My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/24/1990
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1990
>
4/24/1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:02:44 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 9:00:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
04/24/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
- M <br />particular one was unique in that we were building the Boulevard; <br />acquisition in terms of recovery zones and those sort of things <br />are always necessary; and usually those distances also allow for <br />the fact that utility lines can be placed in them, but the <br />question is are you acquiring that as a road function or as a <br />utility function. Commissioner Scurlock believed that particular <br />project, as much as any in our county, is really a countywide <br />system, and he, therefore, has some doubt in his mind about <br />funding it from the MSTU and having just the tax dollars of the <br />unincorporated residents devoted to it. <br />OMB Director Baird advised that staff reviewed all the <br />possible funding sources. Among other things, they looked at the <br />Impact Fee Fund, but they feel that we will not have enough money <br />to put everything into it; so, they decided not to use those <br />monies because we have plenty of other commitments there already. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked about the Optional Sales Tax <br />monies because he believed we indicated those monies could be <br />used for R/W acquisition. <br />Director Baird agreed they could, but noted that the big <br />problem with that is that right now we have commitments to do the <br />Jail, the Health building, and the Courthouse, which commits us <br />out 3 years in revenue stream. Staff, therefore, narrowed it <br />down to the Gas Tax and the MSTU, and the reason they chose the <br />MSTU is that the franchise revenue goes into that and the utility <br />companies pay that for use of the R/W. Director Baird further <br />explained the reason they didn't advising using the General Fund, <br />even though they realize everyone uses the road, is because it is <br />occurring in the unincorporated area. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that the franchise fee is for <br />much more than just for use of R/W. It is for assuming risk, for <br />some R/W usage, for the administration, etc. All our residents <br />are at risk with an enterprise fund; if, in fact, something <br />drastic happened and we could not go to rates, we would have to <br />raise those dollars where necessary. <br />APR 2 41990 13 BOOK ` F ac <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.