My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/18/1980
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1980
>
6/18/1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:48:53 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 12:07:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/18/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
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
JUN 18 1990 <br />Boos 43 PAcE 802 <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE INQUIRED ABOUT THE STATUS OF AN INTER- <br />LOCAL AGREEMENT WHEREBY THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES WOULD SOME- <br />TIME IN THE FUTURE REQUEST SOME ALLOCATION OUT OF THE PHASE 2 PLAN, <br />AND ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT THE TOWN DID REQUEST THIS, BUT IT <br />WAS QUITE IMPRACTICAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND AS FAR AS HE <br />KNEW BOTH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH AND THE COUNTY REJECTED THE REQUEST. <br />COMMISSIONER LYONS ASKED WHAT HAPPENS IF THE COUNTY DOES <br />NOT MEET THE DATES SET OUT IN THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE. <br />MR. ENG STATED THAT THESE DATES ARE PLACED IN THE PLAN <br />MERELY AS A GUIDELINE, AND THEY ADJUSTED THE DATES PERTINENT TO THE <br />INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. <br />MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMIS- <br />SIONER DEESON, TO APPROVE ADDENDUM N0. 1 TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY <br />201 FACILITIES PLAN. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC SCHEDULE <br />INCLUDED WHICH RELATES TO THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND RESPONSIBILITY <br />FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE, WHICH SETS OUT THAT THOSE ITEMS <br />ARE LIMITED BY THE AVAILABILITY OF FEDERAL FUNDS. HE WAS OF THE <br />OPINION THAT IF THERE IS NOT SUCH A SPECIFIC SCHEDULE, AND THE COUNTY <br />SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH CERTAIN STEPS BY THE PROPOSED DATES.- <br />THAT <br />ATES,THAT WE WOULD BE CREATING SOME LIABILITY TO THE COUNTY FOR NON-PERFORMANCE.. <br />MR. ENG STATED THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE SUCH A SPECIFIC DISPLAY <br />IN THE PLAN ITSELF. HE FELT THAT THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE IS A GUIDELINE <br />AND NOT BINDING AND THAT IT IS UNDERSTOOD WE CANNOT PROCEED WITHOUT <br />THE GRANT, BUT HE BELIEVED THAT INCLUDING SUCH A DISCLAIMER WOULD <br />NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PLAN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT FELT THAT THE ATTORNEY HAD A GOOD POINT <br />AND THAT SUCH A DISCLAIMER COULD BE PLACED ON TOP OF TABLE 22-31 <br />ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS PREFERRED THAT A STATEMENT BE INCLUDED <br />IN THE MEAT OF THE AGREEMENT, I.E. "EVERYTHING CONTAINED HEREIN <br />IS SUBJECT TO...." <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE NOTED THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE <br />IS LABELED "ESTIMATED," BUT ATTORNEY COLLINS POINTED OUT THAT WE <br />SHOULD LIMIT OUR EXPOSURE TO LIABILITY. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.