My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/4/2002
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2002
>
6/4/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/17/2019 1:43:17 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 4:40:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Migration
Meeting Date
06/04/2002
Archived Roll/Disk#
2557
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
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
• <br />10.A. CONSIDERATION OF PROVIDING COUNTYWIDE <br />RECREATION SERVICES <br />Administrator Chandler reviewed his Memorandum of May 29, 2002: <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />DATE: <br />SUBJECT: <br />Board of County Commissioners <br />ames E. Chan3fer, County Administrator <br />May 29, 2002 <br />Recreation Services <br />At the conclusion of last summers budget workshops, the Board directed staff to examine <br />County delivery of recreation services and established a goal of eliminating the annual $680,000 <br />payment to the City of Vero Beach. <br />Conditions have changed substantially since the informal agreements were entered into <br />many years ago with Vero Beach. There has been a significant sustained population growth in <br />both the unincorporated areas and north County. Additionally, the County has developed <br />recreational facilities to the extent a viable system now exists. This was not the case when the <br />original agreements were pursued. Although the original arrangements have served the <br />community extremely well, with the changed conditions, the existing system and annual <br />payments are no longer justified <br />In recent months staff has developed two alternatives, both of which eliminate the <br />$680,000 annual payment. Attached is a very preliminary financial analysis which reflects the <br />alternatives. Scenario 1 would involve the County providing services in the unincorporated <br />areas with the municipalities responsible for their respective jurisdictions. The second (Scenario <br />2) provides service delivery countywide by the County. <br />In my opinion, long range a countywide system would provide for a more efficient and <br />cost effective service delivery to all citizens. There would not be overlapping of programs• <br />duplication of facilities staffs, management; nor varying fee structures. However, with current <br />and projected County facilities, the County is in a position to provide a very viable program in <br />the unincorporated areas only. <br />Staff has met with the Recreation Advisory Committee, municipal City Managers, and <br />attended two municipal workshops. <br />June 4, 2002 <br />71 <br />Ota <br />J i i .1 <br />• <br />k. <br />Es <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.