My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
8/25/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
8/25/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:33 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:12:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
08/25/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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
Commissioner Bird responded that Commissioner Scurlock's <br />personal feeling is incorrect. He really would not be affected by <br />it because he presently has an occupational license from both the <br />City of Vero Beach and the County. This ordinance would have no <br />effect on him. <br />County Attorney Vitunac felt that it is important in an <br />emergency ordinance to have the votes of all four members of the <br />Board since the fifth seat in District 4 is still vacant, and if a <br />Commissioner doesn't have a personal financial interest in this <br />such that the vote inures to his own personal financial gain, then <br />he can vote. If he does make that finding, we need all four <br />Commissioners voting. <br />A MOTION MADE by Commissioner Bird,. SECONDED by <br />Chairman Eggert, that the Board declare an emergency <br />with regard to adopting an emergency ordinance, <br />failed by a vote of 3-0, Commissioner Scurlock <br />declining to vote. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted that he did not vote because he <br />felt the Motion was rushed without the emergency being fully <br />explained. <br />Chairman Eggert advised that normally silence is interpreted as <br />a yes vote, but Commissioner Scurlock replied that wasn't so in his <br />case because he was never silent. <br />Attorney Vitunac explained that some time ago the Commission <br />requested that the County Attorney's Office look at why doctors <br />were paying more occupational license fees than other <br />professionals, in particular real estate sales people. Assistant <br />County Attorney Terry O'Brien did an extensive, comprehensive memo <br />and brought it back to the Board. One of the options was to charge <br />the real estate sales people the same as every other professional <br />was being charged, or, to not charge the doctors twice. This <br />Commission voted to go ahead and bring the real estate sales people <br />in line with every other professional, which means that in addition <br />to the real estate broker having to pay an occupational license, <br />each sales person under that broker would have to obtain an <br />occupational license and pay the fee. Attorney O'Brien prepared <br />the ordinance and it did have an effective date. It was reported <br />incorrectly in the newspaper that there was no effective date on <br />the ordinance. The effective date was our standard one where it <br />becomes effective on the day the letter of acknowledgement from the <br />State is received in the Clerk's Office. In this case, it was July <br />6, 1992. At that time the Tax Collector began collecting the fees. <br />29 <br />AUG 2 199 900K C'dl p;�E �1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.