My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/13/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
9/13/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:40 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:28:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/13/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
no increase in taxes is considered property tax relief. <br />Finance Direction Barton explained that if the Board of <br />County Commissioners accepted the Sales Tax monies, they <br />were required to rollback 400, and if the additional Sales <br />Tax monies did not bring the fund to 115% over what it was <br />last year, they were allowed to make up the difference. He <br />continued that money from the Sales Tax was divided into two <br />areas - part to the General Fund and part to the MSTU per <br />state formula. The amount of money the County received to <br />go into the General Fund did not reach the 115%, although <br />40% was used to work out the formula. <br />Mr. Hamilton asked if priority consideration was given <br />to tax relief. <br />Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that in ad valorem tax <br />dollars, we were entitled to 115%, but we were required to <br />include all the sales tax in that percentage, and we <br />struggled hard and kept within those constraints. <br />Mr. Hamilton asked if the Commission is saying the <br />wording of the ad is unfortunate. <br />Mr. Barton stated that it is because when you read.it, <br />it sounds as if you got no relief at all, but that is the <br />wording required by the state. He then reviewed in detail <br />the combination of the two revenues. <br />Chairman Scurlock further noted that at the eleventh <br />hour we lost another $176,000 of Revenue Sharing money <br />because the census sent to the Town of Indian River Shores <br />showed increased revenue income and the formula for deriving <br />our share of Federal Revenue Sharing was cut further. This' <br />created an additional shortfall just doing the things we <br />were doing last year. <br />Commissioner Wodtke commented that, in addition, the <br />Legislature did.not tell the public that although they are <br />M <br />M <br />22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.