Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 108 PAGE313 <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED <br />BY Commissioner Stanbridge, to approve Alternative No. l(to <br />approve an expenditure of $9,500 to upgrade the Property <br />Appraiser's software with funding from the Beach Preservation <br />Fund). <br />Commissioner Ginn expressed her concern that the Board was moving ahead with the <br />Beach Preservation Plan without public workshops. Because of this concern, she could not <br />support the motion. <br />Chairman Macht thought it was just a matter of timeliness and an approval today does <br />not commit the Board to do assessments. <br />Vice Chairman Adams pointed out that if the Board does decide to do anything about <br />assessments this year, the Property Appraiser's office has to be prepared and the software <br />must be upgraded. A vote in favor of this item does not commit the Board to do anything <br />other than pay for the upgrade of the Property Appraiser's software. The assessments' issue <br />will not be heard until June because Phase 2 of the study must be completed first. <br />Commissioner Ginn was not convinced; she believed the Commissioners and public <br />needed to be fully informed. <br />The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion <br />carried 4-1 (Commissioner Ginn opposed). <br />Bill Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, sincerely hoped that the other three Commissioners <br />had time to go over this plan. He pointed out several areas that were flawed. He emphasized <br />that by law the State must pay 100% of any assessment for property owned by the State. He <br />mentioned two cost comparisons which he felt were inequitable. He asserted that one of the <br />biggest problem with the schedules is the fact that Property Appraiser David Nolte's office <br />has not updated the value of public land for years, because there was no reason to do so, yet <br />these old values were rolled into the assessment formula. In his opinion, the "formulas do <br />not work; they are not right, not legal, and highly immoral." He asked the Board to slow <br />down, fmd out what they are voting on and what this is all about. He c4aimed it was bad for <br />the citizens, bad for Indian River County, and bad for the Commissioners. He cautioned that <br />this flawed funding plan could jeopardize our money with the State of Florida. He urged the <br />Board "to take a quicker look at this, rather than just go forward blindly on it." <br />FEBRUARY 9, 1999 <br />all <br />is 0 <br />