Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/13/1981MONDAY, JULY 13, 1981 THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 1053 20TH PLACE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1981, AT 1;00 O'CLOCK P.M. PRESENT WERE PATRICK B. LYONS, CHAIRMAN; WILLIAM C. WODTKE, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN; DICK BIRD; AND DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. ABSENT WAS ALFRED GROVER FLETCHER,WHO WAS OUT OF STATE. ALSO PRESENT WERE NEIL A. NELSON, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY CLERK. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCED THAT THE BOARD WOULD AT THIS TIME PROCEED WITH THE CONTINUATION OF TUE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED FOR JULY 1, 1981, HE THEN ASKED IF THE BOARD WISHED TO ADD AN ITEM HAVING TO DO WITH THE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS BY RAMPMASTER INCORPORATED TO TODAY'S AGENDA. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADDED DISCUSSION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP- MENT REVENUE BONDS FOR RAMPMASTER INCORPORATED TO THE AGENDA. THE BOARD THEN PROCEEDED TO REVIEW THE REVISED DRAFT OF THE COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS; COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK QUESTIONED PAGE Z, THE LAST PARAGRAPH WHERE IT SAYS "IN APPLYING THE ABOVE CRITERIA, THE COUNTY ADMINISTRA- TION MAY CONSIDER..." HE WISHED TO KNOW IF THAT MEANS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE PLANNTNG OFFICIAL. PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER NOTED THAT THERE WERE A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF REFERENCES TO THE PLANNING & ZONING OFFICIAL, AND IT IS THEIR INTENT TO CHANGE THAT WORDING TO "COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR HIS DULY APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVE." HE CONTINUED THAT IT WAS POINTED OUT AT THE LAST MEETING THAT IT SHOULD BE THE ADMINISTRATOR, AND IF HE WANTED TO APPOINT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, HE COULD DO SO. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HIS ONLY PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT WE HAVE A PROFESSIONAL PLANNER WHOM HE FELT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS RATHER THAN THE ADMINISTRATOR. E0.0 46 PA �E 804 J U L 131981 J U L 1 101 IN FURTHER CONVERSATION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, AND THIS IS PURELY AN ORGANIZATIONAL MATTER, COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT A LOT OF DISCUSSION WAS PREVIOUSLY HELD IN REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL AREAS OF 15 ACRES OR MORE COMING UNDER THE IMPACT EVALUATION REQUIREMENT, AND MR, REVER REPORTED THAT NOW ONLY THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL WOULD FALL UNDER THE IMPACT EVALUATION REQUIREMENT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK POINTED OUT THAT LANGUAGE ON PAGE 5 WAS TO BE CLARIFIED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH SITE PLAN LANGUAGE, AND MR. REVER STATED THAT THEY HAVE THIS LANGUAGE BUT IT WAS NOT INCLUDED DUE TO AN OVERSIGHT ON THEIR PART WHEN RETYPING. MR. REVER REPORTED THAT ON PAGE 21 SECTION 2. D. 2, THEY RAISED THE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING SPACES FROM 200 TO 300 WHICH WOULD ALLOW A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY. COMMISSIONER WODTKE QUESTIONED HOW THIS WOULD AFFECT COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND MR. REVER NOTED THAT ONE PARK- ING SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY 200 SQ. FT. OF BUILDING; S0, 300 TIMES THAT WOULD BE A 60,000 SO. FT. BUILDING. MR. REVER NEXT INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE WORDING IN SECTION A. 4 ON PAGE 5 REGARDING PROVIDING NAMES OF OWNERS, OWNERS' REPRESENTATIVE, AGENT, AND ENGINEER AND/OR ARCHITECT WOULD BE REVISED TO READ THE SAME AS IN THE BINDING LETTER ORDINANCE, AND COMMENTED THAT MOST OF THE CHANGES WERE SLIGHT WORD CHANGE'S THAT WERE REQUESTED AT THE LAST MEETING. HE THEN DISCUSSED HAVING A MANDATORY MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT WHICH TIME MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE DISCUSSED. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR EXPLAINED THAT AN IMPACT EVALUATION DOCUMENT IS NOT ONE WHICH WILL BRING ABOUT APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF A PROPOSED PROJECT; IT WOULD MERELY BECOME PART OF THE APPLICATION AND WOULD BE REVIEWED BEFORE ACTUALLY MOVING INTO THE SCHEDULED PROCESSING. DISCUSSION THEN FOLLOWED AS TO THE NECESSITY OF AN APPEAL PROCESS AND,IF IT WERE CONSIDERED NECESSARY, WHETHER AN APPEAL SHOULD BE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR THE COUNTY COMMISSION. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ONLY THING THAT COULD BE APPEALED WOULD BE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION IN REGARD TO THE EXTENT OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED SINCE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS SIMPLY AN INFORMATION GATHERING TOOL. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT THE REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE MADE AS SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE AND NOT LEFT DISCRETIONARY WHERE THEY COULD BE APPEALED; MR. REVER, HOWEVER, FELT THERE SHOULD BE SOME DISCRETION IN REGARD TO REQUIRING DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION FOR DIFFERENT SIZE PROJECTS. ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS TO REVIEW ACTIONS BY A COUNTY EMPLOYEE AND DECIDE WHETHER A DISCRETIONARY ACTION MIGHT GO BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF THEIR AUTHORITY, AND FURTHER NOTED THAT A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT BIND THE COUNTY COMMISSION FROM ASKING FOR EVERYTHING REQUIRED IN THE ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER WODTKE QUESTIONED THE REFERENCE ON PAGE It TO IDENTIFYING THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PRONE AREAS, AND IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SIMPLY INDICATE WHETHER A PROJECT IS IN THE AREA DESIGNATED ON THE FEDERAL MAP AS THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT THE WORD "XEROX" WILL BE ELIMINATED IN THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 11 AND IT WILL JUST STATE THAT THEY WILL FORWARD ONE COPY OF THE COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER WODTKE QUESTIONED THE TERM "QUALIFIED PROFES- SIONALS" USED ON PAGE 5, AND MR. REVER EXPLAINED THAT THEY WOULD ANTICIPATE A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR PLANNER WOULD BE THE ONE WHO WOULD DO THIS TYPE OF EVALUATION RATHER THAN SOME OTHER TYPE OF PROFESSIONAL. ATTORNEY COLLINS WISHED TO SEE SOME DISCUSSION AS TO ANY EXISTING PROJECTS WHICH WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS ORDINANCE. HE BELIEVED THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL HARDSHIP IF THIS WERE IMPOSED ON THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY ALONG THE WAY IN THEIR PROCESSING. CHAIRMAN LYONS AGREED WE -SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME. CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE REQUIREMENTS RE- LATING TO IDENTIFYING THE IMPACT ON SUCH THINGS AS POLICE PATROLS, HOSPITAL BEDS, ANNUAL AD VALOREM TAX YIELD, ENDANGERED SPECIES, ETC, AND HOW THIS CAN BE DETERMINED. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTED THAT THERE ARE NATIONAL STANDARDS AND FORMULAS WHICH CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE THE IMPACT ON POLICE PROTECTION AND HOSPITAL BEDS, COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK DID NOT SEE THE NECESSITY FOR INCLUDING ALL THESE VARIOUS ELEMENTS IN THE ORDINANCE WHEN THERE ALREADY ARE JUL 131981 WPAGE,8 . J U L 131981 foo PAY' 7 STANDARDS TO DETERMINE THESE IMPACTS. HE FELT WE SHOULD CONCENTRATE MORE ON ASSESSING THE IMMEDIATE IMPACTS ON THINGS SUCH AS ROADS, WATER, FIRE PROTECTION; ETC; OTHERWISE, WE WILL SIMPLY BE AMASSING A VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENT THAT WILL NOT BE USED, PLANNING DIRECTOR REVER DID NOT VISUALIZE THIS AS AN EXCESSIVE DOCUMENT, BUT RATHER AS A VALUABLE DATA COLLECTION TOOL, WHICH -IN THE LONG HAUL WOULD SUPPLY INFORMATION TO MANY AGENCIES WITH— IN THE COUNTY. HE INFORMED THE BOARD THAT A DOCUMENT SIMILAR TO THAT WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED BY THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THE RIVER BEND PROJECT, WHICH IS ABOUT 672 UNITS, AND THE ESTIMATED COST OF PREPARATION WAS APPROXIMATELY $6,000. MR. REVER FELT THIS DOCUMENT WAS A GOOD REPRESENTATIVE DOCUMENT. THE BOARD RECESSED BRIEFLY TO ALLOW COMMISSIONER BIRD TO CONTACT THE SCHOOL BOARD AND RECONVENED AT 1:57 O'CLOCK P.M. WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. WILLIAM KOOLAGE OF 26TH AVENUE STATED THAT HE HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE WORDING ON PAGE 10, SECTION 6, "THIS IS TO INSURE THAT AN ANALYSIS BE MADE ON A PROPOSED PROJECT BEFORE THE PROJECT IS STARTED, OR AT A STATE WHERE IT WOULD BE IIMPOSSIBLE I TO BE TERMINATED." IT WAS AGREED THAT THE WORD "POSSIBLE" SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR "IMPOSSIBLE". MR. KOOLAGE NOTED THAT PAGE 21 SECTION D STATES THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS "TO ENSURE THAT THE CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WILL NOT HAVE TO BEAR THE COSTS RESULTING FROM HAPHAZARD AND UNCOORDINATED MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES...". HE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING TO ENSURE THAT THE TAXPAYER WILL BE PROTECTED FROM THESE COSTS BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE HAS NO PROVISION FOR ENFORCEMENT AND THERE IS NOTHING DEALING WITH IMPACT FEES. MR. KOOLAGE QUESTIONED HOW THE COUNTY COULD REFUTE THE DEVELOPER'S ESTIMATE AS TO THE IMPACTS. PETER ROBINSON OF LAUREL HOMES HAD SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE DEVELOPER'S STANDPOINT. HE QUESTIONED THE REQUIRED LISTING OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES AND WISHED TO KNOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE IF THE DEVELOPER DID NOT DISCOVER ANY AND IT WAS LATER DETERMINED THERE ARE SOME AT THAT LOCATION. COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT AGENCIES SUCH AS THE GAME AND FRESHWATER FISH COMMISSION AND THE WILDLIFE PEOPLE -PRETTY WELL KNOW TFWMALS OR PLANT LIFE�ANDCOULD BE CALLED UPON BY„o " % 4a DEVELOPER TO MAKE SOME SUBSTANTIATING TYPE STATEMENT. MR.,ROBINSON FELT THIS IS ALREADY DONE AND THAT IT WOULD BE A DUPLICATION. DISCUSSION CONTINUED IN REGARD TO PREPARING THE IMPACT EVALUATION DOCUMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. MR. REVER STATED THAT THE TWO DOCUMENTS COULD OVERLAP AND THE DEVELOPER COULD SUBMIT FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL WHILE THE IMPACT EVALUATION DOCUMENT WAS BEING PREPARED. MR. ROBINSON POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FLOW CHART IDENTIFYING THE PROCESSING SEQUENCE TO BE FOLLOWED IN THIS ORDINANCE. COMMISSIONER BIRD QUESTIONED THE WORDING REQUIRING DESCRIP- TION OF THE WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION ON THE SUBJECT AND "ADJACENT" PROPERTY. HE WISHED TO HAVE A CLEARER DEFINITION OF WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ADJACENT. IT WAS AGREED THAT "ABUTTING" WOULD BE BETTER WORDING THAN "ADJACENT". MR. ROBINSON FELT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WAS CREATED MAINLY BECAUSE OF DEVELOPERS TRYING TO GET THEIR PROJECTS IN JUST BELOW THE D.R.I. THRESHOLD OF 750 UNITS, AND HE FELT THAT ALL THE COMMISSION IS DOING WITH THE NEW 25O UNIT REQUIREMENT FOR IMPACT EVALUATION IS LOWERING THE MORAL HAZARD THRESHOLD. HE NOTED THAT A FEDERAL STUDY HAS DETERMINED THAT STANDARDS FOR SITE PLANS HAVE INCREASED GREATLY, IN SOME CASES BEYOND WHAT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS WHICH EXCEED SUCH STANDARDS SHOULD BE REDUCED. MR, ROBINSON BELIEVED THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE MAY JUST ADD TO THE COST OF HOUSING AND NOT SUPPLY THE COUNTY WITH THAT MUCH USEFUL INFORMATION. HE POINTED OUT THAT WHEN YOU MAKE DEVELOPMENT MORE EXPENSIVE, THE PUBLIC TURNS TO UNDEVELOPED LOTS ON DIRT STREETS AND THEN ENDS UP BY GOING TO THE COUNTY FOR MORE SERVICES. MARK BAKER CAME BEFORE THE BOARD REPRESENTING TREASURE COAST BUILDERS ASSOCIATION AND STATED THAT ALTHOUGH A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION IS WORTHWHILE, THEY FEEL THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DUPLICATION. MR. REVER STATED THAT IF THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO SATISFY SITE PLAN PROCEDURES, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SUPPLIED AGAIN. MR. BAKER WISHED TO KNOW WHERE THIS IS SPECIFIED IN THE pp O 11 RDINANCE, AND MR. REVER FELT THAT IT IS UNDERSTOODi.Oi PACE. 08 JUL 1 i lib i 5 J U L 131991 BOOK 46 PACE ,. MR. BAKER THEN QUESTIONED WHY CERTAIN IMPACT INFORMATION HAS TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE DEVELOPER WHEN WE HAVE NATIONAL STANDARDS BY WHICH TO DETERMINE THESE IMPACTS AND ALSO REFERRED TO THE REQUIRE- MENT TO LIST HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. MR. REVER COMMENTED THAT A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLY COULD HAVE A UNIQUE PROBLEM WHERE THE NATIONAL STANDARD WOULD NOT BE ADEQUATE. AS TO HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES, HE NOTED THAT THESE ACTUALLY ARE KNOWN ENTITIES AND THE STATE HAS CONTROL OVER SUCH SITES. THE COUNTY, HOWEVER, WOULD WISH TO BE AWARE OF THEM. MR. BAKER EMPHASIZED THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE A LOT OF REDUN- DANCY IN THE PROPOSED DOCUMENT, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT STREAMLINED. BRUCE KALEITA OF DELTONA CORPORATION NEXT APPEARED AND CON- CURRED THAT THE NUMBER OF AREAS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE BOTH EXCESSIVE AND REDUNDANT'S IT WAS HIS FEELING THAT THEY WERE BEING ASKED TO SECOND GUESS THE COUNTY'S OWN EXPERTS REGARDING IMPACT ON HOSPITALS, FIRE, POLICE, ETC., AND HE SUGGESTED THAT THE DEVELOPERS OBTAIN LETTERS FROM THESE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS SETTING OUT THEIR OPINION, WHICH LETTERS WOULD BECOME AN OFFICIAL PART OF THE RECORD AND THEREBY ELIMINATE SOME EXTRA WORK. MR. KALEITA THEN POINTED OUT THAT THE TIMETABLE FOR PROCESSING THE IMPACT STATEMENT ALLOWS THE COUNTY 45 WORKING DAYS FOR REVIEW - THIS TRANSLATES INTO APPROXIMATELY NINE WEEKS, AND THE ORDINANCE IS NOT SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THIS REVIEW IS COMPLETED. HE NOTED THAT THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILS ARE ALLOWED 30 CALENDAR DAYS FOR REVIEW AND "''CITED THE BOARD CONSIDER LIMITING THIS TIME PERIOD. JU ALJ ROBERT SCHUMAKER OF DELTONA CORP. EMPHASIZED THAT THEY FEEL THE ORDINANCE IS STILL TOO BROAD, STILL TOO VAGUE AND STILL LACKING IN THE PROPER CRITERIA NEEDED TO USE IT EFFECTIVELY. ALTHOUGH MR. REVER HAS MADE STATEMENTS ABOUT THEIR INTENTIONS, MR. SCHUMAKER FELT WHEN YOU HAVE AN ORDNANCE WHERE QUESTIONS ARE ASKED REGARDING EACH SECTION, THAT ORDINANCE SHOULD BE WORKED ON FURTHER AND TIGHTENED UP. HE AGREED THAT MANY THINGS IN THE ORDINANCE ARE OF GREAT CONCERN, BUT FELT IF THE BOARD HAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN OR SOME OTHER SPECIFIC CONCERN, IT SHOULD BE HANDLED BY AN ORDINANCE DIRECTED JUST TO THAT CONCERN. HE ASKED THAT THE -BOARD STREAMLINE AND CL" THE PROPOSED ORDINANC� L ®« im ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE HAD NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. HE BELIEVED WE ARE GETTING SIDETRACKED BECAUSE THE VEHICLES TO OBTAIN MUCH OF THIS INFORMATION ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE TO US, AND IF ADDITIONAL ITEMS ARE NEEDED, WE COULD POSSIBLY MODIFY THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE ACCORDINGLY. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT THE DRI ADDRESSES THE REGIONAL PROBLEMS, BUT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THEM ON A LOCAL BASIS. HE FELT THAT OUR MAJOR CONCERN IS THE FINANCIAL IMPACT ON EXISTING RESIDENTS AND WHETHER WE WANT SOME SORT OF IMPACT FEES. HE FELT STRONGLY THAT DEVELOPMENT SHOULD PAY ITS FAIR SHARE, BUT HE DID NOT SEE THAT HAPPENING IN THE PROPOSED DOCUMENT. COMMISSIONER BIRD CONCURRED WITH THE NEED FOR CLARIFICATIu. AND STREAMLINING OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND FELT THAT WE ARE A LONG WAY FROM HAVING A USABLE DOCUMENT. HE FURTHER DID NOT BELIEVE, WITH THE PRESENT PLANNING STAFF, WE HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO REVIEW AND ADEQUATELY MAKE USE OF THE VOLUME OF INFORMATION THIS ORDINANCE WOULD GENERATE. COMMISSIONER BIRD AGREED WITH DEVELOPER ROBINSON THAT WE NEED TO KEEP BUREAUCRACY OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM IN ORDER TO DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE COUNTY AND STATED HE WOULD NOT BE IN.'FAVOR OF THE ORDINANCE IN ITS PRESENT FORM. COMMISSIONER WODTKE WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PROJECTS WHICH CAUSE IMMEDIATE IMPACTS SUCH AS THE NEED FOR TRAFFIC LIGHTS, DECELERA- TION LANES, ADDITIONAL WATER, DRAINAGE, ETC, HE FELT THAT A COMMUNITY IMPACT ORDINANCE SHOULD ENABLE THE COUNTY TO REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR SHARE OF SUCH COSTS AND THAT WE SHOULD LOOK FURTHER AT:OUR ABILITY TO HAVE IMPACT°FEES; CHAIRMAN LYONS ALSO VISUALIZED THIS ORDINANCE AS COMING DOWN TO BRASS TACKS ABOUT IMPACTS. HE TALKED ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS ALONG A1A NECESSITATING FURTHER TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND STATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO ADDRESS THESE TRAFFIC IMPACTS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE CHAIRMAN DID NOT FEEL THAT ALL THE WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS LOST, BUT THAT POSSIBLY THERE ARE THINGS IN IT THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE SUBDIVISION OR SITE PLAN ORDINANCES. HE COULD NOT AGREE TO PASSING THE ORDINANCE IN ITS PRESENT FORM. ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY TABLED FURTHER ACTION ON TqE PROPOSED J U L 161981800k 46 E, Q 7 I FAir J U L 13 1981 COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION ORDINANCE. ADMINISTRATOR NELSON NOTED THAT THE BOARD APPARENTLY IS SAYING THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASSESS AN IMPACT IF THEY FEEL VARIOUS THINGS ARE REQUIRED AND ALSO THAT THE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE REVIEWED TO ELIMINATE ANY REDUNDANCY SO THAT ANYTHING REQUIRED IN THIS WILL NOT BE REQUIRED IN ANY OTHER DOCUMENT. IT WAS AGREED THAT WE NEED TO BE SPECIFIC AND ALSO THAT THE TIME INTERVAL SHOULD BE MADE AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE. DISCUSSION FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS FOR RAMPMASTER INC. CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMISSION FORM THE AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH THE INDUSTRIAL BOND QUESTION AND THAT THE AUTHORITY THEN TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEMS IN THE PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND RESOLUTION BECAUSE IN HIS MIND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT HAVE YET TO BE ANSWERED. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE ALSO HAD (QUESTIONS ABOUT 6 TO 8 ITEMS AND FELT THERE SHOULD BE A LOT MORE INPUT TO BE ANALYZED. CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED IF WE NEED A MOTION TO FORM THE AUTHORITY, "TORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT COULD TAKE PLACE AT THE MEETING OF 15TH, COMMISSIONER WODTKE WISHED TO KNOW IF WE ARE GOING TO CREATE THE AUTHORITY AND THEN FIND THE PEOPLE TO SERVE, AND CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION CAN SERVE FOR THE TIME BEING AND THEN FIND THE PEOPLE. WILLIAM KOOLAGE NOTED THAT SOME MONTHS AGO THERE WAS DISCUS- SION ABOUT CREATING A FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD, AND HE BELIEVED IT WOULD BE WELL FOR THE COUNTY TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THIS MATTER HAS A GREAT DEAL OF FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS. CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT SUCH A COMMITTEE HAS BEEN AUTH- ORIZED, BUT WE HAVE NO NOMINATIONS SO FAR EXCEPT COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK REPORTED THAT HE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR THOMAS BOTH AGREE THAT THERE ARE MANY MATTERS .APPEARING WHERE WE NEED PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND THAT THE COUNT' IS COMING CLOSER TO A TIME WHERE WE NEED TO BE LOOKING FOR A FINANCIAL CONSULTANT. PSR. THOMAS CONFIRMED THAT WE ARE GETTING. TO THAT POINT RAPIDLY BECAUSE OF THE NUMEROUS BONDS ISSUES WE HOW HAVE; IF THIS INDUSTRIAL BOND PROPOSAL IS APPROVED, WE WILL HAVE MORE REQUESTS. IN ADDITION, WE ARE NOT THROUGH WITH OUR UTILITY FUNDING, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE BOND MARKET REQUIRES DAILY PARTICIPATION; WE ARE GETTING INVOLVED WITH MORE AND MORE COMPLEX TYPE FINANCING; AND THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO A FINANCIAL CONSULTANT WOULD BE A FULL FLEDGED BOND DEPARTMENT, WHICH HE FELT WOULD BE A GOOD DEAL MORE EXPENSIVE, ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THE STATUTE CALLS FOR ONE MEMBER OF THE AUTHORITY TO SERVE FOR ONE YEAR, ONE FOR THREE AND TWO FOR FOUR, SINCE THE COMMISSION AND NOT INDIVIDUALS ARE BEING NAMED,.HE ASKED IF HE COULD DO THIS BY DISTRICT NUMBERS, THE BOARD AGREED, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 2:55 O'CLOCK P.M. ATTEST: CLERK J U L 131991 X0046 PAGE OnJ2