Item B10
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: 10-19-00
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item:YESl NO
Department:Marine Resources
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval for the purchase of Emergency Aids to
Navigation supplies.
ITEM: This purchase will include temporary buoy channel markers and supplies to
temporarily mark a channel for the purpose of preventing accidents and/or groundings.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
TOTAL COST: $1.500.00
BUDGETED: Yes
COST TO COUNTY: Staff Time Only
100% Grant Funding
REVENUE PRODUCING: YES NOl AMT. PER MO.
YEAR
-
APPROVED BY:COATTY X OMB/P
MENTX W.(L.
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
George
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Timothy J. McGarry-
DOCUMENTATION: INCLUDED:---X- TO FOLLOW:_ NOT REQUlRED:_
DISPOSITION: AGENDAITEM#~O
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COl\IMISSIONERS
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Contract #
Effective Date: / /
---
Expiration Date: / / .
---
Contract with:
NfA
Contract Purpose/Description: To purchase e;merRencv aids to navigaH on !'linN> 1 i P!'li
Contract Manager: Kim McGee
(Name)
4511
(Ext.)
Marine Resources~arinp Project
(Department) Section
for BOCC meeting on 10./ 19 / 00
Agenda Deadline: 10 / 2 / 00
COSTS
Total Dollar Value of Contract: $ 1.500.00 Current Year Portion: $ L'iOO 00
Budgeted? Yes No Account Codes: 157- 5370 - 6259<<T 530340
Grant: $ 1.500.00 (BIF) NEW
County Match: $ NI A
"'4 'i :t: t'.'; .'" ''':f '
Estimated Ongoing Costs: $
(Not included in dollar value above)
ADDITIONAL COSTS
NfA /yr For:
(eg. maintenance, utilities, janitorial, salaries, etc.)
CONTRACT REVIEW
Changes
Date In Needed Date Out
Yes No
Division Director tU 1 '"11 UI ( ) ri /0 I.!i../ to
---
Risk Manag~ tJLl2LloQ ( ) (0'~.L-j~ ~ 1.2.../ ~/ EE'
o~r smg /0 I~../.M ( ) (~/-A O~ /tJ1 ,p., 1 !!?
(~cWo/ r
County Attorney !1.J8J Cl/J. ( ) 2-~t:r:O
Comments:
OMD Form Revised 8/30/95 Mep #2
Growth Management Division
RESOLUTION NO. 2000
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING AN ALLOCATION FROM THE BOATING
IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF EMERGENCY AIDS TO
NAVIGATION SUPPLIES.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, as follows:
I. That said Board has been notified of the availability of funds from the Monroe
County Boating Improvement Fund for the purchase of emergency aids to
navigation supplies.
2. That the Growth Management Division, Marine Resources-Marine Projects
Section acting for Monroe County has determined the eligibility of this project for
the use of Boating Improvement Funds in the amount of$I,500.00.
3. That said Board hereby directs the implementation of this project by the Marine
Projects Coordinator.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on _ day of
A.D., 2000.
MA YOR Shirley Freeman
COMMISSIONER Wilhelmina Harvey
COMMISSIONER George Neugent
COMMISSIONER Nora Williams
COMMISSIONER Mary Kay Reich
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
MA YOR/ COMMISSIONERS
(Seal)
Attest:
Clerk
County of Monroe
DeDartment of Marine Resources
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420
Marathon, Florida 33050
Phone: (305) 289-2805
FAX: (305) 289-2536
;%j~~:-;f2~'~~~\"
i., f.. .,.. \,
:r' '" ~
~-1~
........ ....
Board of Countv Commissioners
Mayor Shirley Freeman, DisL 3
Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent, DisL 2
Wilhelmina Harvey, DiSL 1
Commissioner Nora Williams, DiSL 4
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich. DisL 5
August 16, 2000
To: Kim McGee, Marine Project Coordinator
From: Richard Jones, Marine Resources Planner
Re: Temporary Markers
Due to the increasing number of channels in which the County maintains markers it is becoming
more of a concern to provide temporary markers, in critical situations, in the interim period
between a marker going down and being replaced by a contractor. Now that we own our own
vessel, designed for such purposes, we can not only survey markers but also transport a limited
amount of equipment and materials to nearshore sites. I have designed a temporary marker
(buoy) system that can easily be transported on the Marine Resources vessel and deployed to
mark the location of a destroyed marker until the marker can be properly replaced.
Please coordinate the acquisition of the following navigational aid supplies which will enable us
to have both temporary lateral aid and danger markers.
2 each- 9" diameter DANGER buoys
4 each- 9" diameter green channel marker buoys
4 each- 9" diameter red channel marker buoys
10 each- 1/2" steel anchor eye and steel wire mesh (for building concrete anchors)
2 each- plastic anchor form (for building 90 lb concrete anchors)
1 each- 120' of1A" hot dipped galvanized steel chain, cut into 12' lengths (Approximately $1. 791ft.
14 each- 5/16" hot dipped galvanized anchor shackles (Approximately $2.59/ea)
All buoys should be: 9" diameter, high density polyethylene type, shatterproof, nun and can type
(no float collar), internal concrete ballast, urethane foam filled, unsinkable, have a reflective
band, be self righting, have a stainless steel anchoring eye, be easily reconditioned,
approximately 45-50 lbs, with approximately 38" exposure (above waterline).
Also, please be aware that the department now has a Port Supply Card which enables us to
purchase supplies at West Marine stores at substantially reduced prices. If it is possible for you
to procure funding through BIP for the above mentioned items, it would probably save money to
purchase the chain and shackles at West Marine. The buoys and anchor building supplies will
need to be purchased from a buoy manufacturer.
Smith & Nephew Inc.
NI04 Wl3400 Donees Bay Road, P.O. Box 578. Omnantown. Wisconsin 53022 . Telephone: 262-251-78401888-269-2869 . Fax: 262-253-6039
QUOTATION
Revised 9-26-00
Account # 56002
TO: COUNTY OF MONROE
5100 COLLEGE RD
KEY WEST, FL 33040
ATTN: KIM McGEE
PH. 305 292 4511
REF:
DATE:
F.0.8.:
TERMS:
DEUVI!RY:
e-mail:
FAX# 305 295 4317
9/26/00
Germantown
Net 30 Days to approved
30 Days ARO
18.00
152.00
304.00
304.00
60.00
36.00
2 EA B1147DG 9" REGUALTORY BUOY "DANGER" HAZARD SYMBOL
4 EA B1148R 9" RED CHANNEL MARKER
4 EA B1148G 9" GREEN CHANNEL MARKER
10 EA B2162 EYE & MESH KIT
2 EA B2163 90 LB ANCHOR FORM
76.00
76.00
76.00
6.00
SUBTOTAL
856.00
275.00
KEY WEST, FL 33040 FREIGHT
TOTAL
Smith. Nephew, Inc.
Ro.yan Buoy Division
I. All prices .... u.s. doll.rs. Any tax.., customs teM, .c.
.... .dditlon.11f .pplicable.
2. Smith. Nephew, Inc. 'RUm.. no responsibility arising
from the Mldon or Install.tIon of .ny buoys, floats, or
b.rrler systems based on our suggestions.
3. Smith. Nephew, Inc. raqul.... a signed wrlttlll
.uthorization for amounts over $2500.00.
. 'k
~y .~
Assistant Sales Manager
Rolyan~ Buoys
c:N1Y Monroe Revtsed9-26-00.xls
U3 'd :33v'ON
NVl^O~ M3Hd3N ~ HllWS
Wd93: Z 0003' 9Z' des
:i~:~~". , .', .:~,.:,~~;li~~1:,::;t~~'I~~7;':~' ,,'}i;[~!!~:~l~:~::::,:)~.,"'::,::~"i~':,:,:.':-::~:_-
. . County of'MJ~6e .';.'::i:.,,? ..... ,.,.
Deoartment ofMarfne Resources '-', Board of Coon" Commissioners
2798 Overseas Hipway, Suite 420 . t.Jayor Shirley Freeman. DisL 3
Marathon, Florida 33050 Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent. Disl. 2
Phone: (305) 289-2805 Wilhelmina Harvey, Disl. 1
PAX (3OS) 289 253 Commissioner Nora Williams. Disl. 4
: - 6 Commissioner Mary Kay Reich. Disl. S
".,.,,1
August 160 2000
To: Kim McGee, Marine Project Coordinator
From: Richard Jones, Marine Resources Planner
Re: Temporary Markers
Due to the increasing number of channels in which the County maintains markers it is becoming
more of a concern to provide temporary markers, in critical situations, in the interim period
between a marker going down and being replaced by a contractor. Now that we own our own
vessel, designed for such purposes, we can not only survey markers but also transport a limited
amount of equipment and materials to nearshore sites. I have designed a temporary marker
(buoy) system that can easily be transported on the Marine Resources vessel and deployed to
mark the location of a destroyed marker until the marker can be properly replaced.
-~~~
~ l'-
eo\f
Please coordinate the acquisition of the following navigational aid supplies which will enable us
to have both temporary lateral aid and danger markers.
2 each- 9" diameter DANGER buoys
4 each- 9" diameter green channel marker buoys
4 each- 9" diameter red channel marker buoys
10 each- 112" steel anchor eye and steel wire mesh (for building concrete anchors)
2 each- plastic anchor form (for building 90 lb concrete anchors) \:. t"---, A
~~~ 1 each- 120' of 1A" hot dipped galvll"i~ steel chain, ~sl~ ~ \ ~ l q, fe..r-'~'l)
~~ 14 each- 5/16" hot dipped galvanized anchor shackles ~f Z .59 eP.-LN\.
All buoys should be: 9" diameter, high density polyethylene type, shatterproof, nun and can type
(no float collar), internal concrete ballast, urethane foam filled, unsinkable, have a reflective
band, be self righting, have a stainless steel anchoring eye, be easily reconditioned,
approximately 45-50 lbs, with approximately 38" exposure (above waterline).
"
,
..
Also, please be aware that the department now has a Port Supply Card which enables us to
purchase supplies at West Marine stores at substantially reduced prices. If it is possible for you
to procure funding through BIF for the above mentioned items, it would probably save money to
purchase the chain and shackles at West Marine. The buoys and anchor building supplies will
need to be purchased from a buoy manufacturer.
FKNMS MEETING 17 OCT 2000 MARATHON FL.
FROM CHAIRMAN CHANNEL MARKING COMMITTEE
WARREN JOHNSON
POB 2322 KW FL 33045-2322
305 872 3440 (h)
305 296 7653 (w)
Dear Members and Staff,
I submit to the record the following eighteen pages
channel marking and the various issues. There have
meetings held, as pertinent information, has not been
Wha t has been supplied to you, has been as a result
to extract, costs $$$, liability and jurisdictional
that remain unanswered.
regarding
been no
supplied.
of trying
questions,
Please pay attention to the Propeller Club minutes of meetings
enclosed dating 12 March 1998, regarding the specific question
of 1 iabi 1 i ty to Mr. Jones, note the answer at that time. Then
as a reply, to again ask dollars,liability to county taxpayers,
which Mr. Jones stated at the March meeting , he would check.
In an effort to relieve myself of dogged pursuit of the costs,
the Propeller Club Key West sent a letter to Mr. Roberts, from
the outgoing president and new president (17 July 2000). To
my recollection Mr. Jones response to the club on liability
(no copy avail) was to ask Mr.Hendricks??
If you review the list of working groups, and find "Channel
Marking" for the advisory council, you will see that Mr. Jones
is co-staff member? Meaning= I cannot get an answer from a member
of the working group?? And as you review the material provided
the questions have been asked for quite some time as my letters
reflect and minutes prove.
The Marine Resources Department, either, do not know the answers,
or bring doubt upon themselves, if the answers are not provided
clearly by them, concise and to the point.
I hope you realize
tha t the "servants
information becomes
meeting.
the frustration, by the writer, on an issue
of the public" refuse to answer. If more
available, I will present it at the December
cCi prop club kw / fknms / county commsnrs/county admin roberts.
KQ~ WQc;;t. Florida
%8.D
EC::: That is against the Jones Act. But, ships come here because we are simply a "port of call". Plus, if
we did allow cruiseships to discharge passengers here, we 'eel have to upgrade airport to fly them home.
W.J.: (unclear) : I move that foreign flag vessels be allowed to carry passengers in coastwise trade in
U.S. waters, providing that the route is not already served by US Flag vessels. (BA 2nds, ALL = "AYE"
WJ: National dealt with this, but they took no stand, esp if the differential in crew pay goes to escrow.
EC: Well, that would shut down cruise ships here. They wouldn't need KW as a port of call anymore!
:Iv.
DP: I recommend HT. and EC research this issue, and report back later. Now, here's our guest speaker...
Richard Jones: I run the County's program to mark channels, and to reduce prop. scar damage (SlideS)~
I've surveyed most of the Keys. At least 30,000 acres of sea grass have been damaged by propellers. We
will be installing more channel markers, and better maintaining existing ones, to improve navigation
(GIVES DETAILS, CONCLUDES TO APPLAUSE). '
H.T.P: Th~ USCG should be doing the markets, not ~e CoUnty: Plm,. we nee,d mo;e, not less prop SC?tsJ
The scars rmprove water flow and clIculatlon. As to County mamtammg marKers, nave you checked lilti
the liability issues involved? - :
I
I
!
RJ: No, but I'll check with Legal.
CWO Carlson: I ran USCG aids to navigation/marker program in Tampa Bay, now I'll do it here. The I
County will be solely liable for any markers it installs (as is USCG for its markers). ~
DP: We need a committee to nominate club officers. I appoint E.c. and H.T. P. to do this for 3/98 meet.
WJ: I move we adjourn (2nd=all), [meeting ends at 1330].
Submitted 12 March 1998
~J /k-t
Edward 1. Little Jr.,
Secretary/Treasurer
--- - - '---- ...
--:..---
PRC?E!_LE~ CLUB OF U.S.
Peri: -:ii: :<.:'1 West
P.O. 2o;~ 6503
Key WG2t, FL. 33041
/~"
. :\.
\
--.:.\
I
/
r.~~~~",__",",,__--~
--~-~~"'~-'--.,.._... . _.-
Warren Johnson
P. O. Box 2322
Key West, FL 33045-
-2322
~~\..)o,~-2.7'~~~
I !l
!-1
',11'1111" \ ! I ! 1,1,1 ! i ,,11,1,111 trI,l.,I,1 ! ,I,l! ! i! ,:
.~
-. ~,.
~. ~
RJ: I'm going to discuss piloting, how it started, how it has changed, and how it is regulated.
Piloting was mentioned in the Bible...(recounts history, omitted here)...by 1976 Florida had made
pilots statewide subject to uniform selection, review, and control. Pilots are the fIrst line of
defense in protecting the environment from harm due to ship groundings or other accidents.
BG: I have a problem with the State Ed. that sets pilotage rates. It has no "local" voice, is not
accountable to communities. There should be at least one "ad-hoc" member drawn from the
locality regulated.
DP: Folks, we are out of time. Our meeting is over. But, you can stay to hear other guests who
are with us today.
BG: All the cruiseship skippers give all the Pilots here in KW high marks for their. expertise and
courtesy. I move the Club thank the Pilots for ajob well done [2nd= Rick WellJSi,alLsay,'la:yet:f1
~ ----...
Lauri ivIaclaughlin: I'm ~1(; ~scu:ce manager ,vith th~ FKNMS. Here's the 1st draft of our reef
marking plan for the Sambas area (hands out several copies). We need feedback on this from the
Club, ~ -
~ Warren Johnson: Are you asking the County to pick up the tab for new markers?
LM: Yes, via $ from the Boating Improvement Fund.
W.J.: The Club's position is that marking be at no co~t to the County. ~e USCG should erect,
and maintain markers. But, they gave up on that for mshore shallows m 1982. It cost too mucn.
Meeting adjourned at 1330
Submitted 10 September1998
~vJ/~
Edward J. Little,
Secretaty(freasurer
-=-;L~~~,:':'fi;~' .~ .-'---.
~
PROPELLER eWB OF U.s.
Port of Kay West
P.O. Box 6603
Key West, Fl.. 33041
z:r.:- .,...-.
/G~- ,.-
k:: ~1
\':-. , I' ,c: r;' /
....\., .~- .~_'JI
~:'<.?:-;: ./"
...- .._~
"- -.-._,".,.---"-.'~
"I'T=~~..._.~_.~ .____.-........
"
~," .
~...."'...-_.-..--"
~~.._,~.--._... .--.....-
:::.,,-"".':,..--------.-------
MR. WARREN JOHNSON
P.O. BOX 2322
KEY WEST FL. 33041
7".:j.-:-.::..\~c..~..~":"c:.7.:,.-;~ '.:J
":"",:$ -:-~-c-..) Q,. ~~ 7:'oo:i"~;,
I. .11,. .11.11. 1..1. 11,1,1.. . I f 1.,11.. .1.1.. ( .\,.1,1.,1.1. . ( , II
.. y~ PROPELLER CLUBo/d~d.ekted
.' . TO PROMOTE, FURTHER AND SUPPORT
: '. AN AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE.
I . TO AID THE DEVELOPMENT OF RIVER.
1 . . GREAT LAKES AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS
PORT OF KEY WEST # 154
P O. BOX 6603
KEY WEST. FLORIDA 33040
CHARTERED AUGUST 22. 1973
17 July 2000
Mr James L. Roberts. County Administrator
Monroe County B.O.C.C.
5100 Junior College Road
Key West, FL 33040
Dear Mr Roberts:
The Propeller Club of the Port of Key West is a local chapter of a nationally based maritime trades action group and
forum We have long tried to stay infom1ed about the County's initiative for additional channel markers (and other
:lids to navlg:1tion or regulatory measures) in Keys waters. And. \ve have long been concerned that the agency \\ith the
most expertise in approving. installing, and maintaining such aids and in enforcing regulations, that is the US Coast
Guard, seems not to be involved as the principal agent in carrying out the County's initiative.
Don't get us \VTong. We understand that local governments should, in some special, limited, circumstances, make their
\','aters safer, and less prone to boating impacts. But, the scale and scope of what we hear the County plans to do
concerns us. We know that the Coast Guard already has at least 280 daybeacons and 126 lighted beacons to maintain
in the Keys. That makes a total of 406 (not including buoys and reef lights). Yet the County plan calls for maintaining
all 240 existing County O\\l1ed beacons plus installing another 200 beacons. The County would have to develop or
fund infrastructure that surpasses the best that the Coast Guard can field.
What will this cost the County (for installation and for continued maintenance)? Where will the money come from? It
would seem that the hands-on involvement of the Coast Guard \vith the County's initiative would be a good way to
reduce project costs, and to minimize duplication of effort.
Ne:\.'t. we are concerned that if the County does get into an expanded level of marking channels (or with involvement in
other navigational initiatives), it may also expand the County's exposure to lawsuits or other liability. As we
understand it. those that suffer marine casualties as the result of missing or damaged markers (or even just "bad"
advice). can sue to recover damages. A 100 % operational service level \','ould be difficult to achieve for all County
markers in normal conditions, not to mention in the afternlath of a major hurricane. Thus. we seek assessment and
clarification by you regarding
any increased level of liability exposure (including total dollar value) the County would incur by vi.rtue of the existing
markers, and proposed plans for additional markers.
The presently unresolved nature of the various costs to the Public that the County's involvement with navigational
matters involves, has prompted the Club (via a resolution at our meeting of 6/21) to ask you to consider transferring
the County's involvement in the "channel marking business" to the Coast Guard, or at the very least, suspend that
involvement until we have had time to comment on your response to the information \ve have requested.
Sincere~~~z~
Capt Finbar Gittleman. Propeller Club President 1999-200-0
Capt Sean Rowley. Propeller Club President 2000-2001
County of Monroe
Deoartment of Marine Resources
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420
Marathon, Florida 33050
Phone: (305) 289-2805
FAX: (305) 289-2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Shirley Freernltn. Dist. 3
Mayor Pro Tern George Neugent. Dist. 2
Wilhelmina Harvey, Disc. 1
Commissioner Nora Williams, Dist. 4
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich. Dist. 5
August 22, 2000
:~
Propeller Club of the United States
Port of Key West #154
P.O. Box 6603
Key West, FL 33040
Dear Cape. Gittleman and Cape. Rowley: "_
Thank you for your 17 July 2000 inquiry regarding Monroe County's role in channel marking in
the Florida Keys. It is important that concerned citizens understand the projects the Department
of Marine Resources is involved with, and what services we provide to the boating community.
The County has maintained Aids to Navigation (ATONS) for over fifteen years in the nearshore
waters of the Keys. In the past this service has been directed by Extension Services as well as
Community Services. In the early 1990's citizens of the County recognized the need to use
channel marking as a management tool to help minimize propeller scaning in seagrass beds.
This concern was included in the Sanctuary Management Plan, and was designated as the
'Channel/Reef Marking Action Plan'. This plan assigned the research and implementation of the
project to the Monroe County Department of Marine Resources (DMR). In 1996 the BOCC had
the DMR move ahead with the development of a channel marking master plan. In 1997
intensive field surveys were conducted by DMR staff and recommendations were made for
channel marking, as outlined in the 'Channel Marking Master Plan for the Florida Keys'. Many
of the 348 markers recommended for installation fall within federally or privately maintained
channels. Recommendations were given to the USCG, who will use the information to upgrade
their systems as they see fit (the USCG has been involved throughout the master plan process
and have stated that they will reference the master plan when they conduct their Waterway
Analysis and Management Study for improvements in federal channels).
The County plays an increasingly important role in maintaining marked channels throughout the
Keys. The USCG has historically been tasked with routing commercial traffic throughout the
coastal waters of the United States. In the Keys the USCG maintains all A TONS for the
Intracoastal Waterway, Hawk Channel, and the reef line. In addition, the USCG also maintains
the primary crossing channels (Channel 5, Snake Creek, and Moser Channel). Private
indi viduals, such as marina or condo owners, maintain pri vate A TONS to help boaters into their
businesses or developments. The County fills in the gaps by marking channels which are heavily
used by recreational boaters, but do not fall within the objectives of the USCG. This system of
federal. county, and pri vate markers is utilized throughout the state. In fact, several counties in
Florida maintain more than 400 A TONS. The USCG relies heavily on the counties doing their
part to help provide navigational aids for the general recreational public. All entities, whether
county or public, must go through the same permitting process as the USCG. The Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) ensures that all permitted markers meet the
requirements of the Florida Uniform Waterv.tay Marking System.
Now that the County DMR has qualified permanent staff to oversee the implementation of
ATONS in the Keys, the County ATONS system has become a comprehensive system- from
design to installation. We now have channel markers that are built with the highest quality
materials which prolong the life of the marker and are designed to better withstand storm events.
Our A TONS system, along with a variety of other marine resource data, is part of our
Geographic Information System (GIS) which allows us to provide spatially related database
information to other government agencies. The FWC is considering using the County's newly
designed markers as the standard for t~e private ATONS throughout Florida.
-.......
.'- -.
\ In regard to your concerns of liability, the County Attorneys Office has on several occasionO
stated that the. Co~nty is a:-vare of, and accepts the liability for, ~he County marking system. In
regard to fundmg, mstallatIOns and repairs are funded from Boatmg Improvement Funds, as well
as a variety of grants.
'-
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to call.
Sincere}y, -;
,.' ....---
Richard Jones
Marine Resources Planner
cc: Mr. James Roberts, Monroe County Administrator
Mr. Timothy McGarry, Monroe County Growth Management Director
Mr. Joseph Embres, USCG
Warren Johnson, Propeller Club
Monroe County Marine Resources
1. What is the number of aids to navigation the county owns?
2. How many have been given to private parties?
3. What is the status of "downed markers" from hurricanes and
other storms, since the county plans beginning?
:~
4. Costs of installing the downed markers?
5. Since the beginning of the county plan of 750 markers, what
is the plan reflect now as the number of aids desired?
6. What has been the overall costs, to the taxpayers, for this
county plan?
7. Does the county plan to install and maintain any markers/
buoys for the FKNM Sanctuary?
8. Will the county taxpayer have liability for the FKNMS aids?
9. If @22,000 boats are registered in the Keys, assuming they
are "taxpayers", has this been a consideration in placing
@84,000 "taxpayers" to be liable for the "enjoyment" of
@ 25% res idents? Meaning for the "few" not the maj ori ty?
10. Would this practice attract more boating "tourists" to the
waters of the Keys?
WAJ9800
September 19,2000
To:
From:
Re:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Commissioner George Neugent
Richard Jones, Marine Resources Planner
Questions concerning the County Aids to Navigation System
What is the number of aids to navigation the County owns?
The County owns 238 markers as of today.
How many have been given to private parties?
We have transferred markers to other government agencies where the markers are within
their jurisdictional boundaries:
John Pennekamp- 6
Lignumvitae Park- 18
City of Lay ton- 3
City of Key Colony Beach- 9
We also have transferred 7 markers to the Tamarac Park Property Owners Association at
their request. Those markers were installed years ago with an agreement that the POA
would do all maintenance on the markers. The POA earlier this year requested to take
over the markers so that they may make changes and additions to that marked channel.
What is the status of downed markers from hurricanes and other storms?
All damage from the Ground Hog Day storm and Hurricane Georges have long been
corrected. There are only 3 markers down from Hurricane Irene in County waters that
are yet to be repaired. Those piles should be replaced within the next month. (Hurricane
repairs take longer than any others, unfortunately, due to policies and procedures
involving FEMA and going through the BOCC for approvals. I am currently working on
streamlining this process.)
What are the costs of installing downed markers?
Generally in the neighborhood of $1300-1500 for piling, signs, and hardware.
Since the beginning of the County plan of 750 markers, what does the plan reflect
now as the number of aids desired?
The number 750 was never used. We never planned to put in that many markers. The
Propeller Club has always been confused on this point. In the master plan I stated that
around 500 markers were recommended (so they incorrectly added 500 to our existing
250). However, less than half of those markers recommended are within County
channels. The remaining recommended markers are for the USCG to choose to install in
their channels at their discretion. Currently, we are looking at approximately 180
markers to be installed by the County.
6. What has been the overall costs, to the taxpayers, for the County plan?
A grant paid for the costs of the Channel Marking Master Plan to be produced. Boating
Improvement Funds pays for all our channel markers. A grant paid for our boat. There is
no significant costs of any kind to County tax payers (from ad valorem taxes) for the
County Aids to Navigation System.
7. Does the County plan to install and maintain any markers for the Sanctuary?
No. About fifteen years ago the County installed markers on the reef line off of Key
Largo for the Sanctuary. We arc in the process of handing those markers back over to the
Sanctuary.
8. Will the County taxpayer have liability for the FK1'lMS aids?
This is a moot point, as the County will no longer have any FK.NMS aids.
9. If 22,000 boats are registered in the Keys, has this been a consideration in placing
84,0000 taxpayers to be liable for the enjoyment of 25 % of the residents?
It is important to remember that more than just the 22,000 registered Keys boaters benefit
from the County's Aids to Navigation System. All boaters, including tourists, reap the
benefits of channel markers, and most citizens reap the benefits of tourism. However, if
there is a law suit all the County citizens will pay for the settlement. You should contact
the County Attorneys Office regarding how this will work. It is my understanding that
there is a limit on any lawsuit in Monroe County. Also, please realize that almost every
County in Florida provides channel markers to it's citizens. That service is more
important in the Keys than anywhere else in the state, considering the nature of the
bottom here and the need to provide aids to navigation. This is no different than all the
taxpayers paying for street signs, even though not all citizens drive cars.
10. Would this practice attract more boating tourists to the waters of the Keys?
Tourists and all non-locals rely heavily on the Aids to Navigation System throughout the
waters of the Keys. If not for the County, there would be numerous unmarked channels
in the' Keys where the USCG does not have an objective to mark. Increasing numbers of
boaters have made it imperative to expand channel marking in the Keys to take a more
comprehensive approach by improving navigational safety and protecting the adjacent
shallow water resources. This is the reason why the Sanctuary created the channel
marking action plan and the Department of Marine Resources has taken the lead role in
that objective. This project to create the Channel Marking Master Plan was approved by
the BOCC in the early 1990's and was fully supported by the public. ~ '??
To: Richard Jones 6 Oct 2000
Marine Resources planner
Monroe County
Marathon Gov't Center
305 289 2805 T
289 2536 F
Subject: County Aids to Navigation System dated 19 Sept.2000.
Dear Mr.Jones,
At this time, I would like to "thank you" for some numbers and
information regarding my inquiry to your "navigation system".
As you know, I have been active in obtaining the "numbers" of
markers and cos ts to the taxpayer since my conversation wi th
you and Mr.Garretts, at a meeting in March 1998, the same meet-
you presented your letter concerning millions of dollars being
spent potentially for this "system".
Question five (5) conveys an alleged inquiry about the number
750 markers, which was presented to MPAC, which, as I recall,
you did not attend. You furthur state a comment about the
Propeller Club being "confused". I do take issue with this,
as my inquiry to Commissioner Nugent, was related to Propeller
Club, not presented as such. It was presented to you, Mr.Jones,
on no letterhead and in fact, an inquiry by myself, as the
"chairman" of the "channel marking committee" for the sanctuary
advisory commi ttee. I had been asking for information from the
USCG and Monroe County, on certain actions you had taken for
some time. Needless to say, you partially provided information,
at your convenience, which I am sure you can understand, would
add to any confusion you may have on issues.
The question before the "house", as has been my task to "find
out", is "What are the costs to the county taxpayers for your
program?". This means dollars $$$, if there ar~ NONE, as you
allege in your answers for upkeep and Maintenance, state NONE,
Mr.Jones. Surely, this program is not FREE, is it?
According to you there are @238 markers owned by the county
taxpayers, the USCG states 247 (Embres). Your letter ref lects
another 180 markers to be "placed" in the county taxpayer I s
hands, meaning @ 418 markers will be the burden of county
taxpayer. As provided at previous "meetings" I attend, wi th
you present, the USCG maintains @ 426 markers from Key Largo
to Dry Tortugas. The county taxpayer will OWN and MAINTAIN 8
markers les s than the USCG, which has "their hands full" wi th
their "operations of money and manpower and equipment. Does
the county plan to have a Monroe County Coast Guard? What will
these costs be to the taxpayer in addition to what the NUMBERS
are already?
I look forward to a quick response before 1 7 october, for an
upcoming meeting.
Regards, Warren Johnson taxpayer
POB 2322 KW FL 33045-2322
County of Monroe
Deoartment of Marine Resources
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420
Marathon, Florida 33050
Phone: (305) 289-2805
FAX: (305) 289-2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Shirley Freeman, Dist. 3
Mayor Pro Tern George Neugent. Dist. 2
Wilhelmina Harvey. Dist. I
Commissioner Nora Williams, Dist. 4
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich. Dist. 5
October 10, 2000
Warren Johnson
P.O. Box 2322
Key West, FL 33045-2322
Dear Mr. Johnson:
I received your inquiry, via fax, dated 6 October 2000 regarding the County's channel marking
program.
I would very much like to clear up any misunderstandings regarding the County's role with
channel marking. As I stated in my 22 August 2000 letter to the Propeller Club, the channel
marking program was approved by the BOCC in the mid 1990's. We have had the full support
of the County, the Sanctuary, and the US Coast Guard. As the channel marking program
progressed the Department of Marine Resources held numerous meetings to discuss the
objectives of improving navigation and minimizing propeller scarring throughout the Keys. At
this time we are only carrying out the tasks assigned to our department by the BOCC.
? ~ Please do not compare only numbers of aids in regards to County vs. USCG. The USCG
maintains numerous lights and light towers throughout the Keys. The County maintains no
lights, only daybeacons. So, our initial costs, maintenance, and liability are not comparable with
the USCG. As I have stated before, the USCG supports Monroe County, as well as other
Counties, doing their part in providing A TONS for the recreational boating public.
As far as costs to the citizens, I explained before that installations and maintenance costs come
out of Boating Improvement Funds. The only costs that I am aware of to the tax payers is salary
for the time that Marine Resources Department staff puts into the design, contracting, and
surveying of our marker system. I expect there to be no increase in staff time with the
implementation of markers indicated in the 'Channel Marking Master Plan for the Florida Keys' .
After implementation is completed there will be no more time used for design, which frees up
time for surveying. To answer your question about a County coast guard, no we do not have
plans to create a Monroe County Coast Guard.
I hope that after my recent presentation to the Sanctuary Advisory Council, and several letters to
both yourself and the Propeller Club, that you now have all the facts concerning the County's
role in the channel marking in the Florida Keys. -
Sincerely,
73 ____---"7
,- /' -----
,/~- - -----
RIchard Jones
Marine Resources Planner
Mr.R.Jones Planner
Dept Marine Resources
Monroe County
305 289 2805
305 289 2536 F
14 Oct 2000
Subject: Non responsive answer to inquiry/ your letter dated
10 Oct 2000.
Dear Mr.Jones,
It is obvious to me, that no answer is forthcoming to :
a) the costs to the county taxpayers for your "navigation system"
or channel marking program.
b) the liability incurred by the county (taxpayers).
(including FKNMS markers that have been on the "local" county
taxpayers burden, instead of a "national" burden as a
national treasure)?
c) the jurisdictional and question if the county has the
authority to place markers, which have been placed 5-7 miles
"out".
The "history" you state in both your letters (10 Oct/19 Sept)
on the USCG role and other historical rhetoric, is refreshing.
However, as a member and current or past officer of two maritime
organiza tions and as the president of the Lower Keys Property
Owners Organization (which you made a presentation @two yrs
ago), as a planner,as a servant to the public, you should have
an anwer to the costs,liability and jurisdictional problems
to the public.
I have written to Keith Douglas,George Garretts, George Neugent
and yourself on this issue (as you are aware) for no less than
three years. Your letter of March 1998 presented at MPAC,
stated the fact of "favors" and the costs of tens of thousands
of dollars to the County?
Currently I serve voluntarily on the FKNMS as a vice-chair,
chairman of the "channel marking" group. Information that has
been asked for, but not given by your department, hinders
progres s to people and organi za tion members, that ask me, what
I have been presenting for @ three years to the county? Draw
your own conclusions as to the non responsive answers I have
received from your department.
Certainly the questions deserve a definite answer for the county
taxpayers burden to COSTS (incl maint&equip), county jurisdiction
and taxpayer liability in case of loss of life or injury per
marker that is owned.
In closing Mr.Jones, I invite you to attend the following:
1. Lower Keys Property Owners Association meeting Nov 6,2000
Bogie Rd, BPK @ 6 pm to 8 pm, to give an explanation.
2.
Propeller Club, noon at Perry's Key West
15 Nov 2000.
3. FKNMS meeting 17 Oct or the Dec 2000 meeting.
Please call and confirm if you plan to attend meetings. I was
hoping to have answers, the numbers and dollars, from your depart
ment to present at these meetings. Hopefully, I can relay to
all that a telephone call or fax, asking the same questions
to your office, may bring better results than I have been able
to determine.
Please "make it
costs, liability
of Monroe County
in your letters.
perfectly clear" that this
or jurisdictional problem
and that this is a "free"
program is at no
to the taxpayers
program as alleged
Regards,
Warren Johnson
POB 2322 KW FL 33045-2322
305 872 3440 (h)
cCi commissioners
roberts
fknms
orgs
encl" letters WAJ9/8/00
jones 9/19/00
WAJ10/6/00
jones 10/10/00
LKPOA
FKNMS
PROP
RKYC
-
'-' """.4..J. '- J Vl.
I V I U 111 U C;
'OcDartmcac or Manne ~urt'es
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 420
Marathon, Florida 33050
Phone: (305) 289-2805
FAX: (305) 289-2536
Bo.rd of Couoty Commissionen
Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey. Disl. I
Mayor Pro Tern Shirley Freeman. Disc. J
Commissioner George Neugent, Dist. 2
Commissioner Nora Williams. Dist, 4
Commissioner Mary Kay Reich. Disr. 5
\
March 26. 1999
To: Marine and Port Advisory Committee
From: Richard Jones. Channel Marking Planner
Re: Channel marking and regulatory rI1?J"king projects
Recently it has become apparent that past and future channel marking/regulatory marking
projects need to be looked at on a comprehensive scale, rather than piece meal projects. in
respect to the significance of the projects as far as County responsibilities and objectives are
concerned. 1 have had numerous inquiries in the last six months from residents and/or properry
owners associations in locations where the ~unty has installed either channel markers,
regulatory markers. or both. Typically the citizens feel that the channels leading into their
development or the perimeter canal need additional markers.
Reiying on the knowledge { have acquired from my numerous surveys throughout the Keys, I
have observed that there are hundreds of residential areas that have dredged approach channels
leading into them, sometimes with a dredged perimeter canal surroWlding the area. These
channels and canals were dredged decades ago by developers. ~se channels are neither O~d r."'~ ~
I!-or maintained by th~ Co~"!'y. Histo~cally, the residents in these areas would often mark the ..J f1u-{'
entrances or boundaries WIth unpermItted markers, typically PVC. rn the last ten years some
residents, resort owners, marina owners. etc., have approached the COWlty to ask if the County
could please help them by installing and maintaining markers at the County's expense. Most
recently these types of projects have gone through the MP AC- some have been approvecL others
have not. Currently the County has markers of this type at Duck Key, Hammer Point, Layton
Channel, Ninety-Seventh Street Channel, Ramrod Key Channel, Summerland Key Channel,
Tamarac Park Channel. Upper Matecumbe West Channel, and Windley Key ChanneL
\lIhat r want to point out is that there are many more subdivisions/associations that could or
would approach the COWlty asking for assistance if they knew we do this sort O~& Currentlv ~
it costs the County tens of thousands of dollars to install and maintain these markers. {[we were
to implement markers at all the sites in the Ke s that could use theIiiItWould cost in the millions
of dollars. However, the pro em t we are having at thiS time is more markers are being
requested in some of the~rivate channels that we have currently marked. rn fact, some people
have actually requested that the County dredge their approach channeLs further out to deeper
water! The perception appears to be that it is the County's responsibiLity to properly rnarlc
private channels (what started out as a favor hY-the- Department of Marine ResoUI~s is now
considered by some as a responsibility and that we owe it to them). fn some cases, the pcrsonls
requesting the markers use the envIronment (seagrass beds, etc.) as their purpose for request"
when really (upon further investigation by our deparanent) the motive appears to be self servmg-
as in the case of a resort owner having the County establish a marked channelle2.ding into the
resort.
'l. Now that we have a comprehensive channel marking plan for the County we have described the d '
e,. objectives for marking, the criteria, and we have indicated those areas that meet those criteria, /,; t, c.(
,<G ~~~\ Basically we wane to try to mark areas that: 1) need markers to help minimize propeller damage7\~"':~.: (>rf''-''-
')yl.: \ 2) need modifications to existing marker chains to improve navigation. and; J) most importantly? ~~
~those areas that serve all the ooating publi.c (not just homeowners or businesses in a subdivision),)
This if very important to acknowledge thal'Boating Improvement Funds are used for the
populace. and not a select group of individuals. In many areas of the Keys residents have
installed their own permitted markers. It is not fair to those peo Ie that install their own markers.
or people in other areas that have no markers t the County continues to pro v, e mar ers that
only serve small subdiviSIons. Now that w'~ have a comprehensive marking plan and statt to
Implement the plan and oversee these pro.iects we must ensure that funding and marker
installations are used appropriately. We only have so much funding, and it is critical that we use _
the funds in the most cost effective manor which best serves the public. S':::':'fTE\1 e. 't(lc~' c.-\..-Lb
-- \ I---::JA~ i qq1 -::r. 3
\ The Department of Marine Resources feels it is not a responsibility of the County or any other
I agency to mark private channels and canal systems any longer. The MP AC needs to
I acknowledge and address this concern. Only by making some decisions and policies regarding
1 this matter will I be able, with authority, to ten people (in certain situations) that the Counry is
1\ not responsible for marking or adding markers to their private channels. We want to be a~[e to
! use funding to implement marking systems that benefit all the citizens of the ~. t~s,
! and cruising boaters alike. This means marking nearshore areas, through channels, ana---:-
\ improviI'~g existing systems. and harbors that are used by everyone.
[ have already discussed with the MP AC members my push for relinquishing ownership of some
of the County marked areasJ.o more appropriate entities, I have been fairly successful at this so
lar. lor example: Bonefish ~Port Largo, Reef line markers off Key Largo, Ohio Key
Channel. and a few others. However, after the County has installed markers leading into a
private area it is often difficult to convince the homeowner's association (or other appropriate
entity) that we would like to hand the markers over to them. 6-. \.....)\...'-\ ''0-'_ 1\'- 1'\;'~b':5,....; t:~~ ~5
..\"
---
Please take the time to think this matter over. This issue wiH be added to the April MP AC
meeting agenda. r will be available to discuss the matter.
-=:::::::::..- -----
'"
9",.( PROPELLER CLUB o/tt ~di2lated
\
-"
PORT OF KEY WEST "S4
P.O. BOX 6603
KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040
CHARTERED AUGUST 22, 1'J7J
TO PROMOTE. fURTHER AHD SUPPORT AH
AMERICAN I.eERCHANT I.e'-.RIME,
TO AIO THE Oe:YElDPMOIT OF RIVER.
GRCAT ~K(S AHD HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS
....
12 January 1997
3.1 Shio groundinqs ~ naviqational hazards
The Sanctuary was initiat~d to preclude reef damage by offshore
vessels and mineral extrac't:ion, from the Keys.
a. Keep the areas to be avoided, as they stand.
b. Increase lighthouse and marker intensities, and re-establish
color sectors (lights). Install "Racon" beacons.
c. Coastal buoys with "Racon" beacons installed at areas to
be avoided.
c. International Maritime Organization (London) re-establish
ships traffic separation.
e. Local County Issue: Day Beacons
1. Reinstall day beacons for narrow passages through the
islands that were removed in the 1980's.
2. Continue to use boating fund income to maintain and improve
channel marking.
3. Routes through narrow passages be marked to avoid
groundings of small local fishing vessels.
-. Proposed boundaries: Water area involved; defined as one
mile offshore and inshore from the offshore edge of the
reef.
g. Government Agencies involved; Federal and State.
Local county government for item (e.).
h. Funding; Fines from ships groundings and oil spills.
Redirection of "Sanctuary" funds already in place.
Boating improvement funds.
i. Results; Reduced damage to the reef, from ships groundings,
oil spills, ships collisions at sea and loss of life.
Warren Johnson
PO Oox 2J22
I<.ey Wesr. Florida X045
(205) 296-765J
872 3440 (h)
12 August 1998
Subject: Liability of Monroe County/Taxpayers for markers &
daybeacons.
Mr-.Oouglass,
After- attending several ~ort and transit (county) meetings since
the fall of 1997, my specific issue was the markers and the
liab:..lity and costs to the taxpayer(see lttr- dtd Feb 18 1998
?RO?~LLER CLUB in your file). I received a letter from G.Garretts
abou: relationships and wor~ing together etc., but no answers
as to the liability and cost~~'tQ the county taxpayers?
Exam91e; If a storm hits the keys and 20% (150 daybeacons) are
damaged and down, is the county liable for re~lacement? How
long does the county have to replace the downed/damaged markers?
What procedure is used and what agency designates when these
marke!:"s / beacons should be "in place". Mr. Garretts stated "he"
(county?) has all the time "he" needs to replace these markers
or beacons (Aug 98 meeting/Marathon).
If Home Associations put in markers/beacons, who will be respons-
ible, the county taxpayer or the association?? If these markers
are NOT replaced within a certain time frame, what is the cost
to the taxpayer of Monroe County? Mr. Pokorski states that the
Federal Government will ~ay fo~ damaged markers under FEMA?
Is this a true statement? If it is, why are they not paying
for them no''''?
The Count..,!' Commissioners have been informed about this issue
for some time, please answer the COST /LIABILITY ISSUE TO THE
TAXPAYERS OF MONROE COUNTY for this logistical nightmare that
has been chosen to undertake meaning the upkeep and maintenance
and costs to the taxpayers once these markers are in place.
Exam9le: If
re;;>laced in
or loss of
instance?
a county owned/permitted marker/beacon
a reasonable amount of time and a mariner
life OCcurs, what are the ramifications of
is not
is hurt
such an
I attended these meetings to take issue with the intent to inform
the county and port/transit, only to find that it is considered
in terference '",i th information provided. Please respond to these
important issues.
p,o. Cox 2J22
I<\ey Wesl. Roride J.:JC45
(.:xJ5) 296-765J
lo~
P'(l~
6'q~~ \
INFORMATION ON AIDS TO NAVIGATION
FROM KEY LARGO TO DRY TORTUGAS
20 APRIL 1999
it L.j"0
(1'
"-'
The Uni ted S ta tes C02.S t Guard / Group Key West / t-l2.ra thon /
:..
Islamorada.
The USCG a'-=>
tasked
to maintain
....
l..ne
following in
.... ,
l..n~s
a -=>;:l .
....-- .
280 day beaco::.s
12o~ _1ig.~~~_~ ~c__:~_ons (a ht bl' k )
..... .1.. - - ' .ig. ~n. ers
~-.............
61 buoys
5
major
rcc~
---
lights (racon beacons installed)
Monroe County Taxpayers (same area):
240 day beaco~5
*86* day beacons dawn since Georcre(s)*
200
day
beacons
to be ins taIled according to r!C
',..rnl.ch will total 440 day beacons
original 750 daybeacons pro~osed).
maste::-
(down
~lan
from
Note*' It 1.S t;'Q USCG that determines where and when marke::-s*
,of any kind are needed through a Wa te2r Hanagemen t An:1l ys is
System (WAMS). Costs of maintaining and u~kee9 6f markers
is available from Grou~ Key West. The liabi Ii ty to all
tax?ayers (County) is NOT limited to just 100K (per marker)
limitations (maritime) but on a case by case on placement
and neglect (care) of markers parties own (private/public).
105- cou""-' ~..../ 0- ~-_-f-t-_i ag app:-o"v'a_;
~'.;'" ,.i..";':;s,Cil..ies anc or oriv"ate ager:.ci_::> '= _~ _
to place/own markers, relatively speakir:.g OWN a handful of
mal:'~~ers ap~ro'led bv USCG (mandatory). The "master plan II from
\fC ma-' n~ -, . ;::I'r o' 0__;::1 cons (_1 iqh tee
L. '-~.:; resources. Ql.V:!"slon reauests 'more c_: _
a::.d not lighte~) than the USCG h~s in the area.
70 my 'U? co .f..1.z cLi.. 0 n J thR.. t.i..l1..-Jt t.i..mR.. I -JpokR.. to thz county on
" ma/1./cZ/1..-J " , thz county p.f..annR..d 750 ma/1../cR../1..-J!! I add/1..ejd e.eI. tlt.i..-J
on
at a f1PAC mze.t.i..ng -<..n e..i..the./1.. ,)p/1..-<..ng 0;' 1997 0/1.. 1998. I a,)ke.c..
;:'0/1.. a cOj?Y 0/ thz m.i..nutR..-J 0/ tfwt me.e.J:..-<..ng, and ne.ve./1.. /1.e.cz.i..ve.c!.
r- r-
thzm. I am -::\ u /7.. R.. you can accZ')-J thz '" j?uLt..i..c /1..e.cO/1..d" .
I add/1.z,v)e.d. thR.. "do.f..1.a/1..,,)II
and. ma.i..nta.i..n 750 ma/1..kz/1..-::\.
aad a1.-J 0
........-..,
1.og.i..-Jt.i..c~
a;' t/1..y.i..ng to
own
At -::\u&.-Je.quznt mzzt.i..ng-J .i..n 1998 & 1999J .i..t wa-J e.v.i..dznt &.y tltz
"ove./1..ma/1..k.i..ng" 01. thR.. Upj?R../1.. KZY-::\J that NO PRIORI7IE.S WR../1..R.. g.i..ve.n
to "1.oca1." t.i..-Jhz/7..man &.Y ma/1..k.i..ng NARROtJ PASSAqE.S 7H.ROLLqH.OLL7 7H.E.
KE.~S. 7h.i..~ wou1.d .i..n~u/1..Z j?/1..udznt ma/1...i..nz/1..-J v.i..~.i..&...i..1..i..ty th/1..ough
thz pa~-Jage.~ thzy a1./1..zady t/7..an-J.i..t da.i..1.y/wR..zk1.y.
At the. Aj?/1...i..1. and f1ay 1999 mZR..t.i..ng J I p/1..0 v.i..dzd thz .i..nto/1..mat.i..on
that thz LLSCg ma.i..nta.i..n~ ~06 "day&.zacon~" 0/7.. "'ma/7..kz/1..-J'" wh.i..ch
126 a/1..Z ".f...i..ghtzd'" 1.0/1.. n.i..ghi i.i..mz nav.i..gat.i..on. 7hR.. "a/1..za" 01. tlte.-Jz
406 ma/1..ke./1..~ a/1..Z t/7..om KR..Y La/1..go to D/1..Y 70/7..iuga~. 7hR.. LLSCg ad.m.i..t,j
to thR.. 1.0 g.i..,:d.i..ca1. n.i..ghtma/1..z and thR...i../1. 1.ack ot mR..n, monR..y and
e.qu.i..j?m~nt, not on1.y to .i..n-::\ta1.1. and ma.i..nta.i..n thz "'ma/1..kz/1..~"'.
A1.-::\o ael.d,7..e.')-Je.d wa.-::\ thR.. "'/1..z~j?on.-::\R.." ot not on1.y tltz County, &.ut
u1./) 0 tltR.. LLSCg on /1..R..pa-<./1..-<.ng" "'ma/1../cR../1..'')" ati..R../1.. -::\to/1.iTl,)/hu/1../1...i..canz,').
Na .i..n';'o/1..iTlat.i..on wa/) p/1..ov.i..dzd &.!j e..i..thz/1.. age.ncy to my .i..nq.u.i../1...i..Z'''J
a-J to ma/1..ke./1..~ "'down'" and whR..n thzy wouLd &..z /1..zj?1.aczd.
7he. Kz.i..i..h Doug1.a~.-::\ 1.R..ttZ/1.. wa-J nzve./1.. /1..R..~~ondR..d to, and at a f1PAC
mR..e.t.i..ng, I j?e./1...-::\ona1.1.y add/1..R..-::\-Je.d f1/1... Do ug1.a.-::\.-::\J a/) to why hz had
not an.-::\we./1..e.d iTly 1.ziiz/1.. /1..zga/1..d.i..ng ma/1..kz/1..~J he. me.nt.i..one.d. J:..nat
hz /1.e.cz.i..ve.-::\ "'thou~and.-::\'" ot ,)uch f.e.ttR..,1./) pe./1.. daYJ and couid not
an.-::\we./1.. thzm a1.1.. fiz a 1..-::\ 0 -::\ugge..-::\te.d thai.. I add/1..e./),') thz f.e.ttR../1..
to "'Ke..i..tlt", net f1/1...Dougl.a.-::\.-::\ (pe./7..~onaf. v.i..e.w).
In my v.i..e.w, thR.. County ha,) takzn on a g/1..zat /1.e.,');?on-J.i..&..i..i..i..tYJ
w.i..thout thought to thz ta~j?aye./1..". /ne. u;?kzR..;? and. iTla.i..nte.nancz
-<..n the. tutU/1..Z, -<"-1 ove./7..whz.t.m.i..ng. A &.ottoml.R..-1-1 ;?.i..t. 7h.z l/{NflS
j?1.ac.i..nq the. &.u/1..dzn on f/ON/WE. COLLN7~ 7AXPAIjE.RS .i..-::\ ye.t, anothe..7..
tw.i..-::\t to the. iTlu.f..t.i.. tacztR..d .i..-1-1ue..
tJa/1../1.en "tJtJ" Joh.n-1on
305 872 34.40
fJOB 2322
Keu We<;t. ~ioridd