Laserfiche WebLink
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 />