1/19/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

suspended the forfeiture of the bond is automatic, and this leaves no discretion with staff which is why this matter is coming to the Board. Chairman Scurlock asked if he felt the ordinance should be rewritten, and Attorney Collins noted that it is punitive as written, but there is the right to appeal and that appeal is being made to the Board now for determination of whether the punitive quality of the $10,000 forfeiture is more than is warranted in this event. The Board still has the option of saying what is an appropriate penalty for this violation, and we would have recourse against the bond rather than having to go to court to collect damages. Commissioner Wheeler stated that he would look at it that by putting up the bond, you are are saying you are going to comply with the permit, and if you don't, you forfeit the bond. Argument continued re the fact that the corrective action was taken, and the feeling that shutting down the business was a penalty. The Administrator felt the timing of the appeal process in and of itself constitutes a penalty. Discussion then ensued as to why Mr. Smith was discharging the water offsite, and Mr. Smith stated it was because they had too much water. Commissioner Wheeler pointed out that he may have had to shut down his operation earlier if he hadn't dumped the water in the canal. He stated that he had received calls from those adjoining the mining operation and also understood that St. John's River Water Management was involved. Mr. Smith confirmed that they were involved, but had no problems with it; they just said stop the water from going off site, and the problem was already corrected before staff got there. Attorney Abernethy wished to review the history of the Mining Ordinance and read from the 1974 ordinance which stated "The amount of bond shall be determined on the cost to put the JAN l9 198e 79 BOOK 70 DDE 639