My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/03/2009 (3)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2009
>
02/03/2009 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2020 12:25:07 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:21:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/03/2009
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4025
Book and Page
136, 651-711
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7328
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
Commissioner Solari added that he would second the Motion, stressing the idea of <br />working on the Municipalities to see what they could do to participate in sharing the costs of the <br />beach renourishment. <br />The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and by a 4-1 <br />vote (Vice Chairman Flescher opposed), the Motion <br />carried. The Board adopted the Sector Boundaries and <br />Beach Management Strategies as presented, with staff to <br />provide a cost benefit analysis for the proposed <br />improvements of additional parking and beach access, and <br />with the directive to encourage all the Municipalities to <br />participate in the funding. <br />The Chairman called a recess at 11:53 a.m., and reconvened the meeting at 12:33 <br />p.m. with all members present. <br />12.J. UTILITIES SERVICES <br />12.J.1. COLLIER CREEK ESTATES PETITION WATER SERVICE, INDIAN RIVER <br />COUNTY PROJECT NO. UCP -401 7 <br />James D. Chastain, Manager of Assessment Projects, presented background and <br />analysis on the request from the owners of Collier Creek Estates for the County to provide <br />potable water and fire protection. He reported that the proposed project was controversial, as 42 <br />owners had signed opposing the Project, while 85 homeowners (representing 63% of the 134 <br />homes) had signed the petition to explore the County water service. He thereafter conveyed that <br />staff was not requesting final approval from the Board, but rather authorization for staff to <br />proceed with the engineering design work. <br />35 <br />February 3, 2009 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.