UNTRUTH IN MILLAGE

A THIRD Shot at Setting Millage?

In 1980, the Florida legislature passed the "Truth-in-Millage" (TRIM) Act. The “Notice of Proposed Property Taxes” everyone receives as a result is affectionately known as the dreaded TRIM notice. It informs taxpayers of their tax liability in advance and provides ample opportunity to voice concerns, objections, etc.

The TRIM process is set forth by state statute and has some specific requirements. Setting of the millage rate by IRB is part of the process. Initially, our City Commission, in error, set the millage rate with a supermajority vote on 9/18. They were forced to re-vote unanimously on 9/30 to fix the error. Did the commission not realize that they were jacking our millage above the 110% threshold? Did they not know the rules? The biggest travesty here is NOT in not knowing--that's understandable. It's in not asking questions. Why doesn’t this group ever ask questions from the dais? Are they afraid of the answers? Do they fear appearing ignorant? All five commissioners claim to do a lot of homework behind the scenes. Well, in this case, the dog must have eaten it. How is it that average IRB citizens in the audience seem to know the rules better than those those looking out (and in some cases--down) on the audience?

At the re-hearing on 9/30, a number of citizens voiced their objections to the re-vote taking place that evening, citing specific violations of Florida Statute Chapter 200 entitled “Determination of Millage.” As usual, these "complaints" fell on deaf ears and the re-vote was taken anyway.

The “yowlers” were duly put in their place and informed that the Department of Revenue (DOR), the overseer of the TRIM process, had authorized the City to proceed with the re-hearing. It wasn’t until obtaining a copy of a 10/7 e-mail sent by DOR Attorney Robert Speirs to IRB City Attorney Maura Kiefer that it became clear the department's “blessing” was NOT without qualifiers.

“Dear Madam Kiefer:
I see no requirement for a taxing authority to wait until submission of a TRIM package to the Department for review to re-advertise and re-hold the hearings required under S. 200.065, Florida Statutes, when you, as attorney for the taxing authority, are reasonably certain a violation has occurred. Your description of the course of events sets out a probable violation that would require re-advertising and re-holding of the hearings. It might be a good idea to review the violations listed in the statutes and S. 12D-17.005, Florida Administrative Code, to make doubly sure that no other violation has occurred which might not show up until the submission of the TRIM package.If any such second violation appeared at the time of review, of course, another re-advertisement and re-hearing might be required.”

Attorney Speirs carefully stated that if other violations came to light another “re-do” might be in order. So buckle up for Round 3, if any of the following get caught:

1. The number of days between the adoption of the tentative millage rate on 9/4 and the publication of the St. Petersburg Times advertisement on 9/28 exceeded the maximum 15 days permitted between the two events.

2. The budget published for the FIRST Second/Final Reading on 9/18/08 DID NOT match the budget advertised for the RE-HEARING Second/Final reading held on 9/30/08. (Additional columns/figures were added.)

3. The published notice did not meet the required minimum 2-day notice. Florida Statute 200.065 mandates the meeting be held “not less than 2 days nor more than 5 days” AFTER the day the meeting advertisement is first published. Assuming that two (2) days means forty-eight (48) hours, the City of IRB failed to comply. The notice was published on Sunday. The first day AFTER the Sunday advertisement appeared would have been Monday, which began at 0000 hours and ended at 2400 hours. The second day (Tuesday) started at 0000 hours and ended at 2400 hours. The meeting began at 7:00 p.m. (1900) on Tuesday or about five (5) hours short of the minimum 2-day (48-hour) requirement.

It is no surprise that attendance at the re-vote hearing was noticeably less than at the initial hearing. Citizens received a 4-day notice for the INITIAL Second/Final Reading (published 9/14 for a 9/18 reading) and less than two days notice of the 9/30 re-hearing. In light of new figures added to the published budget, this gave citizens about 16 city business hours to explore the revisions. NOT ONE COMMISSIONER expressed any concern whatsoever that the rights of their constituents may have been compromised. Once again, no one stood up for us. And, the commission's silence may have also compromised IRB's $100,000+ in sales tax revenues in the process. Not a good time to walk away from that much money, is it?

Admittedly, the FY 2008-2009 millage rate for Indian Rocks Beach might well have ended up the same had procedures been followed. But, in light of nearly $1 million in unauthorized loans we are now being asked to repay, following proper procedure is more crucial than ever.

Will the Department of Revenue catch these other violations when IRB files its TRIM package? Better hope not or…here we go again…third time’s a charm.

Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB