NIT-PICKING IN IRB

Citizens Right To Question

Not following the rules is why we, the taxpayers of Indian Rocks Beach, are now responsible for repaying $900,000+ in unauthorized loans. That's also why procedural questions were asked by a number of citizens at Tuesday’s Special Commission Meeting (9/30); the meeting was a "re-run” of the Second/Final Reading of next year’s millage and operating budget.

Some audience members attending the meeting saw the queries by residents as needless and unwarranted nit-picking. Based on the sea of errors with no admissions that have recently come to light, there can’t be too much nit-picking. Maybe if someone had nit-picked sooner instead of pontificating about the weather, our City wouldn’t be facing financial challenges that were avoidable on top of the ones we already expected.

The repayment monies for the “mystery loans” are coming from two sources: a recent 60% increase in our sewer and solid waste fees and the jacking up of our property tax millage rate--which directly affects our pockets. The increase in the millage rate over last year was so high that it exceeded the threshold requiring everyone on the commission to support it, which they did. Commissioner Torres, who was the lone “NO” vote on both the millage rate AND the budget at the now-defunct first Second/Final Reading on September 18th, joined his colleagues in adopting the 2.0 millage rate by the required 5-0 vote. (Last year’s millage rate was 1.4695. One-tenth of a mill roughly equals $100,000 in tax revenues.)

Ours is a right to ask questions and to challenge. The City Attorney is obviously the last stop on legal matters, but that should not stop our citizens from asking the questions. It’s certainly understandable though that more citizens don’t ask questions. After all, who enjoys being “put down” publicly by former elected officials who, more than most, should respect a citizen’s right to know? There is somewhat of a disconnect with Mayor Johnson taking a hard-line stance against derogatory personal comments being made at the podium between commissioners and citizens (which he should!) and then permitting derogatory comments to be made by a citizen about another citizen—comments that potentially intimidate others from participating in the process.

A number of citizens questioned the relatively short notice for the “re-do” millage and budget meeting. Rules regarding the number of days to advertise a public meeting exist in order to everyone the opportunity of having his/her say, especially with regard to taxation. It turns out that City Attorney Maura Kiefer’s position that a Sunday newspaper notice for a Tuesday meeting is sufficient as supported by a section of the Department of Revenue’s “Trim Compliance Workbook.” This publication shows the calculation of the two-day minimum notice to INCLUDE Saturdays, Sunday and holidays, contrary to what some citizens (including me) thought. Although legally appropriate, the two-day notice of last Tuesday’s meeting was significantly shorter than the notice for both the September 4th First Reading and Second Reading 1 on September 18th; both were Thursday meetings advertised the prior Sunday, providing a full five-day notification to the citizens. Not one commissioner expressed any concern for the shorter public notice of this very important issue.

Still somewhat puzzling is the lack of adherence to Florida Statute Chapter 200 entitled “Determination of Millage.” City Attorney Kiefer, on the record,
reported having a conversation with the Department of Revenue in which they advised her to follow a different procedure than the one outlined in the statute.

Florida Statute 213.05 makes a very clear distinction between the Department of Revenue’s responsibilities for ad valorem taxation (with a specific reference to Chapter 200) and the DOR's responsibilities for other special taxation sources. Chapter 200 charges the DOR with ONLY THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES that are specific to the Department of Revenue as defined in the Statute; whereas, in the case of other special revenue taxes the DOR has THE ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY of regulating, controlling and administering ALL revenue laws. This begs the question, “Did the Department of Revenue have the power to grant IRB 'a pass' not to follow Florida Statute"?

That statute gives the City of IRB three (3) days after the millage rate was first adopted on September 18, 2008 to forward it the it to the property appraiser, tax collector and Department of Revenue. There is no provision whatsoever in the statute for a city NOT to certify the rate adopted to those authorities—even in the case of an improper vote.

Also, the September 28th advertisement of the second Second/Final Reading on September 30th was required to appear 15 days from the date the tentative budget was approved on September 4th. Tuesday’s (Sept. 30) meeting wasn’t advertised until September 28th--24 days afterwards—well beyond the statute’s 15-day requirement.

We would, with near certainty, still have ended up at a 2.0 millage rate—but it would be nice to know that we got there following the rules this time.

When will there be no more questions? The very minute we’re not asked to pay taxes, which occurs just after the lid slams closed on the casket.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB

(Note: If you'd like to comment on this posting, simply click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the article and follow the prompts. You may comment anonymously if you'd like. Or, you can always e-mail your comments to irbeheard@cmdinc.net and we'll post them for you!)