My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/2/1977
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1977
>
11/2/1977
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:42 AM
Creation date
6/3/2015 12:53:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/02/1977
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
115
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
PROJECT DOES, AND IF WE DON'T COME UP WITH THE FUNDING, THE PROJECT <br />WILL NOT PROCEED. <br />COMMISSIONER LOY. NOTED TWAT WE ARE IN A POSITION WHERE WE <br />NEED TO MAKE A DECISION TO PROCEED OR STOP THE WHOLE THING, AND SHE <br />DOES NOT FEEL STOPPING IT IS IN OUR BEST INTEREST. SHE ALSO FELT <br />WE WOULD BE DEFEATING THE PURPOSE BY SPLITTING THE TWO PROJECTS AS <br />.THIS WOULD STOP THE CITY OF VERO BEACH PROJECT COMPLETELY AND THEY, <br />UNDOUBTEDLY, SOON WOULD BE BACK ASKING THAT WE GET.A NEW STUDY. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT STATED HE FELT THE CITY OF VERO BEACH <br />SHOULD BE NOTIFIED BEFORE A DECISION IS MADE BECAUSE IT IS THEIR <br />PROJECT, <br />COMMISSIONER Loy POINTED OUT THAT IT ACTUALLY IS OUR PRO- <br />JECT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE THE ONES TO GET IT THROUGH, ALTHOUGH IT <br />'-DOES INVOLVE THE CITY. SHE FELT WE MUST MAKE A POSITIVE MOVE AND <br />NOTED THAT SHE BELIEVES ALL THEY WISH IN THE AFFIRMATIVE LETTER IS <br />QUITE BROAD LANGUAGE BUT INDICATING A POSITIVE APPROACH. <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER SUGGESTED THAT COMMISSIONER Loy <br />DRAFT SOMETHING FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW. HE REITERATED THAT IF WE <br />DONT PUT UP THE LOCAL FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT, THEY ARE NOT GOING <br />TO DO IT, AND COMMISSIONER Loy COMMENTED THAT WE CANT EVEN GET <br />ANY PILOT PROJECT WITHOUT COMPLETING THIS NEXT STEP. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT POINTED OUT THAT MR. CARLTON`S <br />LETTER REQUESTED THAT WE ACT AS "LOCAL SPONSOR FOR THE SEBASTIAN <br />INLET STATE RECREATION AREA." <br />DISCUSSION CONTINUED ON SEPARATING THE TWO PROJECTS, <br />MR. SCHMIDT NOTED THAT THE CORPS WILL SEND UP THE ENTIRE <br />PACKAGE WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE SEBASTIAN AREA, AND HE FELT ANYTHING <br />NEGATIVE WILL AFFECT THE WHOLE PROJECT AS THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE <br />STUDY OVERALL AND NOT IN BITS AND PIECES. ONE COMPLETE STUDY HAS <br />TO BE FINISHED. HE FELT THAT THE CITY COUNCILS REACTION WAS THAT <br />THIS WAS THE WAY TO GO. MR. SCHMIDT NOTED THAT IF WE HAD THE MONEY <br />TO DO.THIS WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT, BUT <br />WE DO NOT, AND HE FELT THE BOARD NEEDS*TO TAKE ANY STEPS NECESSARY <br />TO SEE THE PROJECT IS FUNDED AND THEN MAKE DECISIONS. <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER FELT THAT AFTER ALL THE WORK AND <br />42 <br />OV 2 197731 PAu <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.