My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/12/1979
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1970's
>
1979
>
2/12/1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:43:38 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 10:59:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Joint Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/12/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
.ti <br />,a FRANK LORC INQUIRED ABOUT THE REPRESENTATIVE'S OPINION AS TO THE <br />APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED BILL AND APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE <br />BEFORE IT COULD COME BACK IN A FORM READY TO BE USED. <br />REPRESENTATIVE PATCHETT NOTED THAT THE DELEGATION FIRST HAS TO <br />CHOOSE TO ENTER THE BILL. HE REVIEWED A TIME TABLE FOR THE NECESSARY <br />PROCEDURES AND FELT IT PROBABLY COULD BECOME EFFECTIVE EITHER .JULY 1ST <br />OR OCTOBER 1ST. <br />CARROLL PALMER, PRESIDENT OF THE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, TOOK <br />THE FLOOR. HE STATED THAT THE ASSOCIATION HEARTILY ENDORSES THE ENACT— <br />MENT OF THIS LIMITING LEGISLATION, AND FEELS THAT THE GOOD OF THE TAX— <br />PAYERS OF THIS COUNTY WOULD BE SERVED BY IMPOSING THIS TYPE OF CONTROL <br />OVER A HOUSING AUTHORITY, HE NOTED THAT, TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT, IT i <br />IS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO ESTABLISH A HOUSING AUTHORITY; <br />HOWEVER, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS GONE ON RECORD THAT THEY <br />WOULD NOT TAKE A VOTE ON THIS MATTER WITHOUT FIRST HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING. <br />SJR. PALMER CONTINUED THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSED <br />BILL, SECTION 4 SEEMS TO BE -REDUNDANT AND SECTION 2 REFERS TO "PRECINCT <br />OR DISTRICT." HE FELT THIS LEAVES AN INDEFINITENESS IN THE PROPOSED <br />LANGUAGE. <br />tREPRESENTATIVE PATCHETT INFORMED HIM THAT, AS ALREADY STATED, <br />SECTION 4 IS A CLARIFICATION AND EMPHASIS OF THE STATUTE AND WOULD COVER <br />US IN CASE OF A CHANGE IN THE GENERAL LAW. AS TO THE WORDING "DISTRICT <br />OR PRECINCT," HE STATED THAT IS UP TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND GIVES <br />THEM SOME FLEXIBILITY. <br />ATTORNEY COLLINS INFORMED THOSE PRESENT THAT HE ADDED THE WORDS <br />"OR DISTRICT" TO THE BILL, BUT AGREED THAT IT DOES LEAVE IT UP IN THE AIR <br />AS TO WHAT AREA ACTUALLY WILL BE VOTING IN THE REFERENDUM. HE FELT FOR <br />PURPOSES OF CONSISTENCY, THE WORDS "OR DISTRICT" SHOULD BE STRUCK. <br />SENATOR JOHNSTON SUGGESTED THAT IT SHOULD STATE "PRECINCT OR <br />PRECINCTS" SINCE YOU COULD HAVE A HOUSING PROJECT THAT MIGHT BE RIGHT <br />ON THE BORDER OF TWO PRECINCTS, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS AGREED. <br />REPRESENTATIVE PATCHETT FELT WE SHOULD MOVE TO STRIKE THE WORDS <br />OR DISTRICT" AND SUBSTITUTE OR PRECINCTS" IN SECTION 2. HE NOTED THAT <br />THE IDEA IS TO GIVE THE AREA AFFECTED THE CHANGE TO SAY WHETHER THEY <br />FEB 121979 <br />5 <br />11 1 BOOK 39 PAGE 73 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.