My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09/16/2014
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2014
>
09/16/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/4/2018 5:08:58 PM
Creation date
3/23/2016 8:52:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
09/16/2014
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Book and Page
200
Supplemental fields
FilePath
H:\Indian River\Network Files\SL00000E\S0004A5.tif
SmeadsoftID
14150
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
181
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
Maurice Sterling, Interim Director <br />September 8, 2014 <br />Page Two <br />On September 2 I sent another email outlining what I was looking for: <br />"1. Staff positions with salary and benefits similar to the TBEP sheet you <br />sent (see attached); <br />2. Basic financials with balance sheet, profit and loss, cash flow statement <br />and cash flow reconciliation; <br />3. One sheet source of funds; <br />4. Given that the SJRMD is supplying a number of things of value, which <br />the IRL-NEP received the benefit of but did not pay for, that will <br />probably be needed by a newly reformed IRL-NEP, a listing of these <br />items with an estimate of their value." <br />It was not until your email of September 3 that you said this information was not <br />available. It would have been more helpful if you had simply said this in reply to <br />my July 7 email. If you had, by now we could have compiled the basic financial <br />information that is needed to move forward. <br />I will note that I never requested, as you write in your September 3 email, that I <br />may have wished "to see an exact comparison to the Tampa Bay financials," I <br />simply wanted the basic financial information that I expected would be readily <br />available given the size and scope of the IRL-NEP. <br />2. Goals and Objectives: In my July 14 email I wrote: <br />"I have Tampa Bay budget and finance information but do not recall receiving the <br />same for the IRL-NEP. <br />We have had no discussion as to why the present set up does not work the way <br />people want it to. What has not been accomplished that people hoped would be <br />accomplished? What could be accomplished with a new structure that could not <br />be accomplished with the present structure? What are the strengths and <br />weaknesses of the present structure that need to be addressed as we go forward <br />with a new structure? By contrast, what is it about the structure of the Tampa <br />Bay Estuary Program that suggests that it is the proper model for us on the East <br />Coast? <br />Evidently someone began this process believing change was necessary. It might <br />be useful for this person to collect his or her thoughts on 3 or 4 pages to help <br />give us a starting point. (Tomorrow I have the proposed IRL-NEP re -organization <br />on the agenda just to give my fellow commissioners a heads up. I am hoping no <br />one asks: "Why do you need to re -organize?" I could not properly answer the <br />question.) <br />157 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.