Laserfiche WebLink
CHAIRMAN 81EBERT ANNOUNCED THAT HE FEELS DISCUSSION OF THE <br />RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND THE RESOLUTION PASSED <br />BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IS NECESSARY AS IT SEEMS THERE HAS BEEN A. <br />MISUNDERSTANDING. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOY, <br />THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ADDING DISCUSSION OF THE ABOVE ITEMS TO. <br />TODAY'S AGENDA. <br />CHAIRMAN 81EBERT STATED THAT IT WAS HIS IMPRESSION AFTER LAST <br />MEETING WITH CITY.OFFICIALS THAT WE HAD SAID THE MONEY FROM THE COUNTY <br />WOULD BE USED FOR THE RELOCATION OF UTILITIES, BUT RESOLUTION No. 2696 <br />PASSED BY THE CITY OF VERO BEACH STATES THAT THE $403,000 AGREED UPON <br />IS TO BE USED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LAND, AND HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE <br />THE DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED. <br />COMMISSIONER LOY ASKED CITY MANAGER LITTLE AND CITY ATTORNEY <br />CORDISCO AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY OF VERO BEACH TO EXPLAIN HOW <br />THE DIFFERENCE IN THE RESOLUTIONS CAME ABOUT AFTER THREE .CITY COUNCILMEN <br />HAD MET WITH THE COUNTY AND AGREED TO THE TERMINOLOGY TO.BE USED IN THE <br />COUNTY'S RESOLUTION N0. 76-68. <br />MR. LITTLE SAID THAT HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THIS, BUT HE IS HERE <br />IN A DIFFERENT CAPACITY. HE STATED THAT HIS MAIN INTEREST IS THAT A <br />NONREIMBURSABLE CHECK FOR $403,000 BE ADVANCED TO THE CITY TO BE USED <br />TO DEFRAY UTILITIES RELOCATION COSTS DUE TO THE MULTIPLICITY OF <br />ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS WHICH WOULD ARISE OTHERWISE. MR. LITTLE INFORMED <br />THE BOARD THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SIGN A NOI-REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT; HAVE <br />THE CITY RELOCATE THE UTILITIES; AND LET THE ATTORNEYS ADDRESS THE <br />PROBLEM OF TERMINOLOGY. <br />CITY ATTORNEY CORDISCO INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE DRAFTED THE <br />CITY'S RESOLUTION CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS THE CITY COUNCIL'S <br />DESIRE, AND FELT THE MAIN OBJECTIVE OF THE AGREEMENT IS THAT THE CITY <br />BE REIMBURSED AND THAT THE COUNTY RECEIVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE APPROACH <br />TO THE BRIDGE. <br />COMMISSIONER LOY NOTED THAT IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT OF THIS <br />BOARD TO PURCHASE THE RIGHT-OF-VIAY AND CONTINUED THAT SHE HAD THOUGHT <br />IT WAS THE CITY'S INTENT TO GIVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE COUNTY. <br />ATTORNEY CORDISCO STATED THAT HE DID NOT FEEL THE CITY WOULD <br />GIVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO ANYONE WITHOUT REMUNERATION AND THEY ARE ONLY <br />RELEASING IT TO THE COUNTY BECAUSE THEY WILL BE RECEIVING THE RELOCATION <br />COSTS. 31 <br />OCT 61976 Book 7 . <br />■ <br />