My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/9/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
4/9/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:01 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 12:18:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/09/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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
APR .9 <br />1986 <br />BOOK 64 F 1?6 <br />that money if we are not willing to commit to following through <br />on the condemnation proceedings. <br />Chairman Scurlock noted the Board has to consider a source <br />of funding for any shortfall as well as the legal fees, and we <br />could be looking at some sort of beach bond extension or some <br />other bond issue, which would require a referendum. <br />Administrator Wright felt we could use some other source <br />besides ad valorem taxes and noted we have the option of <br />borrowing from the approved $20 -million bond issue, but Chairman <br />Scurlock emphasized that he was not looking to a GOB on it. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that there 1° a good chance of some <br />legislation being passed early this summer which would relieve us <br />of having to pay for the legal fees. He again clarified that the <br />County could back out any time they want to, but they would lose <br />the committed funds from the State. <br />Commissioner Bird believed the only risk we are taking is <br />losing up to $30,000 in legal fees and felt that was a reasonable <br />gamble when you consider we would be acquiring a piece of <br />property valued at 3 million dollars. <br />Attorney Barkett did not feel it was accurate for the Board <br />to proceed thinking that the condemnation price would be <br />determined by the appraisals because the attorneys for the other <br />side will argue that the law requires that the condemnation price <br />be set at the highest and best use of the property. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked if there was any question about -our <br />ability to condemn property for public beaches, and Attorney <br />Barkett recalled that a study done in 1982 recommended that we <br />acquire 2070 feet of ocean frontage 4 miles north of SR -510 on <br />AIA. To date, we have acquired 2800 feet, and, therefore, have <br />exceeded that amount of frontage. Attorney Barkett stressed that <br />unless the report is updated to reflect that our growth has gone <br />beyond what we anticipated and that we have more recreational <br />needs than we did at the time of the report, this report might be <br />used against us to prove that this condemnation is not necessary. <br />54 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.