My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/11/1985 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
9/11/1985 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:31 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:08:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/11/1985
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
161
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
9 E P 111985 <br />800 FAGE, <br />The Vice Chairman announced that the purpose of this meeting <br />is to consider and adopt the Final Budget for fiscal year 1985-86 <br />and explained to those present the procedure that would be <br />followed during the hearings on the various funds. He informed <br />those present that tonight we have the capability of reducing the <br />millage advertised, but cannot increase it. <br />Vice Chairman Scurlock stated that because we had signifi- <br />cant input from those interested in the MSTU for Vero Lake <br />Estates at the first hearing and many of the same people are <br />present again tonight, we will address that item first. He <br />thereupon opened the public hearing on the Vero Lake Estates <br />Municipal Service Taxing Unit. <br />OMB Director Barton announced that the proposed budget for <br />Vero Lake Estates is $58,650 for which it will be levying $15.00 <br />per parcel/acre. There is no requirement over rollback because <br />it is a new district. <br />The Vice Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be <br />heard. <br />Truman Patterson, 8880 100th Ave., stated that he would <br />stand by last week's statement that he still would like to see <br />the drainage problems solved and then later talk about paving any <br />roads. <br />Herman Patterson, 94th Court, stated that he could go along <br />with the drainage, but he still felt the paving should go under <br />the petition paving program so that the people who benefit pay <br />for it. He did not want to pay for what someone else will <br />benefit from. <br />The Vice Chairman noted we did have some modification at the <br />last hearing because of the public input, and he believed the <br />priorities and the amount of the assessment were changed signifi- <br />cantly from what was first proposed. The recommended assessment <br />of $50.00 per parcel/acre was reduced to $15.00, and the priority <br />changed to drainage with a drainage study first and then some <br />drainage improvements if any money was left. <br />6 <br />� � I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.