My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/19/1976
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1976
>
10/19/1976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:20 AM
Creation date
6/10/2015 4:29:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/19/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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
PRESENTED HIS PROPOSED NEW FEE SCHEDULE TO THE CITY COUNCIL LAST NIGHT <br />AND GOT THEIR APPROVAL. THEY ARE IN THE RED $1,200.00, MR. ADAMS <br />POINTED OUT THAT THE PRESENT FEE SCHEDULE WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT WHEN <br />HE ADDS NEW STAFF, AND THE VEHICLES IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ARE SIX <br />YEARS OLD AND HE WILL RECOMMEND THE ENTIRE FLEET BE REPLACED. HE STATED <br />THAT THE NEW FEE SCHEDULE HE IS RECOMMENDING IS THE ONE SET OUT IN THE <br />SOUTHERN STANDARD BUILDING CODE AND HE DOES NOT FEEL THE IMPACT IS TOO <br />GREAT TO BE ABSORBED IN TODAY'S ECONOMY. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT NOTED THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO MAKE A PROFIT NOR <br />DO WE WANT TO HAVE TO RAISE OUR FEE SCHEDULE TO MAKE THE CITY BREAK EVEN, <br />BUT IF IT IS REALLY NECESSARY TO PROVIDE.SERVICES REQUIRED OF THE <br />BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THAT IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION. <br />MR, ADAMS STATED THAT HE FEELS IF THE FEE SCHEDULE IS NOT <br />INCREASED, THE AD VALOREM TAXES WILL HAVE TO PICK UP THE DIFFERENCE. <br />IT WAS AGREED THAT THIS MATTER WILL BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF <br />THE NEXT MEETING. <br />CHAIRMAN $IEBERT INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THERE IS A PENDING <br />LAWSUIT IN REGARD TO EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES PURCHASED BY THE PROPERTY <br />APPRAISER AND THE DEFENDANTS ARE THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, THE BOARD OF <br />COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THIS MATTER WAS FILED IN TALLAHASSEE. <br />THERE IS ABOUT $36,000 IN DISPUTE, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED IF THE <br />BOARD WISHED TO AUTHORIZE HIS FIRM TO GO BACK AND FORTH TO TALLAHASSEE, <br />THEY WOULD BE GLAD TO DO SO, BUT HE DOES NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE <br />FINANCIALLY ADVISABLE. HE SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE THE PROPERTY <br />APPRAISER'S ATTORNEY, W.E. "BUCKY" BISHOP, SJR., TO REPRESENT INDIAN RIVER <br />COUNTY ON THIS PARTICULAR LAWSUIT, AND HE WILL KEEP IN TOUCH WITH MR. <br />..BISHOP ON THIS MATTER. <br />DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE COUNTY MUST <br />ANSWER SEPARATELY AND WILL HAVE TO PAY ATTORNEY'S FEES. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER Loy, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />SCHMUCKER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY W.E. "BUCKY" <br />.BISHOP, .JR., TO REPRESENT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IN THE PENDING LAWSUIT <br />#76-2068 AND REQUESTED ATTORNEY COLLINS TO KEEP THE BOARD ADVISED OF THE <br />PROGRESS OF THE SUIT. <br />24 <br />• Beef 27 ���� ��4 <br />OCT 2.0 1976 . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.