HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/15/1981FRII`AY, MAY 15, 1981
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE COUNTY BARN MODULAR BUILDING,
4625 S. GIFFORD ROAD, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1981,
AT 2:30 O'CLOCK P.M. PRESENT WERE PATRICK R. LYONS, CHAIRMAN;
WILLIAM C. WODTKE, .JR., VICE CHAIRMAN; DICK BIRD; ALFRED GROVER
FLETCHER; AND DON C. SCURLOCK, .JR. ALSO PRESENT WERE NEIL A. NELSON,
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, SJR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; GEORGE LINER, UTILITY DIRECTOR; AND
VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERK.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER,
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON ANNOUNCED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE
MEETING IS TO KEEP UP WITH THE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE
TREASURE COAST UTILITIES SYSTEM PREPARED BY THE .JOINT VENTURE TO
SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE IN THE SHORT TERM, AND ALSO ARRIVE AT A DECISION
AS TO WHETHER THE COUNTY HAS THE CAPABILITY OR SHOULD BE IN RECEIVER-
SHIP OF THIS SYSTEM.
ENGINEER .JOHN ROBBINS, OF THE .JOINT VENTURE, REPORTED
THAT THEY ANALYZED THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT ALONG WITH THE TWO
PUMPING STATIONS FOR DEFICIENCIES TO SEE WHAT ACTION CAN BE TAKEN
-TO ELIMINATE THE HEALTH HAZARD. HE EMPHASIZED THAT THE ALTERNATIVES
PRESENTED IN THE REPORT REPRESENT ONLY AN INTERIM SOLUTION. MR.
ROBBINS THEN REVIEWED IN DETAIL THE ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED AND THE
VARIOUS-C-OSTS, -POINTING OUT THAT THE 6-7 ACRE SITE -WHERE THE PLANT
IS LOCATED IS -NOT SUFFICIENT AREA TO PUT IN A BACK-UP POND, WHICH THE
DER WOULD -REQUIRE FOR A LONG RANGE FACILITY.
��4 6- F,1 Jr 430
R
TREASURE COAST UTILITIES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS
Prepared for
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Prepared by
SVERDRUP & PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC._
BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA _
(A Joint Venture)
Engineer's Project No. 6383-D
May 14, 1981
+�:
J�,«..,```"�rafXka"4f`,'.,"�C4`,;�t`MSN`r``"''yy�`,'^ic+.ay,
L
'�`�. ,ro�sr.*�=:�+^.;^ :�>3�`�"1r�`':•«.K�w. ..w.-+x.�X�ar.�ti: �,..�w:+.....mom -.. r ..r "aar'. '"�'c
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. SCOPE OF WORK
III. INTERIM ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
IV. COST SUMMARY
Page
1
2
3
6
BOOK 6 _ RAGE 432
MAY 15:198goo 46. PA,[4:33
I. INTRODUCTION
- The-Joint Venture has been requested by County Staff to evaluate -
and determine interim alternatives for providing sewage treatment.serv-
ice utilizing the existing Treasure Coast Utility sewage treatment
system, including two (2).pumping stations and.force mains.
An-examination of various alternatives for providing interim
sewage treatment and effluent disposal will be-presented in this-report.
The-alternatives presented herein represent the most -viable based on _
current engineering standards and economic-considerations.
1
ysn1� r\t . ,..a.yrf.+'4`s`;' w . ..�t.9F ._-.;. , r . _ b r',..,. • . _. -.:,. , � � —•C.•h . e .-. .. M �....; .^q, arts�*�`v'-'.'.�,` , .�.n . , ,is'�* .. " - . _ '.- �4•
+��4v.�� .., .,.. ,.4'w. �: .�+,�>,��.'.<;.� =�=e-w r�..�=*•ww,.,�kr..,d''L;..+ewt� ...r.;.. �°+" .ram±"1 ��n.+�:15`M¢k; "Ys.a.` �.si ..�, ..- �k^a°:n9s
II. SCOPE OF WORK
The existing Treasure Coast Utility sewage treatment system is
evaluated and analyzed in this report. The existing sewage treatment
facility has been cited by the Department of Environmental Regulation
(DER) for non-compliance with Chapter 403 of the Florida Statutes.
Two (2) alternative sewage treatment systems are presented herein
which were designed to provide a system to eliminate the existing public
health problem and to provide a level of_treatment which would be in
compliance with the regulations of the Department of Environmental Regu-
lation. - ri
It should be noted, the alternatives presented herein are to
provide an interim solution to a public health problem. Further study
of this utility system will be required to provide an ultimate solution.
MAY 15 1981 _ _ poor 48 P E 35
III% INTERIM ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
A. Existing -Conditions
Site inspections have -been conducted to determine the condi-
tion of -the -existing Treasure Coast Utility sewage treatment system.
The existing conditions are described in detail in the site inspection
memorandum to Mr. Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator, from
Mr. John A. Robbins and Mr. George Liner (see Attachment A dated
March 13, 1981)..
B. Alternatl-ve 1 - Utilization of Existing Treatment Facilities
The existing system utilizes primary treatment of raw sewage.
The major component of the process is an Imhoff tank. Alternative 1
proposes to incorporate t -he structure -of the Imhoff tank into a secondary
treatment process. To accomplish this, the existing Imhoff tank would be
used as an aeration tank in an extended aeration process. Refurbishment -
of the existing tank and the placement of additional treatment units would
be required.to construct an extended aeration process. The existing- -
Imhoff tank will require compl-ete refurbishment including the installation
of an air diffuser system..
In conjunction with the utilization of the existing Imhoff tank,
a circular clarifier (settling tank), sludge holding tank and a chlorine
contact tank with chlorination system must be installed. A sludge return
line will be required to return activated sludge from the clarifier to the
aeration tank and to waste sludge to the sludge holding tank. Refer to
Attachment II for a process schematic.
In order to effectively evaluate this alternative, an estimated
cost breakdown will be presented as follows (pumping station refurbishment
will be addressed later in the.report):
Preliminary engineering design computations indicate that a
35,000 gallon per day (gpd) extended aeration sewage treatment plant will
3
-.:. w �
,:, cq>.,-. _ �'-'
�+--k-w^:_'�x�ar. .�:,.hs.*.w.. ;:,e�.
>k <.��.;.. ..:'.,<�
a,w.y{;r•�Tw: ..mac
•3
provide effective service to the community.
ITEM COST
1. Refurbishment of existing Imhoff
tank including removal of interior
structures $ 5,000
2. Installation of circular clarifier,
sludge holding tank, chlorine contact
tank, blowers, chlorination equipment,
sludge return lines, interconnecting
piping and air diffusers.' $ 20,000
3. Installation of impervious percolation
_pond liner to prevent lateral seepage
(8,000 square feet) $ 8,000
Sub -total $ 33,000
C. Alternative 2 - Utilization of a Used Package Plant -
As an alte--native to refurbishing the existing treatment
system, -consideration has been given to -installing a used extended aera-
tion -plant capable of treating 35,000 gpd. Such a system is available
on the market today.
The package plant treatment system includes -the plant itself,
blowers and chlorination equipment. Refer to Attachment III for a process
schematic. An estimated cost breakdown is presented below (pumping sta-
tion refurbishment will be addressed later in this report):
1. -Per te.lephQne-conversation with Mr. Ron Allen, Allen -'s Equipment
Marketing. -
2. Per telephone conversation with Mr. John Robinson, Engineered
TextfIe Products, Inc. -
4-
VAY _1-51981 BOOK PAGE'436-
MAY -15 -1981 46 "F43-
ITEM
F4 -ITEM COST
_ 1. Installation of used 35,000 gpd -
package.treatment facility and _
related appurtenances complete $ 45,000.
2. Installation of impervious perco- -
1 ati on pond liner to_ prevent
lateral seepage - $. 8;000
Sub -total $ 53,000.
y
i
,°mb�i_r :.ac .'z.^..«'-'?. '°.'�,S•:" 'S1'r:.ti3''.. �.t cii'.��-,,.:..Y�..`R.%sw-,°' _..�:
.r
IV. COST SUMMARY
The following will present an estimated cost summary of the two
alternatives for interim sewage treatment along with an estimated cost
for repairs to the two existing pumping stations. In addition, esti-
mates will be shown for technical services associated with the design
and implementation of each alternative and a total Estimated Project
Cost will be shown.
It should be noted, both the eastern and southern pumping stations
require considerable work before they can be depended on for complete
and uninterrupted service. Work to the pumping -stations would include
reworking the electrical components and level controls, adding a motor
to the pump in the southern station and adding a pump and motor to the
eastern station. It should also be noted, the original design. of the
two pumping stations allows the stations to be flooded during high water
conditions. Therefore, improvements to the existing pumping stations
should be considered as an interim measure and a possible redesign of
both pumping stations should be considered as part -of an ultimate solu-
tion for this utility system.
--MAY AcE 43$.
ESTIMATED PROJECT
COST SUMMARY
Item
Cost
Alternative
1. Alternative 2
1.
Sewage Treatment. Improvements_-
$ 33,000
_$ 53,000
2.
Refurbishment of Eastern Pump
-
Station
101-000
10,000
3.
Refurbishment of Southern
Pump Station
8,000
81000
Construction Cost Sub -total
$ 51,000
$ 71,000
4.
Technical Services .(Engineer..
-
ing, Permitting, Legal, Admin-
istrative) @ 18%
$ 9,180
$ 12,780
5.
Conti.ngencies @ 10%
$ 5,100
$ .7,100
Total Estimated Project Cost
$ 65,280
- _g0,880
NOTE:
Total Estimated Project Cost
does not include
interest daring
construction.
_
--MAY AcE 43$.
.-MAY 15.1981
t477&yMeNf •E
- _ SVERDRUP & PARCEL AND ASSOCIATES,. INC.
_
-AND
BEINDORF AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
(A JOINT VENTURE)
a�
® 46 4.39
Project No: 6383-A
March' 13, 1981 _
MEMORANDUM
TO: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator
FROM: John A. Robbins, Engineer, i9,_ -
Sverdrup & Parcel and As ociates, Inc. and.
Beindorf and Associates, Inc. (A Joint Venture)
George Liner, Utilities Director
Indian River County, Florida
RE: Treasure Coast Utilities Franchise
Water and Sewerage System
Site Inspection
March 11, 1981 _
Site inspection began at the eastern most pump station of Treasure Coast
Utilities. The pump station consisted of a concrete pump control building
with a single sewage pump (above ground type). The nameplate on the pump
has been corroded but, it appears to be a Gorman -Rupp Type 13-A, close
coupled sewage pump. There is only one pump in the pump station. The condi-
tion at the time of inspection revealed station failure evidenced by the high
level alarm light. The pump control mechanism was set to the hand mode and
was not operating; two of the relay boxes and switchgear were open, and
although the reset button was pushed, the pumps did not start. It appears
this lift station, at this time of inspection, is inoperable. The overall
condition of the pump station is very poor, although some painting has
occurred. The interior of the pumphouse appears to have had sewage in it
by evidence of a high water mark, and there is some corrosion evidenced on
some of the existing valving and piping. There appears to be signs of a
maintenance effort due to a modification to the pump actuation system, but
the system is inoperable. There is evidence that the lift station has been
vandalized by the fact that the exterior door into the pump station has a
large hole in it, and the locking hasp has been broken. Water service to
REPLY TOt REPLY TOs
X 1 3285 20TH STREET 1 2002 N.W. 19TH STREET
SUITE 4 SUITE "I
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 3"" GAINESVILLE. FLORIDA 22601
77
-trif?',�n?+m.Ms..-.:�z_. �- :#i'6+°-a�"'-+`"""�'.y; r-'y"Y' ,� *y;• ; •ry � - *..� � � q -
<:3c.'w.i�s.'m+>.<-.^d>"�..�'� � . �__ -._^� +-�.v:�- .�t.$.� ., .., ti_-..... .�-. _. s.=-. z.r! '�'#cw.•,a.�� aa��.''+�yri'�j�. ;N, r" ��;rK�nP�.r �.
M
Neil A. Nelson -2- March 13, 1981
County Administrator
the lift station appears to be•shut off. Also, there is no back flow
preventor on the hose bibb. Photograph No. 1 is of the east lift station
of the Treasure Coast system.
The inspection continued to the sewage treatment plant which is located
south of Treasure Coast Subdivision and north of Oslo Road, with access
off of Oslo Road. The road leading into the sewage treatment facility
was blocked by demolition and debris material, and the road is inaccessible.
The only access to the treatment facility at this point is by foot. The vege-
tation around the treatment facility is very high, and the general effect is
the treatment facility is not very well kept. This is evidenced by the fact
there is vegetation growing out of the top of the treatment facility and
around the base of the structure at grade level. There is evidence of raw
sewage deposits in an area approximately 15 to 20 feet around the treatment
plant. It appears this material could be a foot thick.
The chlorine contact chamber appears -to be inoperable.- There is a very
large tree growing in and beside the structure, which, with the location of
the particular tree,.would keep the facility from being operable. There is
another structure located adjacent to the chlorine contact chamber. It ap-
pears to be an old chlorination building. This building is in a severe state
of disrepair. Photograph No. 2 is of the chlorination building.
Access was obtained to the top of the treatment facility which appears to be
an Imhoff process. The access bridge across the facility has collapsed and
is no longer a functional element. There is vegetation growing out of the
top of the facility, and there are bubbles coming uP in the stagnant liquid
within the treatment facility, which would appear to be gas generated by
anaerobic conditions. The treatment facility is not operating as a sewage -
treatment plant, and is totally non-operable. There are houses located within
.300 feet -of the-pinat, and there is -some odor present, probably as a result
of -anaerobic conditions taking place within the concrete Imhoff tank.
Photograph No. 3 was -taken atop the treatment plant locking west and -shows
.the condition of:the access_ bridge, and also shows the proximity of houses to
the plant.
The water treatment facility- There -is evidence that there has been some
maintenance -performed: This is given by the fact that screens have been _
replaced on the.aerators. The building itself, the control building, appears
to have been painted, -and there appears to have.been some maintenance done on
the hydropneumatic tank. However, a detailed inspection is not available at
this time due to the fact that the -entire perimeter of the treatment facility
- is fenced and the fencing is'locked. Another inspection at another time will
be performed on the interior system.
:MAY151981oK4 6FAQ 44O
MAY -15 1981
Ne-il A'. Nelson
.County Administrator
4-6 PAcE441
-3- March .13, 1981
The inspection continued'to southern most pump station of the Treasure
Coast Utilities Franchise. The lift -station is of similar -design and
-construction as that of the eastern lift station. This lift station
appears to have been vandalized. There appears to be -a bypass of .a
flexible hose from the lift station with the discharge of this flexible
hose Laying on.the ground and south of the lift station.- There is raw
sewage in an area approximately 50 -to 75 feet wide, and approximately
300 to 400 feet in length extending to the south. The hose is on the
ground_and appears to be the source of -the raw sewage due to erosion
tak-ing place at the discharge of the hose. The apparent. use of this.
lift station is to bypass -the plant entirely and discharge raw --sewage
onto the ground. The discharge of this pump -station is ponding on the
_ ground and there is a great deal of odor associated with it also.
The interior portion of the lift station was not accessible due -to the
appearance of raw sewage in the base of the. lift station. It appears
there is a submersible pump lowered into the wet well and is plugged
into an auxiliary outlet in the lift station. "The main pumps appear
to be non -operational. The station has been vandalized, evidenced by
the fact that the door is open and the access cover on the roof of the
station is open also.
Photograph No. 4 is taken on top of the lift station looking south and _
displays pump discharge.
ohn A. Robbins
For the Joint Venture
JAR: vs
cc: Mr. George Liner
Mr. Jim Jones
Mr. James Beindorf
Mr. Joe Collins
'S A
N.
�eyr'.i2¢5 �" ,
irS ZZ
5
-,iv5
Mi
s ,t ��a 'c .z'.._ `SS w}-Svgi >
�r q,.
a�;&'� n - r '� 9zz to ..n- �, >at -�- � 'F �i k '� tN ��y' ,' u• ,'yL�.,"�`
ap
.�'�-d e` � ' apt �+�t ��' 3,�, � 'r h •T ''' �`�' j'� ,y � `��
C'}. YW+� :-
�,.��� S '� e � $�. � < { �,�* F .tib►Y _
s
1
r
Y1:rt
e x t x t-t eE s 'sem 'Y
An •v.` y t o sY 1W r ;:
�,.i
tf � k � t. a., � � 'Y '- � �k �K r"� 7� est� ,& '� F - •�+�'.
C r,
'� r1 ,. r .nF' > •t r x-'�'"!»a"` .yCy a #F'xr r't
X
c ';'f.;, - r-:• �� '` � n y .} t
s
�� 4r 6 d�itixdY'13`b' a �4 cG
(1M)F/N* S7A17,OAI
.SLUlX.F ,rwame, �3ETlC1�t/c
TAMW rs4N1C
.�'�l�o►if � pERGo��TiQy
�oc'Ess TA�t/K .
.SLUDGE REIZIRAI
C/NE . GD�lTgCT
Eit/6✓�/E�3 PRf�/t�GT Allo. G 3B 3 a
- g
�l4
r�C-^ gra''�*�G�'�'»�5���?•�'�'�Z"'ic�u`tT�av"�.+,.k"'�-r_._«.. �,.�.- .'.cx." «':.�:u��#°11?.'nu.'t."'�� >:'L�.,'FoR:�,...:..r+`zs*-,-..,...,,u.�°SS;.......oe',S..-...�"�.'ihn'."�':.r":.,_s"_..�..-_...
AT1Aall4ie ir7g-
n
h
I
-
t
W-�
�*
o
N
Sk
Ik
V
rl
h
I
-
t
W-�
�*
o
N
Sk
BOOK
46 PAGE 444
MAY 151981 -
Boa 46- PacE445 -
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT BOTH ALTERNATIVES, _
WHICH WOULD COST IN -A RANGE -OF $550-$750 PER.UNIT, ARE BASED ON
35,000 GPD -FOR 120 UNITS, AND HE WONDERED IF THIS WERE SUFFICIENT.
MR'. ROBBINS STATED THAT IT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE-
PRESENT
HEPRESENT CUSTOMERS --BUT NOT ANY INCREASE. HE NOTED THE AREA AVAILABLE
FOR THE -PERCOLATION POND IS VERY LIMITED.
COMMISSIONER -BIRD NOTED.THAT THE SECOND ALTE-RNATIVE
PRESENTED OF A USED PACKAGE PLANT -MIGHT -HAVE SOME RESALE VALUE,?
AND ENGINEER ROBBINS AGREED,
COMMISSION-ER-SCURLOCK ASKED IF SUCH A PLANT WOULD ALLOW
MORE FLEXIBILITY, AND MR. ROBBINS STATED THAT IT WOULD NOT ON THAT
PARTICULAR SITE WHICH IS LIMITED BY ITS SIZE; ALSO, THERE ARE SHALLOW
WELLS LOCATED VERY CLOSE TO.THIS FACILITY. AS TO RESALE VALUE, HE
ESTIMATED THAT YOU WOULD -RECOUP ABOUT 400,
ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING
IS TO REVIEW THE PLAN AND REACH A DECISION ABOUT SUBMITTING IT TO
THE COURT, BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REACH A DECISION REGARDING
THE ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED.
CHAIRMAN LYONS BROUGHT UP THE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE OF USING
TANKER TRUCKS TO HAUL THE SEWAGE AWAY AS AN INTERIM MEASURE, BUT
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH WILL NO LONGER
ACCEPT SEWAGE IN THIS MANNER.
J. R. GROVER ASKED IF THE ONE LIFT STATION THAT WAS OUT OF
SERVICE HAD BEEN REPAIRED,AND HE WAS INFORMED THAT SINCE THE COUNTY
HAS BEEN OPERATING THAT SYSTEM, THEY HAVE HAD POWER REINSTALLED AND
THE LIFT STATION IS FUNCTIONING.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED THE ATTORNEY IF THE BOARD IS
JUST TO LOOK THIS REPORT OVER AND DELIVER IT TO THE COURT AT WHICH
TIME THE COURT WILL DECIDE ON THE ALTERNATIVE.
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE COURT WILL CONSIDER THE
REPORT, AND IT MAY TAKE OTHER ACTION OR MAY TAKE ACTION CONSISTENT
WITH THE REPORT.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK"WISHED TO HANDLE THE IMMEDIATE `
PROBLEM BUT ALSO FIND A WAY TO GO FROM THERE TO A LONG RANGE SYSTEM.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WISHED TO KNOW IF ANYTHING WE DO
WILL BE ON MR. SALTERS LAND.
ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THE DIRECTIONS TODAY SHOULD BE
CENTERED ON THE BOARDS CAPACITY AS A RECEIVER, AND THIS CAPACITY
IS TO ANALYZE THE ASSETS THAT ARE THERE AND MARSHALL THE ASSETS TO
HELP SOLVE THE PEOPLE S PROBLEMS.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON ASKED IF THE NEXT DECISION IS WHETHER
OR NOT THE COUNTY SHOULD REMAIN AS THE RECEIVER?
ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT BASICALLY A RECEIVER IS AN
IMPARTIAL PARTY APPOINTED BY THE COURT, AND THE FACT THAT TREASURE
COAST UTILITIES HAS CHOSEN TO FILE SUIT AGAINST THE COUNTY PUTS THE
COUNTY IN A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN WE WERE BEFORE. HE DID NOT SEE
THAT WE NOW HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE BUT TO TELL THE COURT THAT WE WILL
DECLINE THE RECEIVERSHIP; WE CAN CONTINUE TO TRY TO PROTECT THE
PEOPLE, BUT WE ARE NO LONGER IMPARTIAL.
COMMISSIONER BIRD INQUIRED IF WE HAVE OR HAVE NOT ACTUALLY
BEEN APPOINTED RECEIVER AT THIS TIMER
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE COURT APPOINTED US AS
RECEIVER, BUT WE ASKED FOR 20 DAYS TO DETERMINE HOW WE WOULD CONTINUE
.TO ACT. THE COURT DID MAKE THE TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT.
COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED IF WE ARE NOT PREMATURE IN STUDYING
THE ALTERNATIVES IF WE NOW ARE GOING TO DECLINE THE RECEIVERSHIP.
ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE COURT IN ITS ORDER ASKED
THE COUNTY -TO COME BACK WITH A SUGGESTION OF -ALTERNATIVES AND -TO
-DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTY- WOULD CONTINUE TO SERVE. WE HAVE
-UNTIL MAY IgTH -TO FILE -THE REPORT AND TELL THE- COURT- WHAT THE COUNTY�S
INTENTIONS ARE. _
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED IF THE COURT -CAN MAKE MR
SALTER COMPLY WITH ONE OF THESE ALTERNATIVES, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS
POINTED OUT THAT THE COURT HAS EFFECTIVELY ORDERED -HIM BEFORE TO MAKE
- - 17 4 -- -
MAY 1:5
1981 P�c� 446
MAY 151981 - BOOK 46 PAGE447
CERTAIN REPA.IRS,: AND-HE WAS FOUND IN CONTEMPT, BECAUSE HE FAILED
TO FOLLOW THE ORDER.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THAT POSSIBLY IF THE COUNTY ISN't
THE RECEIVER,.THE COURT-WILL BE.FORCED TO TAKE SOME ACTION TO SEE
THE REPAIRS ARE MADE, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED-IT IS FORESEE-
ABLE THAT THE COURT OR RECEIVER MAY COME TO THE COUNTY AND ASK FOR
HELP SOMETIME DOWN THE LINE.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF THERE IS ANOTHER POSSIBLE
RECEIVER WE HAVEN'T -THOUGHT OF - THE CITY OF-VERO BEACH, FOR INSTANCE?
ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT DECISION IS UNDER THE CONTROL
OF THE COURT AND IT IS NOT OUR PURVIEW TO MAKE THE SUGGESTION.
COMMISSI-ONER WODTKE FELT ALL THIS HOPEFULLY WILL CAUSE THE
COURTS TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER IMMEDIATELY SO THAT WHATEVER MANNER
THEY CHOSE, THE PROBLEM CAN BE ADEQUATELY SOLVED AS FAST AS POSSIBLE
FOR THE -RESIDENTS.
ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED THAT THE COURT IS AWARE OF THE
PROBLEM AND THE HEALTH HAZARD, AND HE WOULD HAVE TO THINK THEY WOULD
WORK EXPEDITIOUSLY.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED, AND COMMISSIONER -BIRD REQUESTED THAT
THE 40% SALVAGE VALUE FIGURE ESTIMATED FOR THE USED TREATMENT PLANT
BE INCLUDED IN THE ENGINEER S REPORT FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER.
ENGINEER ROBBINS STATED THAT HE COULD INCLUDE IT AS A
FOOTNOTE.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COM-
MISSIONER SCURLOCK, TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE CONSULTING ENGINEER
DATED MAY -14, 1981, FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE COURT IN RESPONSE TO THE
COURTS ORDER TO COME UP WITH ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING A STATEMENT
AS TO THE POSSIBLE RESALE VALUE OF THE PACKAGE PLANT, AND BASED UPON
THE RECENT LAWSUIT BEING FILED, INFORM THE COURT THAT THE COUNTY
DOES NOT WISH TO CONTINUE AS RECEIVER EFFECTIVE AT THE HEARING
PRESENTLY SCHEDULED FOR MAY 19TH.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED IF WE HAVE PHYSICALLY GONE ON
THE LAND SINCE WE WERE APPOINTED RECEIVER.
18
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON INFORMED HIM THAT WE HAVE BEEN SPREADING
A LOT OF LIME AND WILL HAVE THE PLANT FENCED IN BY MONDAY. MR,
LINER CONFIRMED THAT THE FENCE MATERIALS HAVE COME IN AND THE WORK
WILL CONTINUE OVER THE WEEKEND.
CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT WE AUTHORIZED AN EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS TO GET THIS SYSTEM OPERATING - HE BELIEVED AN AMOUNT OF ABOUT
$19,1000.
COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED IF THERE IS A PROCEDURE FOR THE
COUNTY TO RECOUP THIS EXPENSE, AND THE ATTORNEY STATED THERE IS A
PROCEDURE THAT WE WILL FOLLOW. IT WAS NOTED THAT WE HAVE BEEN
AWARDED $250 A DAY DURING OUR RECEIVERSHIP.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INQUIRED HOW MUCH TIME THESE RESIDENTS
ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH THIS PROBLEM WHILE WE ARE IN COURT,
AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT HOPEFULLY, THE COURT WILL AUTHORIZE
SOME INTERIM STEPS TO BE TAKEN.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER CONTINUED TO ASK QUESTIONS SPECULATING
ABOUT THE ACTION THE COURT WOULD TAKE, AND THE ATTORNEY COULD NOT
ANSWER WHAT THE COURT WOULD DO.
CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT IT IS NOT OUR INTENT NOR THE
ATTORNEYS TO TAKE ANY ACTION THAT WILL LEAVE THESE PEOPLE IN LIMBO.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS
VOTED ON AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SINCE HE HAS BEEN
JOINED IN THE LITIGATION FILED BY TREASURE COAST UTILITIES, HE WOULD
NOT BE ABLE TO ASSUME THE CAPABILITY OF DEFENDING THE BOARD, AND HE,
THEREFORE, AT THE NEXT MEETING WOULD LIKE TO -MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS
TO A FIRM_THAT HAS SUBSTANTIAL BACKGROUND IN UTILITY AND FEDERAL WORK
THAT MIGHT REPRESENT US ALL. -
DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF HIRING SUCH AN
ATTORNEY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. -
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER-WODTKE-, SECONDED BY -COM-
MISSIONER SCURLOCK, TO AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN AND THE ATTORNEY TO
19.
now
�((J@gVyy`yl fpH(�(7
�F7 , 5' .*`ti7k?�t-'.+c --s s�„.+sr+�+,ff•'^`•;e��'�'-."”'iYti�.'^,f&:.3'--`�+°.3�+SsS.�`. w'
MAY 151981 46 m, GE 449
SECURE LEGAL -COUNSEL TO RESPOND TO THE SUIT FILED BY -TRAVIS SALTER-
AND
ALTER_AND TO INCLUDE REPRESENTATION FOR THIS BOARD; THE FORMER COMMISSIONERS
NAMED, AND -ATTORNEY COLLINS.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASKED WHERE-THE_MONEY FOR THIS
ADDITIONAL -EXPENSE WILL- COME FROM, AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED
THAT WE -HAVE SOME MONIES BUDGETED FOR LEGAL SERVICES ONA CONTRACTUAL
BASIS. -
ATTORNEY COLLINS REPORTED THAT OUR INSURANCE COMPANY -HAS
BEEN NOTIFIED AND WE EXPECT COVERAGE.
COMMISSI-ONER WODTKE ASKED IF THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL
REPRESENT US WITH THEIR ATTORNEY; AND ATTORNEY-COLLINS STATED THAT
OUR INITIAL UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE WILL SELECT THE ATTORNEY AND
THEY WILL- PAY FOR IT. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT COULD CHANGE, BUT HE DID
NOT FEEL WE SHOULD WAIT.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT -WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED -
AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 3:25 O'CLOCK P.M.
ATTEST:
L4
CLERK
e