The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/10/1974a JUNE 10, 1974 THE BOARD OF COUNTY- COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MET IN SPECIAL SESSION AT THE COURTHOUSE, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON MONDAY, JUNE 10 1974, AT 1:30 O'CLOCK P.M. PRESENT WERE ALMA LEE Loy, CHAIRMAN; EDWARD J. MASSEY, VICE CHAIRMAN; JACK U. DRITENBAS; RICHARD P. BOGOSIAN. ALSO PRESENT WERE JACK G. JENNINGS, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR; PAUL D. BURCH, ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; L. S. THOMAS, COUNTY COORDINATOR; JACK HOCKMAN AND VIRGINIA HARGREAVES,, DEPUTY CLERKS, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AND STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLIC MEETING WAS TO REVIEW THE NEW LOCAL MILLAGE ROLLBACK BILL INTRODUCED AND PASSED DURING THE LAST SESSION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND DISCUSS THE AFFECT IT WILL HAVE ON INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. CHAIRMAN Loy INFORMED THE BOARD THAT SHE HAD INVITED REPRESENTATIVE CHESTER CLEM, WHO HAD INTRODUCED THIS BILL, TO BE PRESENT AT THIS MEETING, BUT HE WAS'UNABLE TO ATTEND. COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS STATED THAT HE WAS SURPRISED THE BOARD HAD NOT BEEN CONTACTED PRIOR TO THIS BILL BEING INTRODUCED AS HE FELT WITH SOMETHING AS STRONG AND PERSONAL AS THIS BILL, THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO DISCUSS IT BEFORE IT WAS INTRODUCED -AND PASSED. ATTORNEY BURCH INFORMED THE BOARD THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE AROUND THE 5TH OF JULY BEFORE THIS BILL REACHED THE GOVERNORS DESK SO THEY HAD A FEW WEEKS IF THEY WISHED TO TAKE ANY ACTION. HE ALSO STATED THAT HE HAD READ THE BILL CAREFULLY AND BELIEVED IT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, ATTORNEY BURCH REFERRED THE BOARD TO A MEMO FROM REPRESENTATIVE CLEM EXPLAIN— ING THE MILLAGE ROLLBACK BILL, WHICH MEMO IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES, Boo, ru P"481 z MEMO Be: Explanation of Local Millage roll Back Law Date: June 7, 1974 The purpose of this local Bill is to put a limit on the amount of taxes that local taxing bodies (schools, counties, cities, taxing districts, and so forth) can raise local property taxes in any given year. The idea behind the Bill is that we are trying to dlscourage an increase in taxes, and put an outside limit on the amount local taxis; bodies can increase taxes. The important aspects of the Bill are as follows: 1. The millage of each taxing body is determtned to be the amount of millage that would raise the same dollar amount on the current assess - mens roll as was raised in ad valorem taxes on the preceding year's roll, excluding new construction. Example: 1973 tax roll $300 million. 1974 tax roll X640 million, of which $40 million is new construction. Assuming a millage of 8.3 mills for 1973, the way to determine the millage for 1974 would be as follows: $300 million/$600 million (..5640 million, $40 million was new con- struction) X 8.3 mills (1973 millage) = 4.15 mills for the current year to raise the same amount as the preceding year (excluding new construction). Thus, a local taxing body could levy 4.15 mills, plus 107 of 4.15 mills or. 415, for a total of 4.565 X dhe total assessed value of $640 million, which would be $2.92 million that the taxing body could raise in 1974, as compared with the 8.3 mills X $300 million or $2.49 million for 1973. This is actually greater than a 1070 increase, and it would amount to $430, 000 over die preceding year. The other aspects of the Bill are that there is JUN 10 1974 eoo� 20— PAcE182 y i 5. 1 1y . _a an additional emergency 5% that can b levied which would be computed ted In the same manner as above. Z. There are required notices for ate -Increase with those members of the taxing authority voting for and against the Increase names to appear In the newspaper. 3. - It is stressed in the Bill on pages four and five that the local taxing bodies are actually encouraged to reduce millage rather than in- creasing. 4. The Issue will be submitted to a vote by the local taxpayers in November as to whether or not they want this provision to become ef- i fective or not. 5. There is an automatic repealer on July 1, 1976, requiring that it be reintroduced In the upcoming 1975 legislature If the people desire it. Chester Clem CC/ylb JUN 10 19074 BOOK � PAGEI 20SJ 0 JUN 0 1974 COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN REMARKED THAT THIS BILL WAS BASICALLY WHAT WE HAD BACK IN 1969 AND 1970 WHEN WE HAD A 10 MILL CAP AND A LIMITATION ON INCREASE, AND HE FELT WE COULD LIVE WITH IT. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE BOARD IS NOT WASTING MONEY, BUT USING IT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND IF YOU WANT THE BEST YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. COMMIS- SIONER BOGOSIAN ALSO SAID HE FELT THE BOARD HAS HAD BAD PUBLIC RELATIONS AND THE PUBLIC DOES NOT REALIZE THE BOARD IS INVOLVED IN LONG TERM PROJECTS THE BENEFITS OF WHICH WILL NOT BE FELT .FOR MANY YEARS. HE STATED'YOU CANNOT KEEP THE COMMUNITY AS DESIRABLE AS IT IS WITHOUT IT COSTING MORE TO LIVE HERE. THE ONLY OTHER WAY IS•TO CUT BACK ON SERVICES. CHAIRMAN Loy POINTED OUT THAT A.GREAT DEAL OF THE TAX INCREASE THIS LAST YEAR WAS DUE TO PROVIDING.THE CITY OF VERO BEACH WITH MORE MONEY FOR FIRE PROTECTION. SHE AGREED THAT THE BOARD COULD LIVE WITH THE BILL, BUT IT WOULD UNDOUBT- EDLY AFFECT THE LEVEL OF SERVICES THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE. CHAIRMAN Loy INFORMED THE BOARD THAT ST. LUCIE COUNTY HAD PASSED A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING,THAT THE 'GOVERNOR VETO THE BILL. IN GENERAL DISCUSSION IT WAS BROUGHT OUT THAT REPRE- SENTATIVE CLEM HAD -TAKEN TWO POLLS DURING THE LAST SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THE CHIEF COMPLAINT HE HAD FROM THE CITIZENS IN THIS COUNTY WAS TAXES AND THE HIGH COST OF GOVERN- MENTAL SERVICES. COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN BROUGHT UP THE MATTER OF HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AND POINTED OUT THAT OTHER TAXPAYERS HAVE TO PAY THE DIFFERENCE TO MAKE UP FOR THESE EXEMPTIONS. HE ALSO REMARKED THAT PEOPLE UP NORTH PAY MUCH LARGER AMOUNTS IN TAXES, BUT COME DOWN HERE TO LIVE AND EXPECT THE SAME SERVICES FOR LESS, COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS REMARKED THAT SINCE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HAS ALREADY DONE ITS REASSESSMENT THIS BILL SHOULD NOT HIT US TOO HARD. �DOIi 20 PAA84 0 5 CHAIRMAN Loy STATED THAT WE ARE HAVING TROUBLE RIGHT NOW KEEPING UP WITH THE LEVEL OF SERVICES DEMANDED BY THE CITIZENS, AND IT IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF BOTH IMMIGRATION AND INFLATION. COUNTY COORDINATOR THOMAS REMARKED THE ONLY ANSWER WAS TO EITHER CUT BACK ON SERVICES OR RESORT TO ADDITIONAL MEANS OF RAISING FUNDS. COMMISSIONER BOGOSIAN POINTED OUT THAT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IS ONE OF THE ONLY COUNTIES WITH NO BONDED IN- DEBTEDNESS AND PERHAPS WE SHOULD FLOAT SOME BONDS AND CUT THE TAX RATES. COMMISSIONER DRITENBAS SAID THAT HE HAD RECEIVED INDICATIONS FROM SOME CITIZENS THAT THEY FELT WE SHOULD GET INTO SOME BONDED INDEBTEDNESS AND PASS SOME OF THE OBLIGATION ON TO FUTURE CITIZENS. COMMISSIONER MASSEY AGREED THAT WE COULD BOND IN SEVERAL FIELDS, SUCH AS A NEW COURTHOUSE AND LAND ACQUISITION. IN -FURTHER DISCUSSION, THE BOARD AGREED THAT THEY COULD LIVE WITH THIS MILLAGE ROLLBACK BILL AND WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF TAKING ANY ACTION IN REGARD TO IT AT THIS TIME. CHAIRMAN•LOY ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 2:30 O'CLOCK P.M. juN10194 �GE18