Laserfiche WebLink
r JAN 71 <br />BOOK ®8 PvF 63 <br />County 'Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that the County did <br />not irrevocably transfer its power, but as long as both bodies <br />agree, the City is the sponsor. The County would have the power to <br />retake that authority unilaterally by a simple motion if the City <br />does not care to go forward with the project. <br />Councilman Pease noted that the language in the resolution <br />indicated that the County Commission relinquished local sponsorship <br />but pledged its support and continued participation, so the County <br />is not out of the picture. <br />Councilwoman Ginn asked if the sand pumping project is <br />considered the Corps' project, and Director Davis responded that <br />although the design has evolved and changed, the project is defined <br />as a certain section of the Vero Beach shoreline that needs <br />nourishment. <br />Frank Zorc, 1225 20th Avenue, stated that he has been in touch <br />with Washington, D.C., through the years and directed the Board's <br />attention to a letter from Congressman Tom Lewis stating that there <br />are no funds left anywhere in state or federal sources for any <br />beach project in Vero Beach. He also indicated that any funding <br />would require the very strong general backing of the people. He <br />requested the Board pass an ordinance requiring the County to <br />provide a referendum vote similar to that required by the City of <br />Vero Beach before any funds were expended for a beach project. Mr. <br />Zorc pointed out that a referendum can work both ways, it can <br />support the project or deny it. Up to this point the project has <br />been denied but that does not mean another proposal might not pass. <br />Mr. Zorc felt the City's requirement does not protect the County <br />residents because the County residents do not vote on proposals <br />within the City of Vero Beach. There have been petitions against <br />the project but those petitions could not be considered by the City <br />government. He thought that all residents are being asked to pay <br />a large percentage of the cost of a project that will benefit only <br />a small group and that a fairer method could be proposed. He also <br />felt that the problem is misrepresented and that we have lots of <br />beaches, as is advertised in publications from the Chamber of <br />Commerce. Mr. Zorc described a referendum that would be based on <br />3 factors: (1) Whether the general taxpayers see a proper need to <br />spend millions of local or federal tax dollars to protect a small <br />percentage of private property by replacing sand; (2) Whether that <br />is a public need or a private need; and (3) If it is a combined <br />public and private need, a fair funding formula must be offered. <br />Mr. Zorc urged the Board to pass an ordinance that offers the <br />binding referendum voting right to the taxpayers on this <br />controversial issue. <br />6 <br />