9/24/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP 2 4 1991 ROOK. 84 FACE � 1. It would be ludicrous at best to consider allowing the well known special interest group portraid as SOS for Save our Shores, (which most know promotes Save Our Buildings) to contract directly with anyone for a considered tourist study with our tax dollars. I object to any such action:.. 2. IF the commission considers -the study (which I hope it does not) alternative 2. in the Sept. 18, 91, office memo, or some other impartial method should be used. It must be totally out of the hands of SOS (SOB) which intends to use .the study in any way possible to foster again sand pumping to save their buildings at the expense of the taxpayers. 3. I believe the proposed studies scope is mostly a frivolous activity to gather information we already kuow about, again with an ulterior motive to support beach restoration at taxpayers expense.' 4. Again, IF, you consider the study. , I suggest you have determined by the study, of those questioned, how many would still visit/move to Indian River County, with the present beach availability we now have,(which is eve and much more than adequate in my nion.) i Respectfully d F)an L. orc 'l4044 De Leon Ave:, Mr. Zorc referred to #7 under. the scope of services set out in Exhibit "A" which refers to the plan required by Chapter 161.29 of Florida Statutes and wanted to know what we need this study for if we have another improvement plan on record. Attorney Collins explained that what the Statute requires is a plan for the entire county, and to the extent that there is not one for the City of Vero Beach, we do not have one for the entire county. Mr. Zorc continued to stress that we don't need another study. Attorney Bruce Barkett next came before the Board representing Save Our Shores. He believed Mr. Zorc was addressing whether to spend the money or not, and that already has been addressed. Attorney Barkett then made the following presentation as set out in his letter dated September 19th: 96