X hits on this document

35 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

15 / 17

CITY OF MELBOURNE, FLORIDA MINUTES – REGULAR MEETING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 2009

meeting. This would be fair across the board. She confirmed that the Mayor would vote last as provided by City Code, and the Vice Mayor would vote second to last.

Following discussion, Mrs. Corby clarified that the roll call vote would be Districts One through Six, Districts Two through One, Districts Three through Two, etc.

Mr. Nowlin pointed out that it would be confusing going seat to seat at each meeting.

Moved by Corby/Tasker to rotate the roll call vote at each meeting, with the Mayor voting last as provided by City Code and the Vice Mayor voting second to last. Motion carried. Council Members Nowlin and Meehan voted nay.

Moved by LaRusso/Tasker for approval of Resolution No. 3040, as amended. carried unanimously.

Motion

16.

COUNCIL ACTION RE: Appointment of two alternate members to the Planning & Zoning Board.

Moved by LaRusso/Nowlin to reappoint Kathy Chambers and Bruce Waters. Motion carried unanimously. (January 25, 2009 through January 24, 2012)

Added to the agenda:

16.1 Council Action Re: West Melbourne/Melbourne Lawsuit Settlement

Attorney Gougelman commented that the West Melbourne special counsel has not completed its review and commented on the agreement. Melbourne’s City Manager was out of town and did not have an opportunity to review the agreement. He (Schluckebier) would like to add a couple of comments. Additionally, Palm Bay was concerned that the agreement would infringe on the 2001 settlement agreement (Palm Bay, Melbourne, West Melbourne and Brevard County); however, the wording in the agreement should not have an effect on the 2001 agreement.

Mr. Schluckebier stated that this agreement directly reflects what the two councils came to consensual consensus on at the joint meeting. He noted that there are a couple of items relating to equal dignity/equal rights that he would like to add. The area west of I-95 is largely vacant property. The idea is that Melbourne would serve water and West Melbourne would serve wastewater, whether the property was located in the County, Melbourne or West Melbourne. When Melbourne provides water outside of its City, we add a 10% surcharge. West Melbourne is allowed under law to charge a 25% surcharge on sewer. Although not stated in the agreement, it may set up an uncompetitive condition with utilities. Rather than leaving the question open for future interpretation, the agreement should indicate that both cities’ surcharges will be at parity.

Mayor Goode asked Attorney Gougelman if he believes the agreement will be placed on West Melbourne’s agenda next week. Mr. Gougelman replied that he doesn’t know. Mr. LaRusso added that we shouldn’t worry about what West Melbourne will or won’t do. Melbourne should

Page 15 of 17

Document info
Document views35
Page views35
Page last viewedFri Oct 28 19:52:17 UTC 2016
Pages17
Paragraphs404
Words7430

Comments