My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/29/1984
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1984
>
2/29/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:23 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 4:35:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/29/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
ANNEXATION OF SOUTH BEACH UNINCORPORATED AREA INTO CITY OF <br />VERO BEACH <br />Chairman Scurlock reported that he and Attorney <br />Brandenburg had met with officials from the City of Vero <br />Beach in regard to the annexation, as requested by the Board <br />at the last meeting. In attendance at that meeting were <br />Mayor Dorothy Cain, City Manager John Little, and County <br />Administrator Michael Wright. <br />Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the three issues <br />discussed during the meeting: <br />#1 - County's 600,000 gallon wastewater allocation for the <br />South Beach area <br />Attorney Brandenburg explained that the County received <br />a 600,000 gallon wastewater allocation from the City through <br />a written interlocal agreement in 1973. The consensus at <br />the meeting was that the allocation is still retained by <br />the County; it is still viable and cannot be rescinded or <br />taken away from the County by the City of Vero Beach. In <br />order to obtain formal acknowledgement that the County's <br />allocation for the south mainland is secure and will <br />continue to be secure, City Attorney Charles Vitunac agreed <br />to place this matter on the agenda of the next City.Council <br />meeting. <br />Attorney Brandenburg felt that the City of Vero Beach <br />could not unilaterally change an.agreement. He explained <br />that the County was concerned that the City Council was <br />under the impression that the County's 600,000 gallon <br />allocation had expired with the agreement in 1983 at the end <br />of its ten year duration. As the case turned out, the <br />allocation was firmly established by a subsequent agreement,_ <br />which was not based on the original 1973 agreement, and did <br />not expire in 1983. To make sure there was absolutely no <br />confusion.over that fact, the County asked the City to place <br />that on the agenda for confirmation. <br />3. <br />FEB 2 9 1994 BUK'.6 PnE 269 <br />. J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.