9/13/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� s � Chairman Wheeler opened the public hearing on the Transpor- tation Fund. Administrator Chandler explained that this is commonly referred to as the Road 6 Bridge Budget. It is not supported by direct tax levy, but is funded by transfers from the General Fund and MSTU, as well as gas tax revenues; so, there is no millage 'assessment. The proposed budget is $7,376.730, which is an increase of $375,708, or 5.4%. The areas of increase are primarily in expansion of our road and drainage projects, as well as funding of our capital equipment additions and replacement, some of which previously had been funded through Federal Revenue Sharing, which is no longer available to us. The Chairman asked if anyone wished to heard on the Transportation Fund. William Koolage noted there has been a lot of discussion with regard to Indian River Boulevard North and the 3 alterna- tives for replacement of the Merrill Barber Bridge, and he wished to know if a decision has been made as to which alternative the County will recommend. He understood it is primarily a City matter, but there are certain expenses that will be picked up by the County depending on wh-ich alternative is chosen. If Alternative 3 is -chosen, what will this cost the County in additional funds? Chairman Wheeler advised that the Board talked about this some a few weeks ago, but he did not think the figures re additional turning lanes, etc., have been calculated. He thought in rel.ation to the cost of the bridge itself, you are looking at a very small portion to the county. Administrator Chandler believed the only sort of direct expense was the item where the DOT requested that, if Alternative 3 is the chosen path, the County acquire additional property for mitigation over and above what we are looking at acquiring for Phase III of the Boulevard, and the DOT indicated that expense would be reimbursed 1000. 17 F- " SES