My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/8/1976 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1976
>
9/8/1976 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:19 AM
Creation date
6/9/2015 4:42:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/08/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
COUNTY WILL TAKE ABOUT DISPOSITION OF WATER UNDER THE TRIPARTITE <br />AGREEMENT, AND (3) DETERMINE WHAT WE DESIRE TO DO ABOUT LONG RANGE <br />PLf i'M . FOR WATER. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ON THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT, AND COMMIS- <br />SIONER Loy STATED THAT WE KNEW THERE WERE SOME GLARING FAULTS IN THE <br />CONTRACT, AND THAT IT WAS DEFINITELY TO THE CITY'S ADVANTAGE, BUT <br />WE SIGNED IT IN ORDER TO BAIL THE CITY OUT SO THEY COULD GET THE 1-1/2 <br />MILLION DOLLAR GRANT THEY HAD ALREADY STARTED SPENDING, AND WE IN TURN <br />ANTICIPATED COOPERATION FROM THE CITY. THE WHOLE ARGUMENT CENTERS <br />AROUND THE FACT THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED FOR ANY WATER <br />ALLOCATION THAT WAS GIVEN IN THE COUNTY PREVIOUS TO THE SIGNING OF THE <br />CONTRACT, <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER AGREED THAT WE MUST GO TO COURT TO <br />STRAIGHTEN OUT THIS AGREEMENT AND WE MUST GO AHEAD WITH A WATER SYSTEM <br />IN THE COUNTY, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, HE POINTED OUT WE DO HAVE <br />110,000 G.P.D. TO ALLOCATE AND HE FELT WE SHOULD MAKE A DECISION AS <br />TO HOW TO ALLOCATE THIS RATHER THAN NOT ALLOCATE ANY WATER. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE SUGGESTED THAT IF WE ALLOCATED ALL THE <br />WATER WE HAVE LEFT, POSSIBLY SOME GROUPS MIGHT THEN BE ABLE TO GET <br />WELL PERMITS; ALTHOUGH HE DID FEEL SOME WATER SHOULD BE KEPT IN <br />RESERVE. <br />ATTORNEY .JACKSON ASKED WHAT BETTER USE COULD THE COUNTY HAVE <br />FOR 10,000 G.P.D. THAN FOR HEALTH-RELATED FACILITIES SUCH AS THEY ARE <br />PLANNING. HE NOTED THAT THE REASON THERE ARE NOT MORE DOCTORS BY THE <br />PRESENT HOSPITAL IS BECAUSE THE NEW HOSPITAL HAS BEEN IN THE PLANNING <br />FOR EIGHT YEARS. HE CONTINUED THAT THE COUNTY GAVE THE OTHER DOCTORS' <br />GROUP AN ALLOCATION, AND HE IS ONLY ASKING FOR 1/3 OF THE GALLONAZOE <br />THEY WERE GRANTED AND FEELS HIS GROUP SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL TREATMENT, <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT REQUESTED ATTORNEY JACKSON TO HOLD HIS <br />REQUEST FOR TWO -WEEKS AS HE FELT WE MUST BE SURE ABOUT THE SITUATION IN <br />GIFFORD WITH U.D.U. BEFORE WE ALLOCATE ANY MORE WATER. t <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD WRITE A DEMAND <br />LETTER TO THE CITY OF VERO BEACH STATING THE COUNTY'S POSITION AND GIVE <br />THEM A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD TO CLARIFY THEIRS. ; <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT DIRECTED THAT ATTORNEY COLLINS AND COUNTY <br />ENGINEER BEINDORF WORK TOGETHER TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE CITY AS RECOM- <br />MENDED BY THE ATTORNEY. <br />34 i <br />1 <br />i <br />bid<�;. <br />SEP 81976 ,00 �Q; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.