Laserfiche WebLink
construction be completed on the first three seawalls by <br />February 1, 1998 and April 1 on the other two seawalls to the <br />north; and 7) $500 per day for each day beyond (eliminated in <br />amendment). <br />Mr. Bruno felt $500 per day was an excessive penalty charge since the property <br />owners are going to take the responsibility and try to work with the County. <br />Chairman Eggert thought they would not be able to get all the property owners to <br />agree to these, and Commissioner Adams amended it to the five property owners. <br />Chairman Eggert thought $500 per day was not reasonable, but $100 would be more <br />reasonable to her, and Commissioner Ginn believed $100 was not sufficient to force much. <br />Because of the nature of the contracts, Chairman Eggert stated that the contractor would not <br />be penalized, but the property owners would. <br />County Attorney Vitunac suggested that it not be called a penalty, considered as a <br />form of rent for the County's property. It would be rent-free until a certain date and then a <br />rental charge of so much per day. <br />Commissioner Ginn thought it should read $500 per day rental on the contractor. <br />Chairman Eggert felt that the Board needs to be helpful in order to get these property <br />owners through this seawall construction. She would have felt differently if the Board was <br />contracting with Cangianelli and not Mr. Bruno on behalf of the homeowners. <br />Commissioner Macht agreed and felt the Board could count on Mr. Bruno and the <br />people he represents to do everything possible to get the project expedited. <br />Commissioner Tippin thought that everybody knows that it will either get done now <br />or never as the homes will be at the mercy of the ocean. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED <br />BY Commissioner Ginn, TO AMEND THE MOTION to <br />eliminate the $500 per day charge and to have Mr. Bruno sign <br />on behalf of the five property owners to enter into an agreement <br />with the County. <br />The Chairman called the QUESTION ON THE AMENDMENT <br />and the motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Adams opposed). <br />47 <br />NOVEMBER 18, 1997 <br />Boa 03 PAGE 489 <br />