My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/21/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
2/21/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:38 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 11:00:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/21/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
74
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
m <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED IF A REALIGNMENT IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY <br />WOULD AFFECT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MR. FAIR REPLIED NEGATIVELY, AS THEY <br />-ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN SOME SEMBLANCE OF ORDER AND _WANT TO ENTER INDIAN <br />RIVER COUNTY AT THE SAME POINT. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL <br />PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WOULD BE NEGOTIATING WITH FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT FOR <br />THEIR RIGHTS—OF—WAY, AND MR. FAIR AGREED THAT THERE IS CERTAINLY A RIGHT <br />OF ANY OWNER AFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT TO BE HEARD. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT ASKED ABOUT THE METHOD OF COMPENSATION <br />USED, PARTICULARLY TO OWNERS OF YOUNG GROVES — HOW IS THE VALUE PLACED <br />ON IT? <br />MR, FAIR RESPONDED BY STATING THAT CHAPTER 73 OF THE FLORIDA <br />CONSTITUTION SETS UP A PROCESS ACHIEVING JUST COMPENSATION AND PART OF <br />THE PROCESS INVOLVES FEES FOR APPRAISERS IN ORDER TO HAVE A FAIR APPRAISAL <br />PRESENTED TO THE COURT. HE CONTINUED THAT ANY DAMAGES THAT ARE PROVABLE <br />AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT RECEIVE AN AWARD. <br />ARLON MCCARTY, MANAGER, FLORIDA,POWER & LIGHT, APPROACHED THE <br />BOARD AND STATED THAT THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE COMPENSATED ON A NON— <br />PRODUCING GROVE BASIS. HE ALSO STATED THAT IF IT WERE A PRODUCING GROVE, <br />IT WOULD DEMAND A HIGHER MARKET VALUE. MR. MCCARTY•CONTINUED THAT <br />INVESTMENT IN A GROVE HAS.A LOT OF CONTINGENCIES'AND YOU WOULD NOT BE <br />COMPENSATED ON A FUTURE INCOME THAT IS UNCERTAIN; IT IS COMPENSATED ON <br />s A PAST INCOME VALUE. <br />COMMISSIONER SIEBERT REPORTED THAT WHEN THEY COMPENSATE A <br />UTILITY COMPANY, IT IS COMPENSATED ON POTENTIAL INCOME AS WELL. <br />MR. MCCARTY EXPLAINED THAT BY HAVING AN INCOME STREAM THAT IS <br />GUARANTEED BY A CONTRACT, YOU CAN CAPITALIZE ON IT BUT WHEN YOU ARE <br />TALKING ABOUT GROVES AND FARMS, IT HAS A VALUE THAT IS NEBULOUS. HE <br />FURTHER STATED THAT WHEN THE FREEZE WIPED OUT ORANGE GROVES RECENTLY, <br />IT DID DESTROY THE INCOME STREAM AND IF YOU BOUGHT A GROVE NOW, IT WOULD <br />BE A HIGHER VALUE THAN IT WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF THE INCOME <br />STREAM. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED WHAT GROVE AREA IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY <br />DOES THE TRANSMISSION LINE CROSS. <br />28 <br />F E g 2 11979 <br />39 excE <br />l0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.