My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/8/1986 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
1/8/1986 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:00 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:23:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/08/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
time those will be three lane roads similar to 16th St. 12th <br />Street is a primary collector, and they will be greater than 3 <br />lanes. Our traffic model is based on a 20 year horizon and based <br />on that we do not know what will be four laned. <br />Vero Beach City Manager John Little complimented the Board <br />on "biting the bullet." He believed the consultants have done a <br />good job and felt the questions the City staff had have been <br />addressed. He stated that, from the City staff level, they are <br />content at the reaction from the County staff and have concluded <br />that the City does not need an interlocal agreement. Mr. Little <br />felt the County should put this ordinance in place as quickly as <br />possibly and not study it to death, but deal with the imperfec- <br />tions as experience grows. He advised that he will inform City <br />Council that the county staff has dealt with the City's sugges- <br />tions, and then when the Board has approved this ordinance and it <br />is final, the City will again scrutinize it at the staff level, <br />and he will go to the City Council and recommend that they not <br />opt out. <br />George Gross, speaking as a private citizen, expressed <br />concern with the use of the districts' funds for the b.ridge. He <br />noted that the language proposed states that the nine trust <br />accounts "may" be used out of the districts, but he wanted to <br />know why the percentages by district are not spelled out. He <br />thought we had to specify where the funds are -being used, and he <br />felt the percentages should be noted for everyone. <br />Mr. Richardson explained that the reason the language "may" <br />was used is because at this point in time the bridge facility is <br />planned, but it is not a certainty. There is a requirement in <br />the ordinance that the monies must be expended within 7 years. <br />If 7 years from now a bridge facility has not been initiated, the <br />Commission could decide to refund the monies. In terms of <br />setting down the specific percentages by district, that could be <br />done. He did not have strong feelings about that. <br />15 <br />Bou 63 pn 222 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.