Loading...
1981-02-19 Workshop w/Cty Comm2780 FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING PROPOSED USE HEARING MONDAY~ FEBRUARY 16, 1981 The City of Okeechobee, Florida, held a Proposed Use Hearing for Federal Revenue __~ Sharing Funds in the Council Chambers, at City Hall, Okeechobee, on Monday, February 16, 1981, at 7:00 P.M. Those present were City Clerk Bonnie S. Thomas, Administrative Assistant Richard C. Fellows, and Deputy Clerk Janice M. Mann. 81-18 FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING City Clerk Bonnie Thomas called to order the City of Okeechobee's scheduled, advertised, public hearing concerning proposed uses for unappropriated Federal Revenue Sharing Funds in the amount of Forty-Three and 94/100ths Dollars ($43.94) and anticipated Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for the 1981 Entitlement Twelve in the amount of Ninety-One Thousand One Hundred Forty-Eight Dollars ($91,148.00), totaling Ninety-One Thousand One Hundred Ninety- One and 94/100tbs Dollars ($91,191.94). Administrative Assistant Fellows offered three possible expenditures: 1) $30,000.00 - computer 2) $6,000.00 - gasoline storage tank 3) $3,200.00 - Xerox machine with collator Clerk Thomas presented the Police Department written request as follows: 1) $6,000.00 - new radios 2) $8,000.00 - new patrol car Total requests presented $53,200.00 ADJOURNMENT With no citizens present and no other requests to present, the hearing adjourned at 7:20 P.M. Edward W. Douglas /~ Chairman/Mayor City of Okeechobee ATTEST: Bonnie S. Thomas City Clerk City of Okeechobee WORKSHOP MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19~1981 The City Council and the Board of County Commissioners met in a joint workshop ses- sion to discuss the Road and Bridge Tax allocations and areas of responsibility pertinant to usage of the funds, according to a recent Attorney General opinion of recent legislation. County Commission Chairman Jim Lashley presided with the following members present: 27 ! City Councilman; Mayor Edward W. Douglas, Donald Burk, Jim Knight, Dowling Watford and Oakland Chapman; County Commissioners,Charles Harvey, Oscar Thomas, Sarah Price, and Clyde Durrance. Others present were: City Clerk Bonnie Thomas, Attorney David Conlon, Administrative Assistant Richard Fellows, Public Works Assistant Stephen Figley and City Road Superintendent Charles Elders; County Attorney Kyle VanLandingham and Deputy Clerk Betty Schumacher. 81-13 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUNDS Chairman Lashley called the meeting to order and explained the purpose of the workshop was to discuss the present status of the Road and Bridge Allocation as the funds apply to usage for the County and City. His comments were directed to County Attorney VanLandingham who then advised those present of the latest Attorney General's opinion of how the County must use it's Road and Bridge Funds for paving of "Connector" roads only. Councilman Warlord asked if this meant the County would not pave any streets in the City but Connector Roads. Commissioner Harvey stated that was correct. The County can not pave anything but Connector Roads. Harvey further advised that if the City wanted any more streets paved the City will have to pay to have them paved. Also, he felt the County could pave them for the City for less than a Private Road Constuction Company could pave them. Commissioner Durrance asked Attorney VanLandingham if roads paved in the City were now considered County roads and whether or not 5th Avenue (Old Osceola) could be considered a Connector Road. Attorney VanLandingham stated "it could be". Comm~sione~ Durrance advised that if 5th Avenue (Old Osceola) was in fact a connector road he did not feel we (the City) would be hurting too much. Durrance also stated the roads the city is maintaining belongs to the City. Councilman Watford asked what if the City gives it's 8th cent (8~) motor Fuel Tax to the County? Commissioner Durrance answered - The County will pave the streets for you. And paving will result in less maintenance cost. City Attorney Conlon asked if the County could consider paving S.W. 7th Avenue between Second Street and South Fark Street. Commisioner Durrance stated this could be possible. Other discussion of paving costs, street budgets, and total allocations for same were held. Chairman Lashley stated to the City Council theCounty's legal problem. He asked the Council to study its needs and work out a proposal to present to the County. Commissioner Durrance suggested the City could name the street it wanted paved; grade, shell, pay for asphalt and the County could pave the street. Commissioner Chairman Lashley asked if there were any more comments? The question was asked by both bodies, but it was not clearly defined, just what a Connector Road was. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Workshop meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M. City of Okeechobee ATTEST: , i..~ //2 Bonnie S. Thoma~ City Clerk City of Okeechobee February 18, 1981 Memorandum To: City Council From: RCF Subject: Workshop meeting with County Commissioners In an effort to be helpful, I will try to summarize in this memorandum some details regarding matters which will be subjects of discussion with the County Commissioners at the workshop on Thursday evening at 8:00 P.M. at the County Commission meeting room in the County Court House. The County Commissioners have requested the meeting to discuss the setting of a mutually agreeable policy in regards tolroad construction maintenance;-right of way maintenance, and drainage ditch. rmnctructi.on and. a intenaacv Members of the Council should be aware of proposals the County may make and from what I have heard from informal discussions, it appears three options will be subjects of discussion. OPTION 1 The County would accept responsibility for all road construction, maintenance, ditch construction and maintenance, right of way maintenance, and mowing within the City limits. The City in turn would release to the County its share of the eighth cent gasoline tax which is now received through the state revenue sharing trust fund amounting to approximately $47,000 this year. The City also would agree to relinquish its one half share of the monies due from the County road and bridge levy. This amounts to approximately $11,000 to $12,000 per year at the present level of property values. Should the Council agree the County would provide the level of service necessary, the City street division could then be abolished and the $150,000 budgeted could be eliminated or utilized for other purposes. • 52, 368,06 iq 79 -80 OPTION 2 The County would agree to continue its maintenance and construction of all "connector or collector roads" while the City would be responsible for all road construction, maintenance, etc. on all other streets designated as "local roads" under the state's functional classification. In turn, the City would keep the eighth cent gasoline tax now included in its revenue sharing package and would continue to receive its share of the monies developed from the County road and bridge levy. Inasmuch as the City owns no paving equipment, we could reasonably expect our construction costs for paving to run in the neighborhood of $40 to $50 a foot which would include underground drainage, curb and gutter, etc. The City's street division budget of $150,000 would probably have to be increased depending on the number of road projects the City decided it wished to undertake each year. OPTION 3 Option #3 would be to continue the somewhat informal arrangements which now exist with the County paving those roads they think they are responsible for and the City maintaining the unpaved streets, drainage ditches, and rights of way. Please contact me if I can be helpful in sharing with you any other thoughts in regards to these matters which may come up for discussion on Thursday night.