My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/27/1980 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1980
>
8/27/1980 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:48:54 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 12:18:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/27/1980
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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
WITH THE ORLANDO SECTION OF DER AND THE STATE DER AND TO SUBMIT A <br />PROPOSAL FOR THEIR FEES AFTER HE HAS HAD A REVIEW FROM THE DER TELLING <br />WHAT HE IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO. <br />DISCUSSION ENSUED AS TO AUTHORIZING COMMISSIONER LYONS TO <br />TRAVEL TO ORLANDO OR TALLAHASSEE AS NECESSARY IN CONJUNCTION WITH <br />THE 201 PLAN. <br />ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LYONS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER <br />LOY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL ON A <br />CONTINUING BASIS FOR COMMISSIONER LYONS AS RELATED TO THE 201 PLAN, <br />DISCUSSION OF THE 201 PLAN AS RELATING TO INDIAN RIVER SHORES <br />ENGINEER JOHN ROBBINS REMINDED THE BOARD THAT AT THE LAST <br />MEETING HE HAD TOLD THEM HE WOULD GIVE THEM AN INDICATION AS TO HOW <br />THE DER FELT IN THE EVENT INDIAN RIVER SHORES COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN <br />THE 201 PLAN OR WE COULD NOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT. HE CONTINUED THAT <br />HE TALKED TO THE MAN IN CHARGE OF GRANTS, AND HIS COMMENT BASICALLY <br />WAS THAT THERE ARE TWO SITUATIONS INVOLVED - ONE IS IF A PARTICIPANT <br />IN THE 201 PLANNING AREA IS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THAT PLANNING <br />AREA. THE OTHER IS IF THE PARTICIPANT ONLY ACCOUNTS FOR 5% TO 10% OF <br />THE TOTAL FLOW AND TOTAL ECONOMICS OF THE WHOLE 201 PROGRAM. MR. <br />ROBBINS NOTED THAT HE COULD NOT GET A CLEAR CUT ANSWER, BUT HE DID <br />LEARN THAT IN THE FORT LAUDERDALE AREA THERE WAS A PARTICULAR <br />MUNICIPALITY WHICH DID NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE AND THEY COULD NOT <br />GET AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT; THEY MADE NO REVISIONS TO THEIR 201 PLAN, <br />BUT WENT AHEAD AND SUBMITTED IT WITHOUT THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND <br />SINCE IT DID NOT HAVE A LARGE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON THE WHOLE PROGRAM, <br />DER AND EPA WENT AHEAD WITH IT. THE OTHER SITUATION WHERE IT WOULD <br />AFFECT A LARGE (SAY 10% OR GREATER) PORTION OF THE FLOW, WOULD REQUIRE <br />A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO THE 201 PROGRAM TAKING OUT THE COST ASSOCIATED <br />WITH IT, RE-EVALUATING THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 201 PLAN, AND <br />PROCEEDING FROM THERE. HE CONTINUED THERE IS SOMEONE WE COULD CONTACT <br />IN ATLANTA, IF WE FIND WE HAVE NO OTHER COURSE, BUT IT WAS NOTED THAT <br />THIS MAY NOT BE ADVISABLE UNTIL IT IS DETERMINED FOR SURE THAT WE HAVE <br />AUG 2 71980 <br />L_ <br />37 <br />Boox 44 PAGE 384 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.