12/2/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DEC 2 190- to 48 fA&E-243 :•fir. Sorensen mentioned that the Hospital Board members dere not opposed to a referendum regarding Indian Fiver Boulevard. He commented that they have been criticized for offering $17,000 to the County for use in acquiring the permits. Mr. Sorensen felt that if the Board did not proceed with obtaining the permits for Indian river Boulevard, they were effectively killing the project for a long period of time. It was his belief that if the permit process would stop, all the time, effort and money expended to get to this stage was wasted. Pyr. Sorensen then spoke of rising con- struction costs. He thought that in order to have a fair referendum on any road project, the Board needs to know how much it was going to cost, therefore, it was necessary to know what the permits will cost. He stressed that the permitting process was a very crucial and important part of a reasonable approach to Indian River Boulevard, and urged the Board to continue on. He felt the dollars would be well spent, as the facts must be presented to the public in order to proceed with a referendum. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the money the Hospital Board was offering the County for this permitting process. Motion was made by Commissioner Scurlock, seconded by Commissioner Fletcher, for the Board to deny the request for the Hospital to pay $17,000 to the County for the permitting of Indian River Boulevard. Commissioner Wodtke stated that it was well known that he supports the Indian River Boulevard project. He agreed that it was necessary to get the permits in order to determine the cost. Commis- sioner Wodtke felt the road was vital for the traffic flow for the County - a very important part of our transporation system. Commissioner Bird stated that he would vote in favor of not accepting the money from the Hospital, but he agreed completely with Mr. Sorensen's approach - we need to have our facts and figures.