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
THAT THE RELOCATION COSTS FOR THE WATER AND SEWER IN THE AMOUNT OF <br />$200,000 AND THE ELECTRICAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $160,000 BE PAID FOR OUT <br />OF THE COUNTY'S SECONDARY ROAD FUNDS, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN <br />THE DESIGN WORK COMES BACK FROM THE D.O.T. AND THE CONTRACTS ARE LET <br />THAT THIS FIGURE NOT EXCEED THE GENERAL AREA OF $390,000.00. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE FIRMLY BELIEVES THE ONLY WAY <br />i WE ARE EVER GOING TO HAVE THE BRIDGE AT 17TH STREET IS THROUGH COOPERATION <br />t _�y <br />BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY BECAUSE IF WE DO NOT REACH SOME AGREEMENT, <br />WE ARE FACED WITH SOME KIND OF COURT ACTION, AND EVERYONE WILL BE THE <br />'i <br />LOSERe <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER ENTERED THE MEETING AT 8:55 O'CLOCK A.M. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT CONTINUED THAT THE CITY SUGGESTED WE ESTABLISH <br />PRIORITIES ON THE THREE PROJECTS, AND WE AFFIRMED'THAT THE BRIDGE IS THE <br />.i <br />FIRST PRIORITY, INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD IS SECOND, AND IF IT BECOMES <br />NECESSARY TO DEFER SOMETHING, WE WOULD DEFER THE TWIN—PAIRS, BUT ONLY <br />IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY, <br />ADMINISTRATOR JENNINGS STATED THAT HE CONCURRED WITH THE <br />CHAIRMAN'S REMARKS 100%. <br />THE CHAIRMAN NOTED THAT THERE WERE SOME POTENTIAL LEGAL PROB— <br />LEMS INVOLVED IN THE PICKING UP OF RELOCATION COSTS OF ANY AREAS OTHER <br />�. THAN 'THOSE OWNED BY THE CITY AND ASKED FOR ATTORNEY COLLIN'S COMMENTS. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IT WAS THE CONSENSUS <br />! OF THE D.O.T. COUNSEL, CITY ATTORNEY CORDISCO AND HIMSELF THAT THE MAJOR <br />;y HURDLE COULD BE OVERCOME. HE STATED 'HE WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASISE THAT THE <br />t i <br />THREE PROJECTS WERE VERY DISTINCTLY SEPARATED AT THE MEETING SO THAT THE <br />=_I REQUIREMENT THAT THE COUNTY PARTICIPATE IN ALL THREE PROJECTS IS NO LONGER <br />IN QUESTION. <br />'i THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RISK INHERENT IN GAMBLING <br />WITH THE TWIN—PAIRS, BUT IT WAS AGREED THAT THE BRIDGE IS AND HAS BEEN <br />FOR A LONG TIME THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR THE OVERALL GOOD OF THE <br />COMMUNITY. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE FELT IT SHOULD BE FULLY UNDER— <br />STOOD THAT VIE ARE .ASSUMING MORE THAN THE D.O.T FELT WAS OUR LEGAL RE— <br />SPONSIBILITY. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.