
And the key would be that it's an unbiased report. I guess its
kind of what you're saying, a kind of different way, and I just feel so much
more comfortable with that, verses saying to them we're going to go "x"
number of dollars. But you've got an even better idea, get with SFWMD and
Mr. Williamson and say what will you all accept?
HARVEY> I've just got a feeling this thing might be financed
they may not finance it.
PORTER> Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm
one thing. I don't want anyone
thinking about this thing a lot
the city what benefit it is to
agreement. What are the pros and
would it be to have an authority.
And I know their going to take a little bit of financial hardship if this
thing goes into an authority, they have to because they have to be funding
some of the expenses at city hall through utilities. Other wise they
wouldn't have taken that $100,000 check some time back for expenses, part
goes for Mr. Drago's salary, part goes for the lights, whatever it may be, I
don't think that's ever been addressed at any of our meetings we have ever
attended or talked about. I think that ought to be brought up. I really
think it does.
on the right track here. Let me just say
to take this the wrong way. I've been
for
the city for them to be in the utility
cons and what have you; and what benefit
I don't care if they come out and say if we put this authority together we're
going to loose $375,000.00 per year money that we pay a lot of our salaries.
I wish they'd just come right out and say that. We're also going to take a
hit on this thing if we put this thing together because as commissioners we
are going to help spread the debt service over a broader base.
And the County residents are now pay a 25% surcharge. It's just a situation
were I think everybody needs to be up front and honest, straight forward
about this thing or its never going fly. I mean to me, I think you've got a
good point about how much money we're going to put in it. I think a good
scenario is going to be regardless of what the system is worth it is still a
user system. The users have paid for the system, therefore, they throw that
into the authority, we kick in let's say, let's use that $2 million figure
that came up a couple of weeks ago. We kick in the $2 million in cash you
know plus we're going to do everything we can to get federal, state
and local grants. Now that's probably the best we're ever going to be able
to do.
But if the County can get grants and federal grants the City's not been able
to obtain that's if Beach Water will roll into it, so that's probably the
best scenario we're going to have in this whole thing regardless of what that
system is worth or not worth. If it's worth $10 million we cannot come up
with $10 million we all know that, even if it's worth $5 million.
I mean I don't want to see us go broke with everything we've got trying to
put it into the system. I mean you know the user's paid for the system, is
the point, you know, we're trying to benefit everyone so I mean we're going
to be hashing over this thing for a long time if we all don't understand the
user's paid for the system. And we're just trying to make it spread out and
help everyone and that's the way I look at it. Maybe I'm looking at it from
a totally different view than anybody else. But I mean to me that's the
whole situation right there in a nut shell.
CLOSE> I followed everything you said I just need clarification on one
part of that. Are you saying if it's worth, let's take a number out of the
sky, $10 million. The County does not have that $10 million but at some
point and time we're going to divvy that up whether through federal and state
grants
PORTER> That's right.
CLOSE> Then I totally concur with every word your saying.
PORTER> It's really a non profit, it's really suppose to be a non profit
scenario is what that utility is suppose to be. I think there is a certain
amount of profit for capital improvements. It's not subsidized by an
advalorum tax. So really it's not a benefit to the City to have it other
than maybe the employment which, we are not looking to lay anybody off if the
utility authority goes in you're probably going to be hiring a few more
people you know. I'm just looking at just saying, from the way I've looked
at it from all this time, that particular, maybe I've got the or
something I don't know and if I do maybe somebody needs to sit down and
explain to me a different situation. That's just the way I see it. And that
may be what I talk about at that workshop meeting. That's the way I see it
and if I'm wrong I want someone to tell me I'm wrong.
CLOSE> I think Mr. Porter is just wrapping this whole package up with a
neat bow. If you could take his comments that he's made and because they've
been so positive with the exception of that first part about taking
money,,,,,
PORTER> on this thing cause their probably going to have to
raise taxes to off set their expenses at the city hall. All I want is for
them to say your exactly right.
CLOSE> If you could put pretty much what he said in a statement and that
one area a little more but bring out the negatives and positive's
for the city, bring out the negatives and positive's for the county, bring
out the areas like the county is literally because they cannot
attack light clean industry we cannot expand we cannot grow because we don't
have the sewer and water infrastructure we live in a pristine, one of the
finest if not the finest State in the Continent of the United States, we live
on the second largest fresh water lake in the United States, we have so much
going for us. The natural resources are incredible, but yet we need all
three of us working together to these agencies that are in the
position to award these grants. They know here is a county and a city and
A
5 c l
another county and a another community that are willing to go in together,
their working together, their pulling in the same direction and they're going
to be so much more likely to give you or rather award these grants verses
being fractured and going in different directions. I think Mr. Porter just
did an excellent job of pretty much summing it up. Gosh if we could make a
statement like that whether its, how ever many pages in the city and swap
them before this meeting and say let's talk about these kinds of things.
Don't walk in there and say we know your subsidizing part of your general
budget,,,,,,,
HARVEY> Financing your police department,,,,,,
CLOSE> It would be over in the first five minutes.
PORTER> They made that statement themselves,,,,,
CLOSE> I'm teasing. I'm impressed with their,,,,,,
PORTER> Is this going to cost them financially? I think we all need to
know that,,,,
CLOSE> But we can't call it we've got to play with they a little
bit,,,,,,,,,,,
PORTER> Charlie's done a lot of work on this thing, meetings, everybody has
done a lot of work on these things, the Mayor, John Drago, Dave Rivero,
everybody. And it's just been us beating our heads against these walls right
here.
HARVEY> It's a difficult situation. You know you're trying to be fair to
the city, you're trying to be fair to the people. You've got to try to be
fair to the people out here in the County that's not going to get any benefit
out of this thing too. They're concerned in this thing. And they're not
going to receive any benefit at all, you know. And you've got to include
them. You're talking about spending some of their money in this thing and
you've got to have a fair package for everybody and it's a difficult thing.
Getting back to your grant money, it's just like x number of dollars the
financial business stand point and you have to kind of think about to a
degree. The County goes in with Beach Water, you chip in $3 or 4 million in
with them, you cut you a brand new facility. You're in an area, they're in
an area. You going to be connected with a group that's in an area where it's
going to be a lot of grant money available because of the lake and their
situation, their location. You know all those things come in to play and you
know them and you see them but then when you can't get those things across to
the other side it get's difficult you know because they're looking at one
little thing here. And when I say them I mean the city. They look at their
one little thing and they think they got a little gold mine there and you're
trying to chip money into this thing but your trying for the betterment, even
for the people of the city because they're county people also and everybody
in the entire county, it makes a difficult situation. You ain't kidding.
I've looked at it and its tough. And dollars. You're going to have to start
thinking about dollars because if that thing comes in. And I'm concerned by
these people keep bonding that thing, it may be worth more money than we all
think it is, or the appraisal may say it's worth a lot more money than we
think it is.
PORTER> A good point the people
they're not going to benefit from this in
I think they really will when you get right
going to benefit. They're going to benefit
septic tanks off all those waterways down
says, the diaries have took a hit on that
lake as much as any dairy in this county.
in Ft. Drum, Bassinger, whatever
any way what so ever
down to it and here's how they're
because you're lifting all those
there, I don't care what anybody
lake, those people impacted that
CLOSE> Oh, absolutely.
PORTER> Without a doubt in my mind. I'm impacting it, my is forty
feet from the rim canal. If you think after 18 yrs it's not going in that
rim canal I've got a rude awakening for somebody. You think about the
population start increasing right here, if it gets any boy I'll
tell you what I get red about it cause I can't hardly stand it. You take
Buckhead Ridge, there's a lot of people there, they're all on water. Taylor
Creek, Treasure Isle, all that place down there, they're all on water and if
you don't' think they're not impacting that water down there,
CLOSE> if he really cared, Mary and he wold rent a
port -o -let.
CO ADMINISTRATOR> Mr. Chairman we had a motion on the floor.
HARVEY> Did we?
CO ADMINISTRATOR> Motion by Commissioner Hughes seconded by Commissioner
Porter to approve the date, time, place and condition change and agenda,
okay?
END OF AM SESSION VERBATIM
iqm bf