Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Live Oak council debates county gas‑tax allocation, flags need to renegotiate shares
Summary
Council reviewed a one‑year renewal under Florida Statute 336.025 for locally levied motor‑fuel taxes and heard concerns that the City of Live Oak's allocated share (13.089%) may understate the city's needs given high vehicle traffic; members discussed renegotiation and the statute's five‑year expenditure formula.
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members discussed the North Ohio Loop agenda item and a one‑year renewal of the interlocal allocation agreement under Florida Statute 336.025, which governs distribution of proceeds from certain locally imposed motor‑fuel taxes.
Staff outlined the distribution presented for the upcoming year: Suwannee County 85.911%, City of Live Oak 13.089% and Town of Branford 1.00%. Staff explained that, under the statute, proceeds are distributed by formula based on transportation expenditures over the immediately preceding five fiscal years and that the proportion is recalculated every 10 years or by interlocal agreement as the entities negotiate.
A council member urged the city to seek a more favorable allocation for the one‑year renewal, saying heavy vehicle volumes passing through Live Oak could justify a larger share for city road and capital projects. The same council member suggested either negotiating a stipulation that selects the more advantageous allocation for the coming year or convening a special meeting to consult with county representatives before the June 1 deadline noted in staff materials. Staff and other members explained that the statutory default ties shares to five‑year expenditures and that changes must avoid negatively affecting bonds already issued.
Members asked for more precise revenue history and expenditure data before committing to a renegotiated split; the transcript records no binding change to the agreement at the meeting, though the motion to approve the one‑year renewal was moved and seconded and sent forward by the council.

