Laserfiche WebLink
AUG 8 1979 <br />ROOK 41 PA6E 249 <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE ESTIMATED COST THAT ENGINEER <br />BEINDORF PRESENTED. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT WE REQUIRE A 20% CONTINGENCY <br />INSTEAD OF 10%, AS WE DONT KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITHIN A YEAR. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE CLOSEST COMPARISON IS THE <br />MOORINGS, AND IT WAS A PLEDGE FROM INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL. <br />INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS COMMENTED THAT, IN EFFECT, <br />IT WAS A CASH BOND. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS THE FIRST BOND <br />SITUATION WHERE THE COUNTY HAS REQUESTED THAT WE REQUIRE A CONTRACT; <br />THE CONTRACT WAS SUGGESTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING THE OBLIGATIONS <br />OF THE PARTIES. <br />ENGINEER BEINDORF MENTIONED THAT THEY ARE STARTING ON THE NEXT <br />TWO UNITS - THE WHOLE PROJECT IS 500 ACRES, 180 ACRES IN GOLF COURSE. <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STATED THAT HE WOULD WANT TO GO OVER <br />THE FIGURES WITH ENGINEER BEINDORF. <br />ENGINEER BEINDORF EXPLAINED THAT THE FIGURES ARE VERY HIGH, <br />AND HE HAS USED THE STATE AVERAGES. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THERE WAS <br />A DELAY AND THE PROJECT WERE NOT COMPLETED BY SEPTEMBER, 1980. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE BOND IS GOOD FOR TWO YEARS <br />SO THERE IS A TIME FRAME AFTER THE DEFAULT TO ENFORCE YOUR RIGHT UNDER <br />1l;[ : 1 1I79 <br />HIGHWAY. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED CONCERNING THE PRIVATE ROAD FROM KINGS <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT REITERATED THAT HE WOULD GO ALONG WITH <br />THE PERFORMANCE BOND THIS TIME, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE SHOULD <br />HAVE MORE SECURITY ON THE NEXT UNITS. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE COMMENTED HE WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH <br />A 20% CONTINGENCY, AND ENGINEER BEINDORF FELT THAT IT WOULD BE NO <br />PROBLEM. <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS ASKED IF ENGINEER BEINDORF'S CLIENTS <br />WERE APPROACHED WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF A CASH BOND WITH PERIODIC DRAW <br />DOWNS. <br />