Comedy of IRB Errors
From my third-grade kickball days, I vaguely remember a “do-over.” It was a chance, if you totally blew it, to redeem yourself.
Well, our City Commission is embarking on “the big do-over” at the abruptly announced Special City Commission Meeting on Tuesday, September 30th at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Auditorium.
This special meeting has been scheduled for the purpose of re-doing the SECOND AND FINAL READING of IRB’s budget for the next fiscal year, 2008-2009. Due to the high percentage of increase in our millage rate, ALL FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MUST AGREE UNANIMOUSLY ON THE MILLAGE RATE in accordance with Florida Statute. The 4-1 vote, taken on 9/18/08 and thought to be the final say, didn't fly.
Once again, IRB doesn’t seem to be as adept at math as it is at parks, libraries and sea oats. The rule is that a millage rate adopted in excess of 110% of the rolled-back rate based on the previous year's maximum millage rate adjusted for change in per capita Florida personal income requires a UANIMOUS (5-0) vote of the commission.
If the millage increase is less than 110%, only a two-thirds vote is required. In keeping with the City Charter, a millage rate equal to or greater than 6 percent of the current year rollback rate requires four out of five affirmative votes or a supermajority, however, local law bows to State Law.
If this B minor-scale-playing music major did the math correctly (it is rather complex, I'll admit), the percentage of increase in our millage rate at 2.0 blew the doors off the 110% threshold requiring a unanimous vote. Thus the reason for Tuesday’s “rerun.”
Once again, here comes the single most often-asked question in IRB: HOW THE HELL DID THIS HAPPEN?
In talking with past mayors about how they approached major votes like this one, they did so by first researching the voting requirements themselves and then asking the City Attorney and staff to confirm their findings.
Whose job was it to make sure the correct vote was rendered? According to the City Charter, the City Manager is responsible for the budget and for knowing all the laws and requirements associated with such. (Taylor did his job as you'll see below!) The Mayor, if on his game, will ask questions of those in the know and then confirm compliance with procedural requirements since he is charged with ruling on any points of order. The Vice Mayor and other Commissioners are supposed to be watching the Mayor's and the citizens’ backs. (That’s especially true of the Vice Mayor.) The Treasurer and City Attorney are there to provide advice--when asked.
Did the commission, at one point, have the correct information regarding this vote? Meeting Notes from the July 22, 2008 City Commission Meeting (available on the City Web site) provide the answer to this question…and that answer is YES. The meeting notes reflect that the commission was duly informed by staff that a unanimous vote was required for any millage rate above 1.89. The following excerpt was copied and pasted directly from the notes:
Charter Section 8.2, Ad Valorem Taxes, states: Any and all ad valorem millage rate increase which is equal to or greater than 6 percent of the current year rollback rate shall require four out of five affirmative votes of the City Commission. Based on the rolled back rate of 1.6531, 6% over that equals 1.7523 mills.
In addition to the above requirements, local governments must conform to the maximum millage limitation requirements first imposed by the Legislature in 2007. The requirements in 2008 are in Section 200.185(5), Florida Statutes. These requirements were further amended by a bill passed in 2008.
For Indian Rocks Beach the following is applicable:
MAJORITY VOTE: Up to 1.6703. Trim rolled back rate adjusted for per capita personal income X percentage majority vote amended for Amendment One impact. [(1.6531 X 1.0415) X 97.01 = 1.6703]
TWO THIRDS VOTES: From 1.6703 to 1.8939. Majority vote rate without Amendment One X 10%] [1.7217 X 1.10 = 1.8939]
UNANIMOUS: From 1.8939 to 10.0000
Was this information, which was provided two months prior to the vote taken on 9/18, ignored or merely lost in the shuffle? Was it an accident or deliberate? That’s anyone’s guess.
Whatever the reason, the commission incorrectly rendered a supermajority vote. No one came to the rescue. Mayor never said anything. City Attorney (for a change!) remained silent. Staff didn’t disagree. Not a peep out of the Finance Director. No citizen chimed in. Ed Piniero, a “past Mayor-Commissioner turned citizen” is often criticized for speaking up and “saving this commission from themselves” on procedural issues. Ed, however, was on vacation and absent from the meeting.
Something else I found surprising--In my mind, the 1.89 millage rate that City Staff recommended was set as such because they determined the amount of revenue it would take to effectively run the City and calculated the 1.89 rate based on current property valuations and proposed expenses for next year. It might appear now that the millage rate staff proposed was driven more by the fear of not getting a unanimous vote than it was in the interest of fiscal efficiency. (1.89 would NOT have required a unanimous vote!)
Some officials, now seated on our commission, were cited and fined by the State for failure to follow the requirements for designing their campaign signs last March. Was this inability to read and interpret requirements a foreshadowing of things to come?
“Errors happen…”—that was the Mayor’s quote in the St. Pete Times on Sunday. No kidding…and in IRB they happen a lot.
Does anyone have anything to say to Commissioner Dan Torres who is firmly strapped into the millage rate hot seat with the countdown running…10…9…8…?
More on IRBeHEARD tomorrow.
Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB
From my third-grade kickball days, I vaguely remember a “do-over.” It was a chance, if you totally blew it, to redeem yourself.
Well, our City Commission is embarking on “the big do-over” at the abruptly announced Special City Commission Meeting on Tuesday, September 30th at 7 p.m. in the City Hall Auditorium.
This special meeting has been scheduled for the purpose of re-doing the SECOND AND FINAL READING of IRB’s budget for the next fiscal year, 2008-2009. Due to the high percentage of increase in our millage rate, ALL FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MUST AGREE UNANIMOUSLY ON THE MILLAGE RATE in accordance with Florida Statute. The 4-1 vote, taken on 9/18/08 and thought to be the final say, didn't fly.
Once again, IRB doesn’t seem to be as adept at math as it is at parks, libraries and sea oats. The rule is that a millage rate adopted in excess of 110% of the rolled-back rate based on the previous year's maximum millage rate adjusted for change in per capita Florida personal income requires a UANIMOUS (5-0) vote of the commission.
If the millage increase is less than 110%, only a two-thirds vote is required. In keeping with the City Charter, a millage rate equal to or greater than 6 percent of the current year rollback rate requires four out of five affirmative votes or a supermajority, however, local law bows to State Law.
If this B minor-scale-playing music major did the math correctly (it is rather complex, I'll admit), the percentage of increase in our millage rate at 2.0 blew the doors off the 110% threshold requiring a unanimous vote. Thus the reason for Tuesday’s “rerun.”
Once again, here comes the single most often-asked question in IRB: HOW THE HELL DID THIS HAPPEN?
In talking with past mayors about how they approached major votes like this one, they did so by first researching the voting requirements themselves and then asking the City Attorney and staff to confirm their findings.
Whose job was it to make sure the correct vote was rendered? According to the City Charter, the City Manager is responsible for the budget and for knowing all the laws and requirements associated with such. (Taylor did his job as you'll see below!) The Mayor, if on his game, will ask questions of those in the know and then confirm compliance with procedural requirements since he is charged with ruling on any points of order. The Vice Mayor and other Commissioners are supposed to be watching the Mayor's and the citizens’ backs. (That’s especially true of the Vice Mayor.) The Treasurer and City Attorney are there to provide advice--when asked.
Did the commission, at one point, have the correct information regarding this vote? Meeting Notes from the July 22, 2008 City Commission Meeting (available on the City Web site) provide the answer to this question…and that answer is YES. The meeting notes reflect that the commission was duly informed by staff that a unanimous vote was required for any millage rate above 1.89. The following excerpt was copied and pasted directly from the notes:
Charter Section 8.2, Ad Valorem Taxes, states: Any and all ad valorem millage rate increase which is equal to or greater than 6 percent of the current year rollback rate shall require four out of five affirmative votes of the City Commission. Based on the rolled back rate of 1.6531, 6% over that equals 1.7523 mills.
In addition to the above requirements, local governments must conform to the maximum millage limitation requirements first imposed by the Legislature in 2007. The requirements in 2008 are in Section 200.185(5), Florida Statutes. These requirements were further amended by a bill passed in 2008.
For Indian Rocks Beach the following is applicable:
MAJORITY VOTE: Up to 1.6703. Trim rolled back rate adjusted for per capita personal income X percentage majority vote amended for Amendment One impact. [(1.6531 X 1.0415) X 97.01 = 1.6703]
TWO THIRDS VOTES: From 1.6703 to 1.8939. Majority vote rate without Amendment One X 10%] [1.7217 X 1.10 = 1.8939]
UNANIMOUS: From 1.8939 to 10.0000
Was this information, which was provided two months prior to the vote taken on 9/18, ignored or merely lost in the shuffle? Was it an accident or deliberate? That’s anyone’s guess.
Whatever the reason, the commission incorrectly rendered a supermajority vote. No one came to the rescue. Mayor never said anything. City Attorney (for a change!) remained silent. Staff didn’t disagree. Not a peep out of the Finance Director. No citizen chimed in. Ed Piniero, a “past Mayor-Commissioner turned citizen” is often criticized for speaking up and “saving this commission from themselves” on procedural issues. Ed, however, was on vacation and absent from the meeting.
Something else I found surprising--In my mind, the 1.89 millage rate that City Staff recommended was set as such because they determined the amount of revenue it would take to effectively run the City and calculated the 1.89 rate based on current property valuations and proposed expenses for next year. It might appear now that the millage rate staff proposed was driven more by the fear of not getting a unanimous vote than it was in the interest of fiscal efficiency. (1.89 would NOT have required a unanimous vote!)
Some officials, now seated on our commission, were cited and fined by the State for failure to follow the requirements for designing their campaign signs last March. Was this inability to read and interpret requirements a foreshadowing of things to come?
“Errors happen…”—that was the Mayor’s quote in the St. Pete Times on Sunday. No kidding…and in IRB they happen a lot.
Does anyone have anything to say to Commissioner Dan Torres who is firmly strapped into the millage rate hot seat with the countdown running…10…9…8…?
More on IRBeHEARD tomorrow.
Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB
No comments:
Post a Comment