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
professionals already are regulated by'state and federal agencies. <br />t <br />Mr. Paradise stated that he was not arguing against the fee, he was <br />simply saying that if he has to pay the fee, then everyone should <br />have to pay the fee. If not, don't charge anyone. <br />Chairman Eggert explained that as our law stands now all <br />professionals should be covered and this would be something that we <br />would have to make clear. <br />Attorney Vitunac explained that the ordinance in our new Code <br />is a recapitulation of the one adopted back in 1985 or 1986. The <br />occupational license law was set up by State law in 1971 when the <br />State said that they were getting out of the occupational license <br />business and that counties could do it on their own, but could not <br />exceed the rates charged by the State in 1971. Around 1985, the <br />State said that the counties could take all those old fees and <br />double them, no more, on a one-time basis, and that was done <br />through the committee chaired by Commissioner Wodtke. This is the <br />result of that committee from years ago, other than this real <br />estate agent issue. Attorney Vitunac felt it was time to look at <br />the whole concept of it. <br />Commissioner Scurlock understood then that the County <br />Attorney's Office didn't reevaluate the entire ordinance, that it <br />was just updated to put into the new Code book. <br />Attorney Vitunac confirmed that to be the case and reiterated <br />that the only exception was the real estate agent question which <br />was readdressed with the Commission's authorization. Now, however, <br />it turns out that perhaps there are more problems than anyone knew <br />and it may be time to go through it again. <br />Bill Koolage, 11 Vista Gardens Trail, didn't understood about <br />the duplicate collection of fees, and Attorney Vitunac explained <br />that everyone living in the county pays an occupational license <br />fee, but some people living in Vero Beach and Sebastian also pay a <br />city fee. <br />Mr. Koolage had understood from the discussion this morning <br />that we are considering doing away with the fees. He didn't feel <br />that was the thing to do because the fees don't sound that high at <br />all. He felt there is some advantage to having occupational <br />licenses and that it is no concern of ours what the cities do. <br />Chairman Eggert explained that all we are doing now is changing <br />the effective date of Ordinance 92-23 to October 1, 1992 and <br />perhaps directing staff to review the entire ordinance. <br />There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman <br />closed the Public Hearing. <br />33 <br />AUG 2 5 1992 d <br />BOOK 8 � F,.G 4, , <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.