Good priority list for county

Home

Osceola Sports

Editorial

Sports

Other Sun Publications

FREE DELIVERY!
Get Free Delivery! Request your Osceola News Gazette Today.

Login Form

2013 Summertime Fun

Osceola Hurricane Handbook 2013

2013 Sexual Predator Sexual Offender List sexualpredatorcover13

Windows on the Classroom June 2013

School Calendar
2012-2013

View our other Special Sections

Good priority list for county

Opinions

Thursday, 18 November 2010 09:04

We agree with most of the requests making it onto the Osceola County Commission’s legislative priority list.
We too would oppose any state mandate requiring county jails to house prisoners for longer periods before they are transferred to state facilities. Commissioner Ken Smith had it right when he said that if the state requires 18 months of housing for state prisoners in the county jail following sentencing instead of the current 12 months without reimbursement, it would be a large burden on the county budget. We need to tell our legislators that if they mandate longer stays to help relieve overcrowding in the state prison system, then there must be reimbursement to local governments for that service.
We also support legislation authorizing counties to establish “sports zone” whereby financial incentives, such as property tax breaks, could be offered to lure additional sports-related entities to a county. Such a zone would operate akin to an enterprise zone and would help Osceola County develop sports-related tourism.
We also agree that if there is state legislation establishing regional priorities for potable water use, that the water in our lakes and streams be used for our needs first. Osceola County should not have to sell its residents short now and in the future because other areas want continued cheap water in the face of traditionally cheap water sources, such as the Floridan Aquifer, being tapped to the maximum allowed.
We also can’t disagree that if we are going to charge developers or businesses a fee to pay for new roads to accommodate growth, then that payment should be a “mobility fee” that would cover other transportation needs, too, such as signalization projects that manage traffic, mass transit, bikeways and pedestrian walkways.
While we like the idea of the state being required to cover any operating deficits that might occur on SunRail once the commuter mass transit system is built, we are cautious about this idea. Requiring the state to fund any potential operating deficit might be a disincentive for fostering higher density growth along the transit corridor, which would improve the chances of success in terms of higher ridership.
We also support reform for the Florida state retirement pension system, making it less costly for counties to meet future obligations. Changes should apply to new employees, with employees close to retirement protected.