Laserfiche WebLink
F�,- <br />DEC 23 1986 <br />BOOK 66 o - 776 <br />The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/16/86: <br />TO: Board of County Commissioners <br />e, �,- A �,, � ,, <br />FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney <br />DATE: December 16, 1986 <br />RE: AGENDA - BCC MEETING 12/23/86 <br />' PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENACTING 6% FEE -IN -LIEU -OF - <br />FRANCHISE FEE ON COUNTY CUSTOMERS ON COUNTY - <br />OWNED UTILITY SYSTEM AND COUNTY CUSTOMERS OF <br />CITY OF VERO BEACH UTILITY SYSTEMS <br />At the direction of the Board, this office has prepared an <br />ordinance which would adopt a 6% fee -in -lieu -of -franchise <br />fee to be charged County customers of the County utility <br />system. The ordinance also would adopt a 6% fee -in -lieu -of - <br />franchise fee for the unincorporated area customers of the <br />City of Vero Beach utility systems, i.e., water, sewer, and <br />electric. <br />Attorney Vitunac pointed out there are two blanks in the <br />proposed ordinance that need filling in. Under Section I, the <br />effective date is January 1, 1987 for county customers and under <br />Section II, the effective date is March 1, 1987, for county to <br />city. <br />Commissioner Bird asked how much this fee would generate, <br />and Chairman Scurlock believed it would be somewhere in the <br />neighborhood of $300,000. He felt that that this is in line with <br />the user fee concept. <br />Commissioner Bird asked how this money will fall into this <br />year's budget, and Chairman Scurlock believed it would fall under <br />unanticipated revenue. <br />Administrator Balczun hoped it would not be spent in this <br />fiscal year. <br />Chairman.Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if <br />anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. <br />45 <br />i <br />