My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/10/1995
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1995
>
10/10/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:13 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:01:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/10/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
BOOK 96 PAJE 319 <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that the last 4 items were suggested~ <br />by OMB Director Joe Baird who is here to answer any questions. <br />Director Baird stated that County Attorney Vitunac had asked <br />for input from staff and he kept a list of each item brought up by <br />the Board in the last year or two that affected his area. The <br />County had wanted to utilize optional sales tax funds to pay the <br />bond debt but the law only allows chartered counties to utilize <br />these funds in this manner. The Board had mentioned that should be <br />changed so that all counties would be allowed to utilize optional <br />sales tax funds. <br />Commissioner Adams questioned whether the law had been changed <br />to allow small counties to use optional sales tax proceeds, and <br />Director Baird responded that they are allowed to use it for <br />operating if their population is under 50,000. <br />Commissioner Bird asked Director Baird to elaborate on #6, and <br />Director Baird advised that the law was passed years ago for cities <br />to be able to get a franchise tax from telephone companies, but <br />omitted counties. The unincorporated area of the county does not <br />have the ability to collect franchise fees and the law should be <br />changed to be consistent. <br />Commissioner Adams believed a recent case where the County <br />contributed some legal funds with FAC (Baker County vs FPL), was a <br />very similar issue in that Baker County assessed a franchise fee on <br />a utility for use of a right-of-way within the county and FPL said <br />you cannot do that. The court said they could. That case has been <br />appealed but the implications of that case probably will allow that <br />right to counties without legislative action. <br />Administrator Chandler felt that the difference between this <br />item and the Baker County case was that the electric companies in <br />that portion of the state attempted to apply their own <br />interpretations of the law on electric franchise fees. Here, there <br />is a specific prohibition in the law as relates to counties. <br />Chairman Macht believed that makes management of telephone <br />companies more forthcoming and more attentive to local concerns. <br />Director Baird advised that utilities, cable and telephone <br />companies are using our rights-of-way free while others have to <br />pay. <br />Commissioner Adams questioned Dawn Smith of Representative <br />Sembler's office in regard to the Board's concern about tax exempt <br />organizations having records which are not available in the <br />V, <br />Property Appraiser's office to verify that they are tax exempt. <br />OCTOBER 10, 1995 I" - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.