My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/9/1993 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1993
>
2/9/1993 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:52 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 12:41:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/09/1993
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
application- package, which was submitted in December. Jim Campagna <br />of EDA informed the County on January 21st that there was no money <br />available for a Title III grant, but the County could apply for a <br />302(A) planning grant. He also told County staff that the grant <br />and proposed work program looked good, but the amount of money <br />requested was insufficient to do the identified work. Mr. Campagna <br />suggested that the County apply for $50,000 in grant funds and use <br />the money to hire a full-time planner dedicated to economic <br />development. Further, the County should hire an additional full- <br />time planner at a later date. Mr. Campagna was very emphatic that, <br />if the County did not agree with these conditions, no grant would <br />be forthcoming. Staff feels that the County is too small and does <br />not have enough work to keep one or two full-time planners busy. <br />Commissioner Eggert felt frustrated because the information was <br />contrary to information previously provided to the County. <br />Ms. Orlowski stated that she spoke with Mr. Day in early <br />January and was told that Indian River County was in line for a <br />$24,000 planning grant to hire someone to assist the County with <br />technical research. She added that she would speak to them again, <br />because her understanding was that the Department of Commerce <br />recommended that the County hire someone to do the technical <br />research and that the person could be an_outside consultant. <br />Congressman Bacchus suggested that the County let his staff <br />know immediately when this sort of thing happens so they can help <br />cut through the red tape. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked about the Intermodal Surface <br />Transportation Efficient Act of 1991 (ISTEA) funds, because she has <br />read in several national magazines that ISTEA funds are not <br />distributed to Florida. <br />Congressman Bacchus responded that he voted against the ISTEA <br />bill because it was unfair to Florida. Under the terms of that <br />bill, Florida, over a five-year period, will pay out $1.56 billion <br />more in federal gas tax receipts than will be received from the <br />federal government for transportation. Florida has been a donor <br />state since the mid-1950s and is currently ranked 56th in per <br />capita transportation aid from the federal government. When the <br />interstate highway system was in the early stages of construction, <br />it may have made sense to have some donor states. However, the <br />funding formula is not fair now that the interstate highway system <br />is virtually completed. Senator Bob Graham, former Congressman <br />Bennett, and he attempted to get the formula changed in the past <br />but were defeated. He felt that the greatest need for <br />transportation spending in the country is in the growing states of <br />the Sunbelt, especially Florida, which is expected to rank third in <br />3 <br />FEB 1993 BOOK 88 P4,F 896 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.