Laserfiche WebLink
MAYOR SMITH STATED THAT WE ARE HUNG UP ON PRICEt MAYBE WE COULD <br />GET MORE BY GOING THROUGH CONDEMNATION, WHERE WE WILL ASK A PROFESSIONAL <br />TO GET AN APPRAISAL. I WOULD PREFER, IN BEHALF OF THE CITY NOT TO GO THAT <br />ROUTE, BUT I THOUGHT WE COULD ARRIVE AT A FIGURE SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE <br />$390,000. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT THE CITY IS TALKING ABOUT COSTS THAT <br />ARE NOT THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY EVEN IF IT DID GO THE CONDEMNATION <br />ROUTE. THE ONLY AREA THAT IS UNDER QUESTION WHATSOEVER IS INDIAN RIVER BLVD. <br />TO THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TOTAL <br />COST OF $515,000 EVEN IF YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL IN A CONDEMNATION SUIT, YOU <br />MIGHT GET SOMETHING FOR THE LAND AND IT MIGHT NOT EQUAL WHAT YOU GAVE UP <br />IN OTHER AREAS THAT THE COUNTY WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO. <br />MR. LITTLE STATED THAT THE COURT HAS DECLARED THAT THIS IS NOT <br />A PUBLIC ROAD. <br />MR. CORDISCO STATED THAT THIS IS TRUE, IN THE 17TH STREET BRIDGE <br />CASE, .JUDGE BEN WILLIS MADE A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE EXTENSION OF 17TH <br />STREET, EAST FROM ITS PRESENT INTERSECTION OF INDIAN RIVER BLVD. IS NOT A <br />PUBLIC STREET. IF THE D.O.T. APPROVES WIDENING OR EXTENDING 17TH STREET <br />ANY UTILITIES LYING IN THAT PART TO BE .WORKED ON MUST BE RELOCATED BY <br />THE OWNERS OF THE UTILITIES. THE CITY AND THE COUNTY ARE DISPUTING WITH <br />EACH OTHER AS TO WHO SHOULD PAY FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE UTILITIES AND <br />IT IS MY JUDGMENT THAT THE STATE SHOULD BE PAYING FOR THEM AND THE REAL <br />ISSUE IS THE VALUE OF THE CITY`S PROPERTY. <br />MR. LITTLE STATED THAT IF THIS WEREjPRIVATE PROPERTY AND A PRIVATE <br />UTILITY COMPANY HAD RIGHTS TO BE ON THE PROPERTY - TWO THINGS WOULD HAPPEN: <br />1. THE STATE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR THE PROPERTY; AND <br />2. ALSO HAVE TO PAY THE UTILITY COSTS; 'NOT ONE OR THE OTHER -THEY WOULD <br />PAY BOTH. IN THIS CASE, THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE UTILITY OWNER HAPPEN <br />TO BE THE SAME ENTITY. IF IT WENT ALL THE WAY, IT IS POSSIBLE THE <br />PROPERTY OWNER COULD BE COMPENSATED FOR TAKING OF THE LAND AND THE <br />UTILITY RELOCATION COSTS. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ANSWERED THAT THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT STORY COULD <br />BE THAT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH COULD BE LEFT WITH THE ENTIRE COSTS. <br />-4- <br />OCT 51976 <br />Boot 'U ��g3. <br />