My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/24/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
7/24/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:45 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 9:11:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/24/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
nor <br />JUS 24 1990 <br />Director Davis believed we are getting good input from the <br />Board at this workshop. Number one, he believed we need to give <br />Mr. Yesbeck and his staff a recommendation that we need to dust <br />off the Lachner Study and make some decisions on U.S.I. as <br />opposed to widening through the urban area and the areas beyond <br />the Boulevard, and perhaps that needs to be a very high priority <br />in Indian River County. Secondly, he pointed out that if you <br />look at their 5 -year program, the whole first page is to be <br />accomplished in 90/91, and when you move into the final two <br />years, we don't have any projects in there with for the old <br />revenue source; then you will see the new revenue moving in for <br />some of the things we have been talking about today. Director <br />Davis stressed that not only are we looking at the new revenue <br />today, but also the standard 5 -year revenue from the DOT. <br />Perhaps we can move ahead with the 8.2 million for the SR 60 <br />project and express the desire that will not be a bandaid but it <br />should be a viable reconstruction or widening of SR 60 in its <br />present alignment with the intent that in the future we take a <br />look at the 4 -lane situation and perhaps move towards that <br />project in the tail end of the 5 -year program. <br />Chairman Eggert asked if Director Davis might want to <br />reprioritize the list presented, and Director Davis indicated <br />that he felt that list can stand on its own. <br />Administrator Chandler asked if the DOT, recognizing our <br />priorities, can't look at SR 60 as a project separate and apart <br />from this and look at not only this additional 13 million new <br />revenue, but look at a combination of other revenue sources and <br />come back to us with an overall recommendation for SR 60 based on <br />that rather than looking at just one revenue source. <br />Mr. Yesbeck agreed that could be done and in the meantime <br />continue with SR 60 and the priority list as it is. <br />James Granse, concerned citizen, wished to point out that <br />only a very few people are here today attending this meeting, <br />which is an extremely important one as it affects the future of <br />26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.