My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/7/1993
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
1/7/1993
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:51 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 12:21:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/07/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
JAN 7 BOOK 88 PAVE 469 <br />Director Davis assured the Board that staff is knowledgeable <br />about the process and acquainted with the people who sit on the <br />state review committee. . That committee is familiar with our <br />project from prior applications, and we must advise them that this <br />is the same project that was transferred to the City of Vero Beach. <br />Commissioner Macht addressed the representatives of the City <br />of Vero Beach and asked whether they could communicate to Mayor <br />Smith the Board's intention. He also felt that this action would <br />be approved by Mr. Zorc and Dr. Scarpinato inasmuch as this is <br />federal and not local money. <br />Dr. Scarpinato confirmed that the Corps has not changed; there <br />is only one project and it is their project. <br />Chairman Bird clarified that Director Davis feels we must <br />attach a plan to the application, and the plan we would attach is <br />the beach sand pumping renourishment plan that the Corps designed <br />and which the City of Vero Beach is currently sponsoring. <br />Mr. Walther stated that the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has <br />changed current regulations of allowing the Corps to scale back a <br />project for environmental considerations. He recommended that we <br />should attach the maximum project that might considered locally and <br />which is represented by the Corps' plan. We can scale it back and <br />reduce the request for federal funding when the project is defined <br />more specifically. <br />Councilwoman Ginn felt the City Council would agree to that. <br />Councilman Jordan saw nothing in Resolution 87-133 that would <br />prevent the County from submitting the application because the <br />County did not relinquish responsibility but only changed sponsors. <br />Attorney Vitunac suggested we include an authorization from <br />the City for the County to file the application. That way the City <br />continues to be the sponsor but the County would submit the <br />application in a spirit of cooperation with the City. <br />Commissioner Bird asked, and Mr. Walther thought his <br />professional fee might be $1500, or could be as low as $500. Mr. <br />Walther also offered to assist County staff in the process. <br />Councilman Pease felt the City would approve the County's <br />request for authorization for the County to submit the application. <br />Director Davis advised that to avoid confusing the committee, <br />there should be some letter of understanding that the City and the <br />County are in concert regarding the application. The matter of the <br />sponsor is important to the committee that reviews these <br />applications, and the committee does not meet for 5 or 6 months <br />after the deadline for the applications. <br />Councilman Jordan stated that the council members and staff <br />had a mini conference and they felt the County should go ahead and <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.