My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/21/1984
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1984
>
11/21/1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:50:26 AM
Creation date
6/4/2015 1:16:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
11/21/1984
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
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
NOV 211984 _l <br />BOOK <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Lyons being <br />absent, the Board unanimously (4-0) added and <br />deleted the above items to today's agenda as <br />requested. <br />Chairman Scurlock informed the Board that action recently <br />has been taken by the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Study <br />Committee which would have a dramatic impact on the Barrier <br />Island, and he would like this subject added under Emergency <br />Items. <br />Commissioner Wodtke stated that he would be agreeable to <br />adding it to the agenda, but for purposes of discussion only. <br />Chairman Scurlock explained to those present that it re- <br />quires a unanimous vote to add an item to the agenda. He noted <br />that he frankly had anticipated some action being taken. <br />ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED <br />by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously <br />(4-0) added the emergency item re action <br />taken by the Hutchinson Island Study Committee <br />to today's agenda for discussion only. <br />RESOLUTION REQUESTED BY CITY OF VERO BEACH RE SOUTH BEACH WATER <br />SERVICE <br />Attorney Brandenburg explained that there are two items <br />involved, one of which is an agreement that the City wishes <br />signed, and the other is a Resolution which he has drawn up. The <br />basic difference between these relates to whether the County <br />still would retain the right to issue franchises to private <br />utilities in the South Beach area in the event the City did not <br />provide service. The Agreement the City proposed would <br />particularly prohibit that. The second difference relates to <br />whether or not the County has or wants the authority to require <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.