My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/7/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
1/7/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:30 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:52:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/07/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
J A N 07 199 <br />but did feel this particular issue merits it. This is their only <br />and last recourse, and they are asking the Commission to take some <br />course of action this morning along those lines. <br />Chairman Eggert stated for the record that the referendum <br />being requested would be a non-binding referendum, a straw ballot. <br />Commissioner Scurlock understood that this particular <br />transportation impact fee zone encompasses far more than the City <br />of Sebastian, and wondered how a referendum could be structured, if <br />the Board chose to do so, to allow that entire impacted area to <br />have a voice in the matter. <br />County Attorney Vitunac advised that the law does not allow a <br />special election just for a straw ballot. It has to be held <br />concurrently with another valid election. <br />Commissioner Wheeler noted that we will have a presidential <br />preference ballot in March, but Attorney Vitunac explained that <br />would be a county -wide election. He didn't know if there would be <br />an election just for the north portion of the county. <br />Commissioner Scurlock stressed that a referendum involving <br />just the City of Sebastian would not be totally representative of <br />the area from which the impact fees are generated. <br />Commissioner Bird wanted the public to be thoroughly educated <br />on the pros and cons of the two designs before they go to a <br />referendum, stressing that from all the meetings that have been <br />held and the studies done by the consultants and engineers, he is <br />convinced that the Twin Pairs would be the best way to proceed from <br />a traffic, safety and cost standpoint. Unless the electorate can <br />somehow be educated on the pros and cons of the Twin Pair design as <br />compared to using the original alignment, he would question just <br />how valid the outcome of the ballot would be. However, he didn't <br />know what the proper forum would be to get all of that information <br />out to the electorate. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt that all the Commissioners try to <br />get out and_ get input from the people about these controversial <br />matters. One thing that disturbs him, however, is hearing that <br />people are opposed to the Twin Pairs project because it is just <br />temporary. That is incorrect. In fact, using the original <br />alignment is a temporary solution because there is no ability to go <br />to 6 lanes or whatever will be needed in the future. <br />Mr. Wadsworth noted that Public Works Director Jim Davis made <br />the statement at a Council meeting in Sebastian that the Twin Pairs <br />was a temporary fix, a 5 to 7 -year temporary fix. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed Mr. Wadsworth was taking Mr. <br />Davis's statement out of context. <br />Director Davis confirmed that we did make the statement <br />28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.