My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/9/1976
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1976
>
6/9/1976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:19 AM
Creation date
6/9/2015 4:26:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/09/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
89
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
i <br />i <br />THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS <br />` TO THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 19, 1976. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />MASSEY, CHAIRMAN SIEBERT AND COMMISSIONER Loy VOTED IN FAVOR, THE BOARD <br />APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING-OF MAY 19, 1976, AS WRITTEN. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT REPORTED ON THE MEETING WITH THE D.U.T. IN <br />REGARD TO A SECOND BRIDGE FOR THE COUNTY WHICH HE ATTENDED IN FORT LAUD- <br />ERDALE ON FRIDAY, JUNE 4TH, ACCOMPANIED BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR <br />AND ATTORNEY COLLINS$ HE STATED THAT THE D.U.T. MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT <br />IF THIS PROJECT DID NOT HAVE TOTAL COMMUNITY SUPPORT, THE D.U.T. WAS <br />• i <br />READY-TO REALLOCATE THE FUNDS FOR THE 17TH STREET BRIDGE TO SOME OTHER <br />PROJECT WITHIN THIS DISTRICT. FROM THE LEGAL STANDPOINT, THE ATTORNEYS <br />FOR THE DEPARTMENT FELT QUITE CONFIDENT THAT THE COUNTY WAS NOT LEGALLY <br />OBLIGATED FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY OR THE RELOCATION OF THE <br />UTILITIES ON OR OFF THE PROPOSED BRIDGE SITE. HOWEVER, FROM A PRACTICAL <br />STANDPOINT, INDETERMINATE DELAYS COULD RESULT IN LOSS OF THESE FUNDS, <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT CONTINUED THAT VERO BEACH CITY OFFICIALS <br />WERE CONVINCING IN THEIR ARGUMENT THAT, WITH THEIR CURRENT OBLIGATIONS. <br />THEY WOULD BE UNABLE AT THIS TIME TO COPE WITH THE MAGNITUDE OF THE RE- <br />LOCATION THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE REQUIRED ON THE THREE PENDING PROJECTS <br />)THE BRIDGE, INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, AND THE TWIN PAIRS) WHICH THEY <br />ESTIMATED COULD EXCEED ONE MILLION DOLLARS. THE CITY PROPOSED THAT IN <br />RETURN FOR THE DEEDING OF THE.PROPERTY AT 17TH STREET THE COUNTY AGREE <br />TO PICK UP THE COSTS OF THE RELQCATIOM'OF ALL UTILITY AND POWER PLANT <br />j <br />RELATED FUNCTIONS ON THE 17TH STREET SITE AND THE RELOCATION OF OTHER <br />UTILITIES, AND, IN PARTICULAR, AT THE INTERSECTION OF 17TH STREET AND <br />:i U..S. HIGHWAY 1, WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE AREA THE COUNTY WOULD NORMALLY <br />HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR. THEIR ORIGINAL. PROPOSAL INCLUDED A REQUEST. <br />THAT THE COUNTY REIMBURSE THE.CITY FOR THE MARKETABLE VALUE OF THE <br />PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY. THE COUNTY CAME BACK WITH A COUNTER-PROPOSAL <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.