5/21/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MR. ENG INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE COMMENTS MADE AT THE HEARING, COPIES OF WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO HIM, BUT APPARENTLY LOST IN THE MAIL. HE STATED THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED'COMMENTS FROM THE DER AND THE CITY OF VERO BEACH ON THE REVISED CHAPTERS AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF ANSWERING THOSE COMMENTS AND PREPARING AN ADDENDUM TO THE 201 PLAN TO REFLECT THE CHANGES AS REQUIRED. MR. ENG THEN DISCUSSED ITEM 3, SECTION B, AND EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS A YEAR AGO WHEN THEY WENT TO ATLANTA TO TRY TO GET THIS PROGRAM OFF THE GROUND, AND THEY EXPECT, IN ORDER TO ANSWER ALL THE COMMENTS AND PREPARE THE REVISED ADDENDUMS, THAT THEY WILL INCUR AN EXPENSE NOT TO EXCEED $3,000. THIS IS ACTUAL EXPENSE - NO PROFIT INVOLVED, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE REIMBURSED. MR. ENG CONTINUED TO REVIEW THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROCEEDING WITH IMPLEMENTATION AS SET OUT IN THE STATUS REPORT - ITEMS C-1 THROUGH 9. HE STATED THAT THEY WILL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR AND ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR AND FELT THAT LETTERS SHOULD BE WRITTEN TO EPA TO SEE IF WE CAN PUSH THEM FOR A COMMITMENT ON PARTICIPATING FUNDING ON THE MOSQUITO IMPOUNDMENTS. CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE CAN ACCEPT ALL THE RECOM- MENDATIONS EXCEPT SECTION B, ITEM 3, AND THE ONLY REASON -IS THAT THE BOARD HAS JUST BEEN HANDED THIS INFORMATION AND HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE CONTRACT OR HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF ABOUT THE EQUITY OR FAIRNESS OF THE $3,000. HE FELT THATIJUST AS A MATTER OF POLICY, THE BOARD WOULD NOT WANT TO CONSIDER THIS TODAY, BUT WOULD BE GLAD TO CONSIDER IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. HE FELT EVERYTHING ELSE SEEMED TO BE VERY MUCH IN LINE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT ITEM C-2 CALLS FOR BOARD APPROVAL OF THE 201 PLAN BY RESOLUTION AT THE SECOND MEETING IN JUNE AND SUBMITTAL TO DER AND EPA FOR FINAL APPROVAL. HE ASKED IF THIS IS TO BE DONE PRIOR TO RECEIVING RESOLUTIONS OF APPROVAL FROM THE PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITIES. -65- MAY 211980 a�ac ' 43--ftn 67,