My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/17/2009 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2009
>
02/17/2009 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2020 12:22:26 PM
Creation date
10/1/2015 6:21:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/17/2009
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Archived Roll/Disk#
4025
Book and Page
136, 802-861
Supplemental fields
SmeadsoftID
7331
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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
Mr. Buttel asked that some sort of tax abatement be put in place for agriculture, <br />because of the destruction of trees through greening, citrus canker, and other incurable plant <br />diseases. <br />Mr. Paladin did not favor the use of money from the General Fund. He asked <br />Attorney Collins if it was possible for us to use tax we pick up from the business on the impact <br />fees that was waived and pay that back over a period of time. Attorney Collins explained the use <br />of the funds and other taxes. <br />Charlie Wilson offered to come back at the next Board meeting on March 3, <br />2009, with a solution the Commissioners could all agree on. <br />Commissioner O'Bryan, commenting on commercial impact fees, said if we give <br />up impact fee revenues, we would never get it back if our General Funds gets hit on the ad <br />valorem side. He thought, instead, they could vote on any particular project coming through <br />whether to pay those impact fees through our General Funds. He felt they could create a criteria <br />list, and if developers can show they could hire local sub -contractors, then he would support <br />paying that impact fee out of the General Fund. <br />Commissioner Solari objected to Commissioner O'Bryan's ideas, which seems to <br />be specific rules for specific cases, noting that the Rule of Law states that we ought to have <br />general rules that apply to all cases. He believed that if we try to apply a system that would <br />apply differently to all different cases, we would be undermining the Rule of Law, which is an <br />essential foundation of our democratic system. He said we need a set of rules that applies to <br />everyone. <br />Commissioner O'Bryan disagreed, thinking if we are given incentives and are <br />spending taxpayers' dollars, we can put any limitation we want, on that money. <br />February 17, 2009 41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.