My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/14/1996
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1996
>
5/14/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:49 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:40:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/14/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
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
At the last Economic Development Commission meeting a question was asked <br />whether the ad valorem tax exemption available under Section 196.1995, <br />F . S . , for new or expanding businesses which created at least 10 jobs would <br />be available to property owned :by the developers who construct the facilities <br />for the new or expanded business to operate in, even if the developers <br />themselves would not be generating the new jobs. For the following reasons <br />I believe that the tax advantages would be available to the developer. <br />Subparagraph 5 of Section 196.1995 , F . S . ,- holds that the ad valorem tax. <br />exemption applies for "up to 100 percent of the assessed value of all <br />improvements to real property made by or for the use of a new business..." <br />(e . s .) . Thus the determining factor is not who owns the property or who <br />builds the building, but why the facilities were built; that is, if the <br />facilities were built for a new or expanded business then the tax advantages <br />are available to the property. There does not seem to be a requirement, <br />however, that the benefits of the tax advantages be made available by the <br />developer to the new business tenant. <br />Further support for this position is the fact that subparagraph 7 lists the <br />requirements that an applicant must meet before being granted a tax <br />exemption and there is no mention of "who" built or owns the building. <br />These requirements do include: a) the name of the new business; b) a <br />description of the improvements to real property for which an exemption is <br />requested and the date of commencement of construction of such <br />improvements; c) description of tangible personal property; and d) proof <br />that the applicant is is a new business. <br />In addition, subparagraph 8 requires that the property appraiser make a <br />report to the County which includes a determination by him as to whether <br />the property for which the exemption is requested is to be incorporated into <br />a new business or an expansion of an existing business. Again, there is no <br />mention of who built or owns the building. <br />Thus, if the County Commission can make a finding of fact that the <br />improvements to real property are "made by or for the use of" a new <br />business, or expansion of an existing one, the tax exemptions available <br />under the law may be granted, regardless of who owns or built the building. <br />TO: James E. Chandler <br />County Administrator <br />(PAR HEAD CONCURRENCE <br />Obert Keating, AICP <br />Community Develop nt D ector <br />FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP � If. <br />Chief, Long -Range Planning Section <br />DATE: May 7, 1996 <br />RE: CONSIDERATION OF TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal <br />consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular <br />meeting of May 14, 1996. <br />INTRODUCTION <br />Competition among communities vying for economic development <br />prospects is common phenomena, occurring on a global as well as a <br />25 <br />May 14, 1996 $Dor 98 pmf_ 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.