My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/9/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
9/9/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:33 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:15:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/09/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Administrator Chandler confirmed that we never hit our year- <br />end budget right on the head, and there is a possibility that the <br />cash carried forward may be more than projected, but he stressed <br />that we are extremely tight for the upcoming year not only in the <br />budget but also in projections on revenues and cash forward. He <br />agreed that if the cash carried forward is more than we have <br />projected, that could be a logical source of funds for this <br />request. <br />Commissioner Bird asked whether we had any capital projects <br />that were budgeted for the current year which have not been <br />completed and the money not expended that could be reprioritized, <br />with the approval of the Recreation Commission and the Board, and <br />use that money for the Barber Street Sports Complex. <br />Administrator Chandler thought that those projects had been <br />authorized and were well under way in terms of design. <br />Commissioner Scurlock suggested $90,000 be cut from the <br />Sheriff's budget and used for this purpose. <br />Administrator Chandler again mentioned the difference in <br />General Fund and MSTU. <br />Commissioner Scurlock recalled that he voted with the Board to <br />deny the funds for the Barber Street Sports Complex because of a <br />tight budget, but that he had second thoughts about that vote <br />because of the County's participation with the City of Vero Beach. <br />He is not opposed to what the County is doing for City of Vero <br />Beach but is opposed to neglecting the City of Sebastian. He felt <br />the County Administrator and OMB Director Joe Baird should be able <br />to find $90,000 somewhere in the budget, and suggested that we <br />commit to fund that amount and readdress the request when the Board <br />has 5 members present. <br />Discussion ensued, and the Board thought the available sources <br />for funding of this project were the cash carried forward, the <br />proposed MSTU contingency fund, and the General Fund. <br />Later in the meeting Administrator Chandler clarified that if <br />this $90,000 came from the General Fund, we should earmark it as an <br />expense and transfer it to MSTU, for purposes of consistency. Mr. <br />Chandler felt this will be helpful in the upcoming discussions <br />regarding consolidation of the recreation services. We presently <br />have different methods of funding recreation for the various <br />entities and earmarking funds will be helpful in tracking the <br />funds. <br />9 <br />SEP 91992 Box 87 fx51g <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.