My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/23/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
6/23/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:32 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:01:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/23/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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
Commissioner Scurlock cautioned that in the future "unique" is <br />going to be the word, i.e. Village Green, Countryside, etc. <br />Chairman Eggert interjected that the SR -60 area is flat <br />roadway; it is -not on a hill, nor a curve. <br />Commissioner Wheeler added that it is a combination of things <br />that make it unique, not just the traffic. <br />UTILITY RELOCATION FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION MASTER AGREEMENT <br />BETWEEN IRC AND FDOT <br />The Board reviewed the following memo dated 6/15/92: <br />TO: James E. Chandler, <br />County Administrator f, <br />FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., <br />Public Works Director <br />SUBJECT: Utility Relocation for Highway Construction <br />Master Agreement between Indian River County and <br />the Florida Department of Transportation <br />REF.LETTER: C.J. Blanton, Jr., FDOT Utilities Engineer to <br />James Davis dated May 21, 1991 <br />DATE: June 15, 1992 FILE: utilagr.agn <br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS <br />In cooperation with the Florida Utilities Coordinating Committee, <br />the Department of Transportation is presenting for consideration <br />by the County Commissioners, the attached Utility Relocation <br />Master Agreements. <br />The intent of these documents is to circumvent the current <br />necessity of processing for legal execution a separate agreement <br />for each individual state -highway project involving utilities <br />owned and operated by the County. The agreement proposal is not <br />retroactive and would apply only on future highway projects. <br />This also does not involve any change in current liaison <br />procedures for pre -design conferences and normal development of <br />Utility Relocation Plans and Scheduling. <br />ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS <br />The following alternatives are presented: <br />35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.