Laserfiche WebLink
="MONDAY, MAY 23, 1977 <br />THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, <br />FLORIDA, MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE COURTHOUSE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, <br />ON MONDAY, MAY 23, 1977, AT 3:00 O'CLOCK P.M. PRESENT WERE WILLIAM C. <br />WODTKE, JR'., CHAIRMAN; ALMA LEE Loy, VICE CHAIRMAN; WILLARD W. SIEBERT, JR.; <br />EDWIN S. SCHMUCKER; AND R. DON DEESON. ALSO PRESENT WERE JACK G. JENNINGS, <br />COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS, JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF <br />COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; JAMES BEINDORF, COUNTY CONSULTING ENGINEER; VAL <br />BRENNAN, COUNTY PLANNER; AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES, DEPUTY.CLERK. <br />PRESENT REPRESENTING THE CITY OF VERO BEACH WERE MAYOR PATRICK <br />LYONS; COUNCILMAN JAY SMITH; COUNCILMAN GORDON FAGERLUND; COUNCILMAN <br />DONALD SCURLOCK; CITY MANAGER JOHN LITTLE; ASSISTANT- CITY ATTORNEY DANIEL <br />KILBRIDE; CITY ENGINEER ROBERT LLOYD, CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR TOM MASON; <br />CITY -COUNTY BUILDING DIRECTOR DON ADAMS; AND CITY CLERK CARYL STEVENS. <br />ALSO PRESENT WERE MEL SEMBLER AND JAMES WILSON, DEVELOPERS OF <br />VERO MALL, AND THEIR ATTORNEY NICHOLAS MANOS. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER, AND IT WAS DETER- <br />MINED THAT CITY COUNCIL IS ALSO IN SESSION AT THIS TIME. <br />CHAIRMAN WODTKE INFORMED 'THOSE PRESENT THAT LAST WEDNESDAY THE <br />BOARD DISCUSSED WITH ATTORNEY COLLINS AND CITY MANAGER LITTLE THE TRIPAR- <br />TITE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY, THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND VERO MALL, <br />THAT WAS PREPARED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND WORKED OUT SOME OF THE PROB- <br />LEMS. THIS AGREEMENT WAS THEN RESUBMITTED TO THE CITY WITH AN ADDENDUM. <br />THE CHAIRMAN ASKED ATTORNEY COLLINS TO ADVISE US OF ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN <br />THE AGREEMENT PRESENTED TODAY AND WHAT WAS AGREED ON AT THE LAST REGULAR <br />MEETING OF THE BOARD. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THERE ARE SOME MINOR WORD CHANGES <br />AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, BUT HE FELT WE ARE DOWN TO A BOTTOM-LINE PROBLEM <br />WHICH INVOLVES TAP -IN CHARGES. HE NOTED IT IS THE CITY'S POSITION THAT <br />THEY MUST HAVE TAP -IN CHARGES IF THEY ARE GOING TO OPERATE THE SYSTEM ON <br />A RETAIL BASIS AS THEY FEEL THEIR BONDING ORDINANCE REQUIRES SUCH CHARGES. <br />THE ATTORNEY CONTINUED THAT FROM THE BOARD'S POINT OF VIEW, THIS DEFEATS <br />r <br />MAY 2 3 19 77 , <br />