My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/19/1978
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1978
>
7/19/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:40:07 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:24:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/19/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
170
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
0 <br />Ll <br />0 <br />MR. BUTLER THEN EXPLAINED THAT THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT <br />COUNCIL HAS ELECTED:TO ALLOCATE A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE REVENUES <br />GAINED TO IMPROVE THE FACILITIES OF THE COUNTY RATHER THAN DEVOTING <br />THEM MAINLY TO ADVERTISING TO ATTRACT MORE TOURISTS. ANY ADVERTISING <br />WILL BE CONCENTRATED ON THE SUMMER SEASON, <br />THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF ANYONE PRESENT WISHED TO BE HEARD. <br />CAROLL PALMER, PRESIDENT OF THE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, <br />INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THE ASSOCIATION HAS NOT YET TAKEN A STAND <br />ON THIS MATTER; BUT WILL HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING ON AUGUST 9TH AND <br />MAKE A DECISION AT THAT TIME. HE STATED THAT HE PERSONALLY WISHED <br />TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ASPECTS OF THIS MATTER. MR. PALMER NOTED THAT <br />FUNDAMENTALLY, THIS IS A TAX, AND THE CLIMATE FOR VOTERS TO APPROVE <br />TAX MEASURES IS NOT GOOD AT THIS TIME. HE FELT THERE IS A GOOD <br />DEAL OF UNEASINESS ON THE PART OF THE VOTERS ABOUT SUCH A TAX, BUT <br />THAT MR. BUTLER HAS HELPED CLARIFY ONE OF THE PRIME CONCERNS WHICH <br />INVOLVES PEOPLE WHO OWN INDIVIDUAL APARTMENTS OR CONDOMINIUMS. <br />MR. PALMER SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD MAKE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE <br />MORE AMENABLE TO THE VOTERS BY AMENDING SECTION I SAY TO SPECIFY <br />THAT SINGLE APARTMENTS AND CONDOMINIUMS WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO <br />THIS TAX. HE THEN NOTED THERE WOULD BE A DUAL TAXATION PROBLEM <br />INVOLVING THE CITY OF VERO BEACH. MR. PALMER POINTED OUT THAT <br />PERHAPS AS MUCH AS 90% OF THE REVENUES UNDER THIS ORDINANCE WILL <br />BE DERIVED FROM THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, BUT A LARGE PART OF'THE <br />FUNDS ARE ALLOCATED TO BE SPENT OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS. <br />MR. PALMER ASKED THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER AMENDING <br />SECTION 9 SO THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD TERMINATE TWO YEARS FROM <br />THE1'TI:ME IT IS VOTED IN, WHICH HE FELT WOULD PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT <br />TRIAL PERIOD. HE FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT SECTION 4 BE DELETED <br />.SO THAT NO REVENUE COULD BE PLEDGED BEYOND THE TERMINATION OF THE <br />ORDINANCE AND THERE WOULD BE NO INDEBTEDNESS. THIS WOULD ALSO <br />INVOLVE AMENDING SECTION 3 SO ALL MEMBERSOF THE COUNCIL -WOULD <br />HAVE A TWO-YEAR TERM. MR. PALMER RE -ITERATED THAT THESE ARE HIS <br />PERSONAL PROPOSALS. <br />jaigig's <br />50 <br />�'"=3,52 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.