To Keep Erring is Stupid
Tonight’s (Tuesday’s) meeting, if held for the purpose of which it was scheduled, will be an error to fix an error. If a re-vote is taken on the millage rate tonight at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Auditorium, the standard moment of silence at the start of the meeting might as well last until midnight.
If another commission vote to reset the millage rate for 2008-2009 happens tonight, it will be just as improper as the first one recorded on September 18th.
ASSERTION #1: There is no provision in Florida Statute (Chapter 200-Determination of Millage) for IRB to take it upon themselves to initiate a re-vote on the millage rate. The proper procedure for a re-hearing involves certifying the vote taken some weeks back with the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) and waiting to receive authorization from them that a re-hearing is required. Once that notice from the state is received, IRB then has 15 days in which to advertise the new hearing following all other procedures for the notice. (more on this later!)
ASSERTION #2: Within 15 days of the meeting adopting the tentative budget, the taxing authority (IRB) is required to advertise its intent to adopt a millage rate and budget in a newspaper of general circulation, e.g. the St. Pete Times. If the tentative budget was adopted on 9/4/08, the LAST day to advertise a hearing on THIS particular tentative budget adopted was Thursday, 9/25. So, last Sunday’s (9/28) advertisement cannot be determined to be in conjunction with the tentative budget adopted since it falls outside the allotted 15-day notice per Florida Statute 200.65 (2)(4)(d).
ASSERTION #3: There is no provision for adopting a millage rate by ordinance or resolution and NOT certifying it within the required time period to the Dept. of Revenue. It appears that any vote, illegal or not, must be certified as outlined in Florida Statute 200.068. It is then up to the DOR to instruct the City to hold another meeting for the purpose of re-voting. There is no provision for the City to arbitrarily decide amongst themselves that a “re-do” is in order without the proper authorization from the State.
ASSERTION #4: The only provision for holding a re-hearing is one that is caused by receipt of a notification of noncompliance by the Department of Revenue. The DOR has 30 days of the deadline for certification of compliance by IRB to provide the notice. Then, the advertisement of the re-hearing must appear 15 days from IRB's receipt of the notice of noncompliance and is required to include the following verbiage: THE PREVIOUS NOTICE PLACED BY THE (name of taxing authority) HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, NECESSITATING THIS SECOND NOTICE. The new millage rate set may not exceed the one previously adopted.
Florida Statute also requires that a public hearing to finalize the budget and adopt a millage rate be held not less than 2 days nor more than 5 days after the day that the advertisement is first published. As citizen procedural watchdog Ed Piniero pointed out, even if the hearing were authorized by the DOR, the City has, once again, not met the minimum two-day notice requirement.
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure govern the calculation of notification time periods for all Florida Statutes, unless otherwise stated. Their calculation EXCLUDES Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from the time computation. Plus, the day of the “event,” which in this case is Tuesday, also doesn’t count. So, if Sunday doesn’t count and Tuesday doesn’t count, in essence IRB paid for a full-page ad in the Sunday St. Pete Times ($900?) which is an insufficient one-day notice, falling short of the minimum two-day notice requirement. (Not the first time we’ve paid for ads that were useless!)
An e-mail circulated by former Commissioner Jose Coppen yesterday hit the cyberwaves just as this blog information was being compiled. Coppen, too, agrees that the meeting is improper and cites a whole different roster of reasons why, some equally as valid as those outlined in this posting.
It looks like as long as re-hearing procedures are followed as outlined by Florida Statute Chapter 200, all will be forgiven. If the commission goes forward tonight —following their own hair-brained plan devoid of legal stability—will it bring the possible loss of our $100,000+ in state sales tax monies closer to fruition?
See you all tonight…I guess.
Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB
Tonight’s (Tuesday’s) meeting, if held for the purpose of which it was scheduled, will be an error to fix an error. If a re-vote is taken on the millage rate tonight at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Auditorium, the standard moment of silence at the start of the meeting might as well last until midnight.
If another commission vote to reset the millage rate for 2008-2009 happens tonight, it will be just as improper as the first one recorded on September 18th.
ASSERTION #1: There is no provision in Florida Statute (Chapter 200-Determination of Millage) for IRB to take it upon themselves to initiate a re-vote on the millage rate. The proper procedure for a re-hearing involves certifying the vote taken some weeks back with the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) and waiting to receive authorization from them that a re-hearing is required. Once that notice from the state is received, IRB then has 15 days in which to advertise the new hearing following all other procedures for the notice. (more on this later!)
ASSERTION #2: Within 15 days of the meeting adopting the tentative budget, the taxing authority (IRB) is required to advertise its intent to adopt a millage rate and budget in a newspaper of general circulation, e.g. the St. Pete Times. If the tentative budget was adopted on 9/4/08, the LAST day to advertise a hearing on THIS particular tentative budget adopted was Thursday, 9/25. So, last Sunday’s (9/28) advertisement cannot be determined to be in conjunction with the tentative budget adopted since it falls outside the allotted 15-day notice per Florida Statute 200.65 (2)(4)(d).
ASSERTION #3: There is no provision for adopting a millage rate by ordinance or resolution and NOT certifying it within the required time period to the Dept. of Revenue. It appears that any vote, illegal or not, must be certified as outlined in Florida Statute 200.068. It is then up to the DOR to instruct the City to hold another meeting for the purpose of re-voting. There is no provision for the City to arbitrarily decide amongst themselves that a “re-do” is in order without the proper authorization from the State.
ASSERTION #4: The only provision for holding a re-hearing is one that is caused by receipt of a notification of noncompliance by the Department of Revenue. The DOR has 30 days of the deadline for certification of compliance by IRB to provide the notice. Then, the advertisement of the re-hearing must appear 15 days from IRB's receipt of the notice of noncompliance and is required to include the following verbiage: THE PREVIOUS NOTICE PLACED BY THE (name of taxing authority) HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, NECESSITATING THIS SECOND NOTICE. The new millage rate set may not exceed the one previously adopted.
Florida Statute also requires that a public hearing to finalize the budget and adopt a millage rate be held not less than 2 days nor more than 5 days after the day that the advertisement is first published. As citizen procedural watchdog Ed Piniero pointed out, even if the hearing were authorized by the DOR, the City has, once again, not met the minimum two-day notice requirement.
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure govern the calculation of notification time periods for all Florida Statutes, unless otherwise stated. Their calculation EXCLUDES Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from the time computation. Plus, the day of the “event,” which in this case is Tuesday, also doesn’t count. So, if Sunday doesn’t count and Tuesday doesn’t count, in essence IRB paid for a full-page ad in the Sunday St. Pete Times ($900?) which is an insufficient one-day notice, falling short of the minimum two-day notice requirement. (Not the first time we’ve paid for ads that were useless!)
An e-mail circulated by former Commissioner Jose Coppen yesterday hit the cyberwaves just as this blog information was being compiled. Coppen, too, agrees that the meeting is improper and cites a whole different roster of reasons why, some equally as valid as those outlined in this posting.
It looks like as long as re-hearing procedures are followed as outlined by Florida Statute Chapter 200, all will be forgiven. If the commission goes forward tonight —following their own hair-brained plan devoid of legal stability—will it bring the possible loss of our $100,000+ in state sales tax monies closer to fruition?
See you all tonight…I guess.
Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB
3 comments:
Why would they start to follow the rules now?
The whole chain of events leading up to this “improper meeting” is starting to remind me of one of my favorite Abbott and Costello’s classic comedy routines titled “Whos’ on First”.
For a good laugh or perhaps a good warm-up before you attend tonight’s meeting, check out this link below:
http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhoOnFirstTEXT.html
How can any of our citizens allow these clowns to govern our city? I can't wait until March.
Post a Comment