9/11/1985 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ellen Crews, 8785 98th Ave., was for improving the drainage, but did not agree with the paving at all. She noted that Vero Lake Estates is just as it was platted 30 years ago, and if the drainage was solved, the roads wouldn't be so bad. Attorney Chester Clem, representing the Ansin family, felt that everything had been said at the previous meeting. It was his understanding that we are going forward with the MSTU as originally intended to have a study of drainage; he, therefore, did feel the Board is on the right track, even though the proposed assessment of $15.00 per parcel acre is a little more than they had anticipated. Joe McBride, 9225 87th St., stated that he would like to see the amount of tax rolled back to the $10.00 originally proposed. He wished to know what happens to the funds from the 24 gas tax we just started receiving and also the 54 gas tax the federal government started collecting which is supposed to funnel back to road improvement. Further, if the proposed tax is approved, he hoped it would be for no more than two years. Vice Chairman Scurlock explained that we have identified different classes of roads in the county according to certain formulas, and the 24 gas tax is planned for main arter-i-es; it is not available for residential streets. Further, we met with representatives of the DOT only this morning to request that more be done on the state roads. We did not initially plan any of our 24 tax money for maintenance, but were told the DOT had a 400 shortfall, and we, therefore, may be dedicating some of those monies to maintenance. OMB Director Barton clarified that the only roads that qualify for any of the 54 tax monies are SR A -1-A, U.S.1 and 1-95. These funds go to the state to perform maintenance on behalf of the U.S.government; we are not involved at all. Vice Chairman Scurlock then informed Mr. McBride that the MSTU can only levy each year for the next fiscal year, and OMB FA SEP 11 1985 a�a�; PAGE