1. Sales tax election legal opinion
Laserfiche
>
Public
>
County Commission
>
2007
>
08-20-2007
>
Regular agenda
>
1. Sales tax election legal opinion
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2007 3:32:11 PM
Creation date
8/14/2007 9:17:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
<br />No ordinance or resolution may be adopted by the Board of County <br />Commissioners implementing any new or additional tax not currently being levied <br />or assessed until referred by the Board of County Commissioners for approval by <br />the electorate at any regular county election. (emphasis added) <br /> <br />The 1/2-cent sales tax proposed by the GFMEDC triggers the provisions in HRC Art.9, <br />92.2. <br /> <br />The HRC does not define the word "regular" as used in 92.2. In order to clearly discern <br />the meaning of the word in that context, I examined the underlying effort to develop the <br />HRC. That development effort began in the early 1990's. The initial HRC Commission <br />created at least eight drafts of the HRC. In the intermediate drafts it proposed language <br />similar to the current Art. 9. For example, in the Fourth Draft the language required any <br />new taxes be referred to the electorate at "any regular or special county election". That <br />language continued through the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Drafts. However, in the Eighth <br />Draft the language was amended to remove the words "or special". The remaining <br />language, "any regular county election", was reflected in the HRC submitted to the <br />electorate in June 1992. <br /> <br />The reasoning behind the change in the Eighth Draft is not captured in any documents I <br />reviewed (however, see "Recollections" below). Nonetheless, the initial HRC <br />Commission made a conscious effort to exclude the opportunity to hold a "special" <br />election under Art. 9, 92.2. <br /> <br />A majority of the electorate voted against implementing the HRC in 1992. However, in <br />1994 another HRC Commission (with some of the same members) renewed the <br />development effort. A revised HRC was approved by the electorate in November 1994. <br />The language in Art. 9, 92.2 of that version, which is our current version, mirrors the <br />pertinent language in the 1992 version - namely requiring that new taxes be referred to <br />the electorate at any "regular county election". <br /> <br />Other Sources <br /> <br />In addition to reviewing the HRC development effort, for further context I reviewed other <br />sources of information including, among others, the following: <br /> <br />· Common dictionary: A common dictionary defines "regular" as follows: "usual, <br />normal, customary"; "recurring at fixed times, periodic"; "characterized by... <br />uniform procedure"; "occurring with normal frequency", among other wording. <br />Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary, 1996 Ed. <br /> <br />· Legal dictionary: A legal dictionary defines "regular" as: "steady or uniform in <br />course, practice or occurrence"; "usual, customary or general"; among other <br />wording. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.