My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07_23_2008
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2008
>
07_23_2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2022 11:02:53 AM
Creation date
4/20/2022 10:58:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Workshop Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/23/2008
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
City of Fellsmere
City of Sebastian
City of Vero Beach
Town of Indian River Shores
Town of Orchid
Subject
Interlocal Service Boundart Agreement
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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
Attorney Dill argued that that is a lot of uncertainty to plan your future <br />with, that they have to go hat in hand to every city and the County, to get unanimous <br />approval, every single time they want to grow. To have some certainty so they could <br />plan their future, they are asking for unanimous approval to do it, so long as they are in <br />certain guidelines (as shown in Exhibit "D"). He explained that they are not exempt; they <br />are basically asking for pre -approval, otherwise every time they do something they are <br />the only city that has to go to everyone for approval, and that is not fair. They do not <br />think they are going to be able to move south on the east part of the Urban Service Line <br />because there are too many blockades. The only realistic chance they have is in the area <br />of the Western Economic Center. <br />Commissioner Flescher wanted to revisit Section 15(b)(1) (pages 14-15 <br />of the draft ILA) regarding "... termination upon ....the appointment of a charter <br />commission either following the adoption of a resolution by the Board of County <br />Commissioners or upon submission of a petition ....and signed by at lease fifteen percent <br />(15%) of the qualified electors . _ ..". He wanted municipalities and County <br />representatives to openly discuss it. <br />Attorney Stringer replied that if the County Commission takes the <br />affirmative step to appoint a Charter Commission without a Petition that is a good <br />indication that the County Commission is considering it. If an ordinance was done to <br />propose it, that was a good indication, but felt the rough one was the 15% rule. He said <br />the problem is, once that happens you have to appoint a Charter Commission and then it <br />would go on the ballot. Therefore, if the philosophy is, at some point this is heading to <br />Charter and we need, out of fairness, to go back to the status quo, it is hard to figure out <br />where that line is. Attorney Stringer added that instead of just allowing one parry to <br />terminate it, you can set another number, and that was something they could explore. <br />30 <br />July 23, 2008 / Joint Workshop <br />ISBA, Sebastian <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.