1/6/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAN 6 1987 BOOK 66 f} -C847 to them spending their portion on renourishment even if we do not think it is the best idea. Commissioner Bird agreed and suggested that Attorney Vitunac convey the position of the Board as being that we are willing to compromise to some extent. Commissioner Eggert stated that she just did not feel the tourist tax will pass on a beach renourishment note and that is what concerns her the most; thus she would not send a message saying it is fine for beach renourishment in general, but only if it means protection in an emergency. Debate continued at length, and Attorney Vitunac stated that he will explain that the consensus of the Board is that we do not think politically the referendum on the tax will pass based on beach renourishment. He asked in the event the City insists on designating beach renourishment for its full share, if the Board will recommend to the Tourist Development Council that they leave that in? Commissioner Bird favored giving the City that flexibility initially, but Commissioner Bowman felt we should be practical and consider how many votes the City of Vero Beach has on the Tourist Development Council. Attorney Barkett advised that the City has only two votes on the Tourist Development Council, and as to the City's propor- tionate share of 55%, he pointed out that the City does not contribute to it at all; it comes from the tourists. He further pointed out that the City doesn't have the power to impose this tax at all, and, therefore, if the County doesn't do it, they don't get anything. Commissioner Eggert's feeling was that if we can't do this cooperatively and try to find something that will help the tax pass, why bother with it at all. Commissioner Bowman agreed that is the point of view we should convey to the City Council, and Chairman Scurlock con- curred. He felt we should tell them in a nice way that we are 46 M M M