My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/5/1981
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1981
>
8/5/1981
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/23/2020 11:53:13 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 1:36:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/05/1981
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
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
AUG 5 1981 Book 47 PAGE 9 <br />CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED HE ALSO WOULD SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDA- <br />TION AS LONG AS WE WERE ASSURED THERE WOULD BE A FIRM TAKE-OUT COMMIT- <br />MENT FROM THE FIRST STATE BANK OF MIAMI. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THEN NOTED THAT ON PAGE Z, THE RESOLU- <br />TION TALKS IN TERMS OF CREATING APPROXIMATELY 80 JOBS, BUT THAT IS <br />NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WHICH DESIGNATES 40 <br />JOBS; ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THAT 40 ACTUALLY IS THE CORRECT NUMBER <br />AND AGREED THIS SHOULD BE MADE CONSISTENT. <br />ATTORNEY HOULIHAN THEN INFOR MED THE BOARD THAT HE HAS DIS- <br />CUSSED THEIR ACTION IN ADOPTING RESOLUTION 8I-44 CREATING THE INDUSTRIAL <br />BOND AUTHORITY WITH OUR BOND COUNSEL, AND IT APPEARS THAT THIS ACTUALLY <br />WAS NOT A NECESSARY STEP. IN ADDITION, SOME DIFFICULTIES HAVE ARISEN <br />SINCE THERE IS AT LEAST ONE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION WHICH INDICATES <br />THAT COUNTY COMMISSIONS CANNOT APPOINT THEMSELVES TO BODIES OVER WHICH <br />THEY HAVE APPOINTIVE POWERS, HE CONTINUED THAT SINCE THE AUTHORITY <br />IS NOT NEEDED, IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY QUESTION, HE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT <br />THE BOARD CONTINUE WITH THESE AGREEMENTS ACTING AS THE COUNTY COMMISSION <br />UNDER PART IIOF THE CHAPTER DEALING WITH INDUSTRIAL REVENUE FINANCING. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED IF THERE MIGHT BE ANY ADDITIONAL <br />LIABILITY TO THE COUNTY IF THE COMMISSION TOOK THAT POSITION,:AND <br />ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THERE WOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WISHED IT MADE SPECIFICALLY CLEAR IN <br />PARAGRAPH G OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION THAT WE WILL NOT INCUR ADDI- <br />TIONAL EXPENSES AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE TO RUN UTILITY SERVICES TO <br />THIS PROJECT, HE DID NOT BELIEVE THEY DESIRE ANY PARTICULAR SERVICE, <br />BUT DID NOT WANT THIS TO COME BACK TO HAUNT US AND HAVE TO PROVIDE <br />WATER AND SEWER LINES. <br />ATTORNEY HOULIHAN STATED THAT HE HAD USED LANGUAGE AS' -SET OUT <br />STATUTE -AND -BELIEVED THE INTENT IS CLEAR THAT THE BOARD DOES NOT HAVE <br />TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE, BUT JUST ASSURE THAT THERE IS A VEHICLE WHEREBY <br />THESE SERVICES CAN BE PROVIDED; IN OTHER WORDS, THE COUNTY CAN CAUSE THE <br />SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY ISSUING BUILDING PERMITS, ETC. <br />COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK ASKED IF WE CANT INCORPORATE LANGUAGE <br />STATING THAT THIS COUNTY WILL COOPERATE IN THOSE THINGS THAT ARE NECES- <br />SARY FOR THE COMPANY TO HAVE THE SERVICES, BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO <br />TAKE EXTREME MEASURES TO HAVE THESE FACILITIES PROVIDED AT A COST TO <br />THE TAXPAYER. <br />w <br />m <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.