My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/5/1976
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1976
>
10/5/1976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:20 AM
Creation date
6/3/2015 10:18:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/05/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
ATTORNEY COLLINS THEN PROCEEDED TO READ THE COUNTY'S PROPOSED <br />RESOLUTION. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT THEN ASKED THE CITY COUNCIL IF THEY WOULD HAVE <br />ANY PROBLEMS ADOPTING A SIMILAR RESOLUTION. <br />MAYOR SMITH STATED THAT THE PROBLEM COMES AT $390,000.00 WHEN <br />THE RELOCATION COSTS HAVE ESCALATED TO $515,000.00 AND WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT <br />THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO GO TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING TO GET REIMBURSED <br />FOR THE LAND. ALL OUR EFFORTS TO GET AN APPRAISAL FROM THE STATE HAVE BEEN <br />FRUITLESS. THEY HAVE NEVER TOLD US WHAT THEIR APPRAISAL WAS, I DO NOT KNOW <br />IF YOU OR MR. JENNINGS WERE TOLD OR IF IT WAS EVER MADE PUBLIC. <br />MR. .JENNINGS STATED THAT IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STATE HAS <br />AN APPRAISER WORKING ON IT, BUT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY FIGURES. <br />MR. LITTLE STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT THEY DID HAVE AN <br />APPRAISAL AND HE WAS TOLD THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE IT, THEY, THE D.O.T. FELT <br />IT WAS INCOMPLETE, BUT THEY DID HAVE ONE AND IN RESPONSE TO FURTHER QUESTIONS <br />THEY STATED THAT IT MIGHT BE THE SUBJECT OF FUTURE LITIGATION AND THEY <br />WOULD REFRAIN FROM RELEASING IT FROM THEIR OFFICE. <br />CHAIRMAN $IEBERT STATED THAT TO HIS KNOWLEDGE THERE HAS BEEN NO <br />OFFICIAL COMPLETED APPRAISAL DONE BY THE D.O.T. <br />MR. LITTLE STATED THAT IT HAS BEEN RELATED TO HIM THAT THERE HAS <br />BEEN AN APPRAISAL COMPLETED WITH A DOLLAR SIGN ON IT. <br />CHAIRMAN $IEBERT THEN INFORMED THE MAYOR THAT ONE OF THE FIGURES <br />UP ON THE BLACKBOARD AT THE JUNE 4TH, FT. LAUDERDALE MEETING WAS $390,000. <br />WHICH WAS IN THE $500,000. RANGE. <br />MAYOR SMITH REMIN1 THE BOARD THAT PARTICULARLY ON THE ELECTRICAL <br />FOR THAT STRETCH, WE HAD ALTERNATES 1, Z, AND 3 AND WE OPTED TO GO ON THE <br />LOWEST COST ALTERNATE HOPING IT COULD WORK OUT AND IT DID NOT. THE <br />INTERSECTION DESIGN FOR INDIAN RIVER BLVD, WAS CHANGED AND WIDENED AND <br />WE COULD NOT ARRIVE AT ALTERNATE N0. 3, THE LOWEST COST. IT WAS HIS <br />UNDERSTANDING THAT WE TOOK THAT LOWEST FIGURE HOPING THAT WE COULD ARRIVE <br />AT IT, BUT IF NOT, IT WOULD BE A NEW BALL GAME. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEB ERT STATED THAT WAS NOT HIS UNDERSTANDING. <br />PAT LYONS STATED THAT THE $390,000 WAS NOT SOLID IT WAS PREFERRED <br />AND HOPED FOR. <br />CHAIRMAN $IEBERT STATED THAT THE BOARD THOUGHT IT WOULD COME IN <br />LOWER THAN $390,000. THE D.O.T. FIGURES LEAD US TO BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD COME <br />IN LOWER. IT SEEMS THE CITY'S FIGURES WERE MORE CORRECT. <br />.. -3- <br />OCT 51976 <br />UAA <br />suul ICU ?A 4' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.