My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/21/1976
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1976
>
1/21/1976
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:28:18 AM
Creation date
6/3/2015 9:26:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
01/21/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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
U <br />NO ONE FURTHER WISHED TO BE HEARD, AND ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER <br />SCHMUCKER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOY, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO <br />CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT ASKED FOR DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSIONERS, <br />COMMISSIONER SCHMUCKER STATED HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT A STRAW BALLOT <br />BECAUSE IT CALLED FOR A VERY GENERALIZED QUESTION WHICH DID NOT ANSWER ALL <br />THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED, AND HE FELT MORE DETAILS SHOULD BE SET OUT, <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT HE FELT WE SHOULD JUST ASK A PHILOSOPH- <br />ICAL QUESTION SUCH AS: "WHEN WE COME UP WITH A PROGRAM SATISFACTORY TO THE <br />RESIDENTS OF (WHATEVER AREA IS INCLUDED), DO YOU PHILOSOPHICALLY AGREE THAT <br />A LIMIT OF (BLANK) MILL CAP WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR EXPENDITURE IN THIS <br />AREAT' <br />COMMISSION Loy POINTED OUT THIS IS JUST TO SEE WHETHER THE MAJORITY <br />OF PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US PROCEED WITH SOME TYPE OF <br />RECREATION PROGRAM WITH A LIMIT AS TO TAX DOLLARS THAT WOULD BE PLACED IN <br />THE PROGRAM INITIALLY, ISE„ "DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT FAVOR A COUNTY RECREATION <br />PROGRAM TO BE FUNDED TO THE EXTENT OF (1/2) A MILL?" <br />CHAIRMAN SIEBERT STATED THAT FIRST YOU HAVE A STRAW BALLOT AND THEN <br />YOU FIND OUT WHETHER TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE UP A DEFINITE PROGRAM. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THE QUESTION BE MADE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH <br />SO THAT IT NEED NOT.BE A COUNTYWIDE PROGRAM. <br />COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED IF WE GO ALONG WITH THE ORDINANCE AS IT <br />HAS BEEN PREPARED AND THE CITY OF VERO REACH DOES NOT PREPAREA SUPPORTING <br />ORDINANCE PRIOR TO THE VOTE, THEN THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF VERO REACH <br />WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE, BUT IF WE GO TO A -STRAW BALLOT, THEN EVERYONE CAN <br />VOTE ON IT WHETHER IT IS SUPPORTED BY THE CITY OR NOT. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS SAID THAT WAS CORRECT. <br />COMMISSIONER MASSEY STATED THAT ACCORDING TO COMMISSIONER WODTKE'S <br />MOTION MADE AT A PREVIOUS MEETING, HE FELT WE ARE MORE OR LESS BOUND TO PUT <br />IT ON THE BALLOT AS A REFERENDUM, <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS STATED THAT, BANKING ON THE GOOD FAITH BETWEEN <br />CITY AND COUNTY, HE FELT THE IDEA WAS MERELY TO PUT IT TO THE VOTERS WHETHER <br />s <br />BY REFERENDUM OR STRAW BALLOT, <br />0370 <br />JAN 2 11976 24 •4 467 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.