Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Warren Dill <br />, Fellsmere City Attorney, had also come up with similar provisions for <br />inclusion, which states, “… unless otherwise provided by Interlocal Service Boundary <br />Agreement.” <br /> <br />Discussion ensued among Board members and Attorney Watts on whether a <br />super-majority vote was required to approve an Interlocal Agreement. <br /> <br />Rich Stringer <br />, City Attorney, City of Sebastian, also spoke to the wording of the <br />provision whether to require super-majority vote for the approval of the Interlocal Service <br />Boundary Agreement, and believed in this instance it may not be needed. <br /> <br />Attorney Watts <br /> reminded everyone that they are talking about the county <br />enactment of an ordinance approving an Interlocal agreement and whether the county should <br />subject itself to a requirement of the majority plus one vote. He thought that was a policy choice to <br />be put in the Charter. <br /> <br />George Christopher, <br /> Planning & Zoning Commission, asked if the substitution on <br />page 8 was for the entire Section and subsections under Section 1.8. In which case they would be <br />dropping the referendum requirement on the density increased vote if legally allowed, and hoped <br />that was not what they were agreeing to. <br /> <br />Attorney Watts <br /> read for the record the substituted language for Section 1.8.1.1. - <br />Urban Services Boundary). <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Bryan asked that the wording “… if a referendum is not permitted, <br />such amendment shall be adopted by ordinance of not less than four Commissioners”, be changed <br />to “majority plus one vote”. <br /> <br />May 1, 2007 36 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />