My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/16/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
5/16/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:11 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 2:32:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/16/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
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
BOOK 95 P,�u 76 <br />to aggressively pursue the 53rd Street project because there has <br />not been much traffic demand for 53rd. They have had some <br />discussions with FEC, but have not submitted an application with <br />DOT which is a very slow process. <br />Commissioner Bird asked if County Attorney Vitunac agreed with <br />Mr. Caldwell's opinion if Alternative #3 were chosen and if his <br />staff would be defending the County or taking a neutral position. <br />County Attorney Vitunac stated that his office would present the <br />agreement to the court, give their opinion of it, and offer <br />opportunities to other interested parties to intervene. He assumed <br />that the Hawk's Nest people and Mr. Cairns would enter into it and <br />fight it out. The County might not be an active party in it, <br />merely ask what it means and let the other sides determine it. If <br />the judge said, "Build the road," then his office would probably be <br />in an action against Hawk's Nest for the 10 -year old agreement on <br />their mortgage to help fund the road, because they're now saying <br />that it's illegal and don't want to pay their share. <br />Commissioner Bird thought it would be difficult for County <br />Attorney VitunacIsoffice to take a neutral position after they had <br />already stated in writing that the County had an obligation to <br />build the road. County Attorney.Vitunac stated they would not be <br />arguing, but merely presenting the case to ask the court to make <br />the determination. <br />Chairman Macht asked which course of action would operate to <br />the best interest of the citizens of Indian River County. <br />Commissioner Adams asked what Alternative #3 would cost and <br />how long it would take, and County Attorney Vitunac thought it <br />would only cost the $100 filing fee and would take approximately <br />three months. <br />The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION. MOTION to <br />approve Course of Action 2 FAILED 2-3 <br />(Commissioners Eggert and Tippin favored; <br />Commissioners Adams, Bird, and Macht opposed). <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, <br />SECONDED BY Commissioner Bird, to approve <br />Course of Action 3): to put the matter before <br />a court of competent jurisdiction and ask the <br />County's legal obligations in this matter. <br />50 <br />May 16, 1995 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.