8/17/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AUG 17 1983 awl 4 rs County - TO: Administrator DATE. DATE. August FILE: Attorney .SUBJECT: Recreation FROM: B Lyons REFERENCES: �of i s i er I sincerely hope that this memorandum will be interpreted in the way it is intended: a way to light some of the issues involved in our friendly, but fragile relationship with the City of Vero Beach. It is not intended to start a controversy even though it may involve a discussion of matters which the City may consider its exclusive province. This year when the City suddenly ceased funding programs it had historically funded and placed the onus on the County for the funds, it prompted me to think that we ought to look at programs in which we are jointly involved to see whether or not the relationships are equitable. My thinking was further reinforced by the refusal of the City to participate in the parking improvements at the 16th Street recreation complex. Technically, the City has no obligation to fund an item which is used county -wide and which could properly come under the County General Fund budget. However, the change in policy came at a very bad time for the County, as funding sources were drying up. The County, like the City, has been striving to allocate expenses to the activity.which generates them. The same with income. A large program which deserves critical financial study and a balance of equity, is recreation. Large sums are expended and the programs are of prime importance to the public. For example, I believe the County should try to fund the parking improvements at the 16th Street complex and recover the costs in lease fees. An area which should be explored involves requiring County residents to pay special fees for recreation when they are located in the City's electric utilities service area. It is my opinion that if any of the income from the utility is used to offset City taxes, these residents have in effect become City taxpayers and should be subject to the same rights as City taxpayers and should not be charged special fees. Or, there maybe another way to look at it. Some time ago because of the policies of the Public Service Commission, the City removed the 100 surcharge.on out -of -City residents and adopted a uniform rate structure for the whole service area. But, did it really? If part of the County resident's rate is being used to offset City taxes, isn't the City resident getting a discount on his rate at the expense of the County resident? Therefore, in my opinion, the rates are not equal. Possibly this matter should be explored. If all excess profits were returned proportionately to all customers in the service area, this condition would be avoided and it should simplify the equitable, allocation of charges for recreation activities. I would like to recommend a joint financial study of recreation with the City to properly allocate costs and income and to see that both County and City residents are charged equitably for the services. This committee would not be involved in anything but the financial aspects of recreation and would not be involved in the evaluation of programs.