Laserfiche WebLink
<br />putting a 3% cap on all property values for various reasons one of which is that our bond rating <br />would go down and it would hurt the citizens in this county terribly. Commissioners expressed <br />their opinions for and against this 3% cap. They also discussed about capping the Constitutional <br />Officers’ budgets. <br /> As the discussion ensued many additional points were made that supported Administrator <br />Baird’s advice. Vice Chairman Wheeler credited Administrator Baird for his tight budgeting <br />efforts, noting that the County is well-run under his guidance. Commissioner Lowther agreed <br />and thought it was tremendous that people who have homesteaded property have seen their taxes <br />lowered. He thought a tax cut across-the-board would be extremely detrimental to the County <br />and mainly on the level of service. Chairman Neuberger supported Administrator Baird’s efforts <br />in keeping costs down. <br /> Commissioner Davis felt that the budget for next year is way over last year’s and <br />advocated a cut in the budget across the board. <br /> Administrator Baird emphasized that putting a cap on the millage or on spending would <br />not be in the best interest of the County or the citizens. He commented that the Legislature has <br />continued to make the counties pay for more and more for State mandates. <br /> A bar graph was shown comparing IRC’s FY 2005/06 General Fund Millage to <br />surrounding and similar size counties’ millage rates. (See page 3 of the PowerPoint <br />presentation.) Administrator Baird pointed out that IRC’s millage is 3.15 and St. Lucie County <br />is at 7.6. He reiterated that it would be extremely shortsighted and not in the best interest of the <br />community on long-term outlook to have a millage cap. <br /> <br /> The meeting was in recess from 10:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. <br /> <br /> Chairman Neuberger announced that there had been requests from the public to speak. <br /> <br /> Duane Weiss, <br /> on behalf of the Taxpayers Association, reviewed his hand out of data that <br />was displayed on the overhead screen. He explained that they took a different approach by <br />looking at the total change of costs for operating the County from July 2004 to July 2005 to July <br />2006 and the percentage changes. (See the handout in the backup entitled Ad Valorem Taxing <br />July 12, 2006 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />