May 08, 2008 Workshop
May 08 2008
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
May 8, 2008
The Board of County Commissioners Brevard County, Florida, met in special workshop session on May 8, 2008, at 1:02 p.m. in the Government Center Florida Room, Building C,
PUBLIC COMMENT, RE: PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES – MIKE ZOCCHI
Mike Zocchi, President of Brevard County Professional Firefighters, stated he stood before the Board several times in pledge of support of the more than 450 firefighters, paramedics, Lieutenants, inspectors, and dispatchers when it came to the current budget crisis everyone now faces; in doing so it was expected the Board would act in good faith and abide by the wishes of the State Legislature and not impose cuts upon public safety services; and this has proven not to be true in some cases as recent history will show. He stated the services have seen a steady decrease in the overall budget for the past two years now; the department was to have implemented a new ambulance in Titusville to relieve the already overburdened north end units; this ambulance manning went unfunded and never came to pass; a few of the Board Members have talked about reductions in emergency vehicle replacements as well, with the end result being an obvious decay of the emergency services fleet that is already in place; and this is basically pushing off responsibilities on future Board’s that will be left with a fleet of vehicles below safety standards if implemented. He advised the employees he represents also saw the negotiated fair pay contract eliminated last year and replaced with one that kept the employees below surrounding departments and behind the inflationary curve. He stated they now sit like everyone else facing ever increasing prices for every type of service or consumable that is used daily; with the current demand is for wage freezes across the board, it is translated into a huge pay reduction for the employees; he has accepted this new reality in today’s budget world; and the firefighters stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the fellow County employees in other departments once again in solidarity. He stated he applauded the efforts of Chief Farmer and his team for being able to keep the manning levels where they are in these difficult times; he too realizes the importance of the service to the public and has begun an aggressive campaign to ensure that personnel presents themselves as a professionals that they are; too often the public only sees them when the worst has happened; and with public proactive public awareness they will be able to see the level of service they are actually getting for the tax dollars. He stated the Board may be asking what this has to do with the current fire assessment fee being discussed today; there seems to be a huge misconception out there about what the fee actually is; and hopefully it can be clarified a little bit in simple layman’s terms for everyone. He stated the fee is not new money for the fire department; it is money that already existed that is
being collected in a different way; there is no way to reduce to eliminate the funding without having a crippling effect on services; and it boils down to this, public safety is a number one priority of government and must be funded accordingly. He stated he heard the presentation the Consultant provided on the assessment collection methods and feel no matter which way a person turns someone is going to be mad; he deals with that on a daily basis with his own membership; and the Board has his understanding and sympathies in that respect. He requested that no matter what the Board decides on the assessment issue it needs to be held up to public scrutiny, be financially stable, and most of all be legal; stated if there is any question about the legality of the fee it needs to be addressed and taken care of without delay; as servants to the public it is the Board’s responsibility and its duty; do not let the County get caught up in political bantering; and the safety and protection of the public cannot be put into jeopardy.
FIRE ASSESSMENT CONSULTANT REPORT/PRESENTATION
Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated at the last public meeting on Thursday a couple of citizens asked staff to explain the current methodology, so there are actually two presentations; Chief Farmer is going to explain the current methodology; and then Mike Burton of Burton and Associates will give a presentation on the options that he has presented to the Board previously and that he has refined over the past couple of weeks.
Chief Bill Farmer stated he was asked to explain how everyone ended up getting here; as most of the Board may be aware or remember is he or she was on the Board at the time, the City of Palm Bay filed a lawsuit referencing the EMS assessment; based on a case in North Lauderdale, the South Florida area, that said that assessments have to provide a benefit to property; EMS does not provide a benefit for property; and that assessment cannot be used for EMS. He advised there was a lawsuit filed, the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser joined the lawsuit, and so staff came up with another methodology on how to fund
Commissioner Nelson inquired if Chief Farmer would explain below the line and above the line as there are people who do not understand what the line means; with Chief Farmer responding on the property tax statement there is a bold line more than halfway down; stated above that line is the ad valorem taxes; those taxes are based on the property value that is affected by that tax; below the line is flat assessments that are not related to ad valorem and are generally service-based; and outside of that the fire chief cannot talk about assessments. Chief Farmer stated initially when the methodology was discussed there was going to be one fee fits all; whether a person had a one-foot square foot hut to a 10,000 square foot multi-family home; it was going to be one price all the way; when that idea was initially tested, it became intolerable for some of the public; so
by the direction of the Board staff applied a break in the residential, one that made sense to the service that was delivered; and at about the 3,000 square foot mark additional resources were added for a second alarm. He stated then a residential unit rate was created whereby the units that were less than 2,999 square feet would pay $212 and those 3,000 square feet and above would pay $276; multi-family homes were treated as their own entity based on the concept that a multi-family home has significantly more opportunities for fire than does a single-family home; if there are ten units in a multi-family home, that would mean ten dryers, ten stoves, and ten potential people smoking in bed as opposed to one family in one single-family residence; and that is how that concept changed as the assessment was done.
Commissioner Voltz stated there was a difference between those condominiums units, apartment buildings, and those people who rented; and there was a huge difference in the bottom line. Chief Farmer stated that is an anomaly of this methodology; the difference being that even within manufactured homes and multi-family homes, condos and apartments are treated differently and they should not be; that is an anomaly that needed fixed and one the consultants did fix; and the other one was is it is a manufactured home in a park that rents several lots as compared to one sitting on its own property a person would pay a different rate. He stated for commercial property square footage is utilized but the Haz Code is also utilized, which was developed by the National Fire Protection Association based on what a building does; it has a multiplier by .08, .135, and so on as the slide shows; and that is based on what that property does. He stated if it is a 10,000 square foot storage area that stores paper as opposed to a 10,000 square foot area that stores hazardous materials, the hazardous materials place pays a little bit more because they are getting more protection and a greater benefit. He stated the Consultant will speak to the fact that they had initial concerns about Haz Codes; that is how commercial units are factored now; initially this is what vacant property was going to do; but in the course of the discussion on vacant property, staff was unable to prove that there was a direct and clear benefit to fire protection for vacant property. He stated some real estate agencies staff he spoke with said that once a fairly good size tract of land is burned off there is less work to clear the property for building on it; because that was such a gray area they got the recommendation to remove vacant land from the methodology; and firefighting on vacant land is paid for through the Fire MSTU, which is above the line and is an ad valorem property value tax.
Commissioner Voltz inquired why it cannot be kept up in the ad valorem assessment because of the Cap; with Chief Farmer responding the issue was that basically $20 million needed to be moved above the line; stated Brevard County is the only county in the State of Florida that has a 10% Cap; they were not able to move that $20 million above the line and keep fire above the line and not exceed that Cap; unlike any other entity a way had to be found to move an equivalent amount below the line; and that is why EMS could not be absorbed into the General Fund. Commissioner Voltz inquired if there was a two point plus mills decrease in ad valorem; with Chief Farmer responding that is correct. Chief Farmer stated the 2.2035 mills would have collected approximately $32 million, whereas when the decrease in the millage to the .6 and take the assessment value are combined it would have actually generated more revenue if it would have stayed under the MSTU factor.
Assistant County Manager Stockton Whitten stated the Board has engaged Burton & Associates to provide it with options; they have come up with two options; Mike may have some additional information on a third option today; and Mike Burton is present and is President of Burton & Associates and he will let him introduce his associate.
President of Burton & Associates Mike Burton introduced Kevin Kruger one of his consultants that has been working on this with him. He stated he has done some additional refinements to the analysis since he last spoke with the Board; and he would like to go over that with the Board today. He advised he has a presentation that does not include a lot of the preamble that was in the prior presentation; and it cuts to the chase to get back to what the issues are that were on the table before to the extent that the Board or anyone in the audience wants him to give a little more detailed background explanation he will be happy to do that. He stated he is going to reiterate what the scope of the study is so everyone will understand that; then he will go straight into the cost apportionment and assessment calculation methodology update to show what they have done and what has changed since the last workshop; and then he would like to open it up for discussion. He stated with the scope of the study he was supposed to recommend alternative cost apportionment methodology, specifically a building area basis or a square foot within class and a building value basis within class; the concept being that even within a residential class rather than the almost one size fits all method that Chief Farmer mentioned a moment ago, it would be more of a continuum of the smaller a person’s building size is in square feet the lower he or she would pay; the larger the building size is the more he or she would pay; and on the building value it is the same thing. He noted to those who have not been present at the meetings before he wants to emphasize that building value is the value of the building only; the structures on the property is not the just value, it does not include the land value, and it is not in any way an ad valorem approach to it; it would be considered the benefit criteria under the method, which would say that all of the properties in the County are receiving benefit from the fire protection service from the protection of economic loss of the buildings on its property; so if there is a more valuable building than another parcel it would be receiving more benefit from the protection of a higher economic loss than the other property and therefore would have a higher assessment. He stated the benefit criteria on a square foot basis would be the square footage is a surrogate for that same type of benefit in terms of loss of property; the larger the property the greater the loss would be; it would be protected from that by the fire service; and the benefit would vary from larger to smaller property.
Commissioner Voltz inquired why would the Board as a county government be concerned about how much someone’s building is worth; if there are two buildings one with paper and one with tires, the Board understands it will take more equipment to put out the one with tires than it is the other one; as far as the actual value of that property to the Board it is no value but to them the service is of value; but she does not know how the two equate. Mr. Burton advised it goes back to the root of the kind of assessment this is, the kind of revenue collection mechanism it is; people are used to fees like a water and sewer rate; and if it costs more to serve one person than another because there are more resources devoted to one person over another. He stated in a Municipal
Services Benefit Unit the criteria for apportioning the costs has to be a benefit to the property, not the cost of the County to serve the property; so the contents of the property are a little bit like the people that was mentioned in the lawsuit; and what he is talking about is protection of the property not protection of the contents. He stated the contents maybe cause the County to have more or less resources to have to go to a fire but that is not the criteria, the criteria is what kind of benefit does the property itself receive; not the people in the property or the contents of the property but the property; and that is why the building value would be the criteria because an owner has a building that is worth one-half a million dollars and another owner has a building that is worth one hundred thousand dollars; if they are both receiving a baseline protection from loss to fire, either in an of itself or because it allows them to get insurance to protect them, so this property will receive more benefit than this one.
Commissioner Voltz stated it will cost for the County to fight one fire more than it will cost to fight the other fire; and the building that has the tires will get a greater benefit if the firefighters get there on time rather than if they do not get there on time. Mr. Burton stated not in terms of the protection of the real property. Commissioner Voltz stated if there is a building that will burn down and have tires, it will cost the County a whole lot more money to put that fire out as there are certain chemicals that have to be used in that type of fire. Chief Farmer stated what the Consultant has shared with him is that it is literally the walls, doors, and the roof; and what is inside of the building almost has to be discounted to meet the test of assessment is providing a benefit to the building.
Mr. Burton stated it is hard to shift a person’s mindset from a cost causation basis; this is a benefit basis; so if a person receives benefit from the protection of loss to his or her business then it requires the County twice the resources to do that for a person than it does he or she; and the benefit and the burden has to match; the burden to the property owner in terms of the assessment has to match the benefit they receive.
Commissioner Voltz inquired which building would cost more to fight a fire between a 10,000 square foot building that has paper and the 10,000 square foot building next door that has tires; with Chief Farmer responding the tire fire would definitely be the worse fire and would probably take more resources. Chief Farmer stated the concept of disregarding contents is counterintuitive to him. Mr. Burton stated that next month the building that is carrying tires might be carrying paper; the real property is a more constant thing; and even if the County does go that way it would be a pretty administratively complex system to be sure it understood what in fact was inside the property. Commissioner Voltz inquired if that person would pay a higher assessment. Mr. Burton stated Commissioner Voltz is thinking logically about the normal way of thinking about fees; and it is a little bit counterintuitive to turn around and think about the benefit.
Commissioner Bolin stated she has two people who are building the same size building; one goes to Lowe’s and buys the minimum quality materials and builds it; the guy next door gets the top of the line materials to build his building; so the value of his actual building is more than his neighbors even though size-wise they are exactly the same
because he put more value into the materials. She inquired if the person who spent more money in constructing his building would be receive higher benefit for services because he has more invested into the building; with Mr. Burton responding under the building value base yes, but under the square footage basis no.
Commissioner Voltz inquired if the County would know the people who build hurricane homes that are built totally hurricane-proof versus the stick house or wood framed house that was built next door; with Mr. Burton responding that information is in the Property Appraiser’s database. Mr. Burton stated the Property Appraiser goes through a fairly elaborate process and algorithms to calculate the value and it starts with a base rate for each of the building use codes; if it is single-family home and it has a building use code that has a base rate of $62; if it is a manufactured home it has a building use code of $32; and then adjustments are made on that for other things such as marble inlay and different things. He noted each building on each parcel is assigned a value and that is the value he is using to do the building value basis. Commissioner Voltz stated hurricane structures are kind of new in the last couple of years. Mr. Burton advised he is meeting with the Property Appraiser’s Office tomorrow morning to get an even better understanding of some of these things; and he will ask about the new hurricane codes and whether that is taken into account. Mr. Burton stated the Board asked him the last time he was present to go through pros and cons of those two methods and that will be done at the end of the presentation.
Mr. Burton stated he showed the Board the preliminary results schedules last time, but they are hard to read. He advised looking at the chart it is $209.97; this goes through the allocation algorithm of the building administration costs being allocated equally to each parcel; then the service component being allocated that 84% of the cost associated with the marginal cost of providing service, which is basically just fuel, are for non-real property calls and therefore they are not included in the assessment; and only $130,000 of the $693,000 associated with those calls are included in the assessment. He stated this is the watch-standing, the 92% of the costs that are allocated based upon either the square footage or the value in the two methods in terms of the benefit that people receive by the fact that the County maintained assets of equipment and personnel and stand ready to serve and provide the proper response time to suppress the fires the real property throughout the County; and this calculates the base rate for an average equivalent residential unit. He stated the revenue requirements are shown on the bottom and the revenue that would be recovered from the assessment is about $23,600,000, and about $1,200,000 would not be recoverable through the assessment because it is either associated with excluded properties or with those calls for service to non-real property; $1,200,000 would be of the budget within this department that would have to come from another source; and that is on a square footage basis. He stated he is going to advance forward and show the Board another chart. He stated it is on the building value basis; that number is $205.20; they are very close to the same number for the average equivalent residential unit; the revenues are similar also; about $1,500,000 of excluded revenues because the properties are on a building value basis that the Board wants to exclude are more valuable than they are relative to the others in terms of the square footage; so there is a little bit more that would have to be excluded under that.
Commissioner Voltz inquired how this compares to the charts the Board had last week; with Mr. Burton responding it was about $217 last time and it is $209 this time. He advised he has been working with the Fire Department and the
Commissioner Voltz inquired if that means a person’s shed in the backyard is included; with Mr. Burton responding it is included in the numbers now. Commissioner Voltz inquired if she had a shed out back it would be included in the total square footage of her home or property value; with Mr. Burton responding yes it would be on the square footage method and on the property value method now in these numbers; stated there may be a logic to change that and only include the living area on the square footage and only the home itself on the value; and not any ancillary buildings. Commissioner Voltz inquired if she has a shed way out in the back yard somewhere why would it affect anything. Mr. Burton advised it is a good point; that may need to be changed to only include the living area and the home itself in that case; but with commercial properties all buildings would need to be included. He advised the Property Appraiser has offered time to him to go through all of it in detail; they had a nice long conversation with the Property Appraiser’s Office the other day; and the meeting tomorrow will give better guidance in what to do.
Mr. Burton stated this is the non-residential impact; again the bins are split at the bottom end up a little bit more than before; and there is a little bit lower impact than there was before on the non-residential. He stated it cannot be compared like with the residential because the residential was kind of a one size fits all; there was one size for the lower than 3,000 and one size for the greater than 3,000; now there are different bins than he has and it is difficult to make kind of a general comparison like that; and he has a sample comparison of some types of non-residential properties at the end that he will show how it effects them. He stated generally most of them will go down slightly. He advised the new fee on the very smallest properties will be $114 and that is the total square feet on the parcel and how it fits in; there are only two that are more than 538,000 square feet; and it would be $63,000. He stated that is the frequency of how many parcels are in each of the bins; and that is how it looks on the Histogram Graft.
Commissioner Voltz inquired if the Board can imagine the guy who is paying $157.17 and getting a bill for $31,757; with Mr. Burton responding that is the ERU Factor; stated that is how the size of this bin is related to the size of the average bin. Commissioner Voltz stated it does not say what the old fee is. Mr. Burton advised the old fee is not comparable to these bins; it is impossible to make that general comparison; it would have to be done on a parcel-by-parcel basis; and he will show the Board some samples of that in a moment.
Mr. Burton stated the chart now is showing a calculation on a building value basis of the new fee and it is $205, which is lower than it was before and about the same as it was on the square footage side; this is a residential property analysis; we do not know what the square feet of the property is within the building value ranges; so it is difficult to make an exact comparison. He advised if the property was smaller than 3,000 square feet under the old method the column in the middle is the comparison; and probably most of the properties from about the fourth line up would fall into that category as there is some correlation between size and value; and generally the smaller the property the less
valuable and the higher the property the more valuable. He stated generally the ones above that fourth line would probably be on the right hand chart; those people are probably paying $276 now; but in any event the new fee is shown in the third column over. He stated it will go from $34 up to $1,059, with the average being $205 on the fourth line; the Board can see there is about a three percent decrease if that average home was paying $212; and it is a twenty-six percent decrease if that average home was paying $276. He stated it is likely that most of those are probably paying $212; when getting above that is the ones that are paying $276; so there are these kind of percentage changes in the middle column, the third column over, and the three middle columns is a percent change if compared against the $212 number; and the very last column to the right is a percent change if it is being compared to the $276 number. He advised it is giving lower valued properties more benefit of a discounted rate than the last time he came to the Board. He stated the Non-Residential Building Value Histograms have been redone a little bit; it is difficult to make a comparison; and he will show the Board that sample comparison in a moment. He stated it would go from a low of $36 from zero to $40,000; this is on a per parcel basis; it goes up to a high of $40,420; there are only three parcels there; the distribution is shown on the slide; and there is a lot of parcels shown on the slide, and not so many in the higher ranges. He stated it is an example of how it would compare on the non-residential impacts; one is the square foot comparison and another is a building value comparison; a retail drug store in FY-2007 had an assessment of 2,056 and under the proposal on the square foot it would go to 1,403 of a 32 percent decrease; and on the value it would go to 2,019 or two percent decrease. He stated an office building would go from 1,056 to 1,403 with a 33 percent increase; and under the building value it would go to 1,184 or a twelve percent increase. He stated the retail store with multiple units was 2,056, under the square feet it would go to 1,403 for a thirty-two percent decrease, and under the value basis it would go to 1,184 for a forty-two percent decrease. He stated a light manufacturing, small equipment manufacturing plant, which was 1,156 would go to 715 under the square feet or a thirty-eight percent decrease, and under the building value it would go to 245 or a seventy-nine percent decrease; professional office complex was 416 it would go to 214 or almost a fifty percent decrease and under the building value it would to 245 or about a forty-one percent decrease; and the restaurant cafeteria at 906 would go to 715 or a twenty-one percent decrease under the square footage and under the building value about a fifteen percent decrease. He stated there is a shift generally from the commercial over to the residential on this basis. He stated there is an alternative he wanted to talk to the Board about that came up in the preliminary discussions with the Property Appraiser; and it needs to be vented out a little more tomorrow. He stated next is the pros and cons of the methods; he will go through that with the Board; and then he will tell the Board about the other third alternative it may or may not want to consider. He stated when looking at the area value being constant over time, from a building area standpoint that is a pro because the building area per parcel stays constant over time except for additions which are captured through the building permitting process; the building value will fluctuate over time as the Property Appraiser reappraises properties throughout the County; so going through the years those numbers will change; and as the Property Appraiser is making its reappraisals throughout the County, there may be some inconsistencies that
one property was reevaluated this year and another was just reevaluated. He stated there is a little bit of inconsistency; he does not think that is enough to be of major
concern; and there is also a fix for the fact the property will change over time. He stated what would be done is the values would all be fixed as they are today because the values are used to proportionally distribute the costs of the properties; over a short period of time the general economic conditions would probably cause properties to move up or down similarly; so the proportionality in terms of the changes in values would be similar. He advised by the time it is three to five years out, in five years the County would probably want to re-look at that because there may have been some inconsistencies that have occurred in how the properties have changed in value; then to recalibrate the apportionment at that point in time; he does not believe it will be a problem in terms of just freezing the values for the purposes of the assessment and reassessing in another three to five years to make sure there has not been any gross changes in the reapportionment; so it is a con but he believes his company has a fix on it. He stated the next one is the benefit in terms of protection from economic loss; on the building area basis, parcels with the same size buildings will have the same assessments even though one building may have a higher value than another and be receiving more benefits in terms of protection from economic loss; and the example the Commissioner gave a moment ago about someone building a house at a higher value with the same size would be relevant. He noted on the building value basis he would say that is a pro because the parcels with lower or higher value buildings will have lower or higher assessments independent on the size of the building reflecting a lower or higher benefit relative to protection from economic loss; protection from loss of square feet of the structure or from economic loss of the building value would both be acceptable benefit criteria; and it would be the Board’s judgment as to which one it thinks might be the best and the one it would want to use. He stated the last one is as compared to the current method, the building area basis is similar to the current basis but with a greater degree of differentiation by building area, particularly relative to residential parcels; in the current method the County does differentiate, zero to 3,000 and 3,000 up; this one just has a lot more bins and a significantly more differentiation between bins; on the commercial side the County is using an area base now also; this has a little bit different structure of the bins in the relationship between the bins, and it simplifies it into one rate structure as opposed to the different Haz Codes; but it is similar to the structure that the Board has now as it is not a dramatic departure. He stated the building value basis is a departure from the County’s current method; although he believes it is legally defensible, and Mr. Knox may want to opine on that also, and their attorney, Mr. Knox, and Mr. Watts have discussed this; it has not been implemented elsewhere to his knowledge; the County needs to be aware of that; but he does believe it is a good method and legally defensible.
Mr. Burton stated in discussion with the Property Appraiser he started thinking about another method, and he is just calling it a hybrid right now; it to some extent reflects both the building area and the building value and it could be based upon development assessments that vary by building area within building use code classifications; the Property Appraiser’s system carries building use codes and each building use code is assigned a base rate or a cost per square foot; that is where the Property Appraiser
begins its determination of the value of the building; for instance, the building use code for a single-family residential structure is assigned a base rate of $62.16 per square foot;
and a manufactured home building use code is assigned a base rate of $38 per square foot. He stated in the hybrid method the manufactured home buildings would have an equivalency factor of .61, 38 divided by $62.16 is .61 as compared to a single-family home with the equivalency of one; so in the hybrid method approach the building area will essentially be weighted by the building use code equivalency factor. He stated as an example, under the hybrid method if an assessment for a parcel with 2,000 square feet for a single-family home is $100, a 2,000 square foot manufactured home would have an assessment of $61. He advised parcels with smaller or larger building areas would have smaller or larger assessments with the equivalency factor being applied; essentially there would be the same type of bin structure on a size basis but depending upon the building use code a person would carry a lower rate than a single-family home of the same size if he or she had a manufactured home; so in the example above if the single-family home and the manufactured home were only 1,000 square feet and they fall in the lower bin, the single-family home parcel would be $50 and the manufactured homes would be $30.50. He stated it is similar to the building value basis but there is not all of the other stuff involved in it and the complexities of what the Property Appraiser is doing and the reassessment happens to each property year-by-year; he believes, and it has to be verified by the Property Appraiser’s Office, that when the base rate is changed it would apply to all the properties and that would be what it used when going back to do the reassessment; then the Property Appraiser would reassess the building value once that was done; and it may provide more consistency. He stated the thing it would not do would be if a single-family home has a base rate of $62.16, when taking Home A and Home B, by the time the calculations are finished Home A may be $70 per square foot and Home B may be $80 per square foot because it is built with different methods; in the pure building value method that would be reflected; and in this method it would not. He advised it reflects it from building type to building type but not with more or less valuable construction within a building use code. He stated it offers the advantage of stability of building area data in the Property Appraiser’s database and reflects the differential values of the application of the building use code; its results would be more similar to the value based approach than to the square foot based approach; but both of those approaches take a titter tatter that is looking kind of like one thing and makes it look like another, whether lower valued or sized properties get a lower fee than they do now and the higher value or sized properties get a higher fee.
Commissioner Voltz stated that seems to be a little bit more legally defensible than the building. Mr. Burton advised they both would be legally defensible; the one may be a little bit easier for people to understand; he would commend the Board as it has had a very interactive and open process and brought his company to the table early instead of late, not only with the Board but with the public; and so he has been in two public meetings. Commissioner Voltz stated it is about two years late. Mr. Burton stated one of the things he has heard is if a person has a manufactured home why is he or she paying the same as this single-family home over; this gets directly to that; the building value does also but it may be harder for some people to get his or her arms around it; but before he looked at it any more he wanted to see if the Board had any interest in looking at this other approach or not.
Commissioner Nelson inquired how many building use codes there are; with Mr. Burton responding over 300; stated some of them are not applicable; some of the use codes do not have a rate in it because the Property Appraiser’s Office has stopped using it or do not have any buildings like that; but it is quite a number and it may need to be consolidated some to say all of the building use codes of this type and average the value instead of having so many. He stated his preliminary discussions with the Property Appraiser was if they feel like this method can be done; but it needs to be vented out with the Property Appraiser tomorrow when he meets with them to make sure.
Chairman Scarborough stated rather than the Board making comments now he wants to get the public comment and he can come back to the Board.
Mr. Burton stated his last point is the hybrid method, although a departure from the current method, would not be perceived as a dramatic of a departure as the pure building value method; and that may be something for the Board to consider.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Town of
Mr. Burton inquired when Mayor McCormack says under air, does she mean under air conditioning; with Mayor McCormack responding yes, not the garage or the shed. Commissioner Bolin inquired in the Town of Palm Shores what is the average homes square footage; with Mayor McCormack responding from 1,700 to 2,800 square feet; if the garage is being counted with 2,700 square feet there is a 56 percent increase; and that is a lot today. She stated if it was strictly including the house without the garage or shed it would be approximately 900 square feet; and that is a $17 increase.
County Manager Peggy Busacca inquired if the under air provision is excluded will the bins change; with Mr. Burton responding yes. Mr. Burton stated almost every house has a garage; the garages are all added into the square footage; in its simplest form, take the revenue requirement and divide it by the number of square feet to get a cost per square feet; and that is what gets related back to those bins. He stated if all the garages are taken out of the equation there is fewer square feet, there is still the same revenue requirement, by dividing it there is a higher dollar cost per square feet; and when it gets back to the bins that property would fall in a lower bin, but that bin value would be a little bit higher as the cost is having to be spread across fewer square feet.
Mayor McCormack stated if Mr. Burton is talking about the value of the house alone at $180,000 a person’s fee would go up 81 percent; and it would be going from $212 to $385. Ms. Busacca stated knowing that regardless whether are garages or outbuildings or not, it is still going to be proportionally spread across the bins; and it sounds like her constituents may like the current system better than the other two alternates. Mayor McCormack stated they were told that was not an option. Ms. Busacca inquired if Mayor McCormack thinks the current system may be better supported by her community; with Mayor McCormack responding yes; stated they did not vote on that; they voted the other night that if this had to be this way the recommendation would be to ask the Board to consider only what is under air; and the values have changed. Mayor McCormack stated what the value was two years ago and what the value is today is not the same; she knows Mr. Burton is not looking at property values; but he is looking at what a house costs today versus what a house was two years ago. She stated she distributed to the Board a letter from a brand new young couple who bought a home in Palm Shores; the man was almost in tears in trying to figure out how he was going to pay any more money; this is very hard on people at a hard economic time; and she requested the Board consider that when it looks at raising the fees.
Commissioner Nelson stated one of the things he is struggling with is that it used to be on assessed values; so living in the unincorporated areas he paid more than most people; his point of reference goes back to even before the assessment, going back to when it was ad valorem, he was paying very sizable dollars because he was offsetting those who did not have those property values. He stated the difficulty the Board is faced with is it is a fixed cost; firefighters need to be paid for the service they provide; that is what the Board has to deal with; and it is not an issue of the County trying to raise fees, it is trying to find fair. He stated the Board has almost done a disservice by talking about dollars at a time he should be talking solely about what is fair; if everyone walked out of
the meeting with fair then the number is going to be what it is going to be; it is when dollars are put in it is like suddenly a person does not want to pay that; but if a person though it was fair then it is fair. Mayor McCormack stated she understands what Commissioner Nelson is saying but they also already pay an MSTU with the fire department, so they are already paying that above the line; if the Board remembers when this first came up and she spoke before it, she asked the question of if they are going from above the line to below the line; her constituents come to her and said wait a minute, why are they paying above the line and below the line; and then she hits them and tells them that they are going to go up 56 percent. She is just trying to ask the Board to look at what the situation is with people out there; the Board knows what the problems are today; she knows the County has a shortfall; but everyone is having a shortfall. She stated the Board should ask Chief Farmer why the Town of Palm Shores is going to be suffering the most.
Commissioner Colon stated the reason the Board is having the workshop is to make sure that it is doing something that is fair and equitable; when it was rushed two years ago there was a group that was obviously going to pay more than they should have; and the Board is trying to rectify that. She stated she cannot speak for anyone else, but she wants to make sure that the Town of Palm Shores is also going to be taken care of fairly and equitably; and knowing the rest of the Board, that is what it will do. She stated the letter from Mayor McCormack’s constituent was on target. Mayor McCormack stated they are a young married couple, they just bought a home, and this was his first meeting. Commissioner Nelson stated everyone has areas of communities that will be hit just as hard and actually more homes Merritt Island will be impacted detrimentally than in Palm Shores. Mayor McCormack stated that is not what Chief Farmer said. Commissioner Nelson stated what Chief Farmer is probably saying is proportionally to the type of housing; but a similar size home on
Chief Farmer stated each district will be hit proportionally at different rates; some will benefit from the change; and some will increase the costs with the change. He stated 271 people came in saying they can buy dog food or medicine but they cannot do both; and that is going to be changed out with a different group of people as that seesaw goes back and forth. He stated the gentleman who wrote the letter was present at the town meeting; the gentleman thought everyone having the same benefit would be the fairest thing to do; but that is not what the Board has heard for the last two years. He advised no one has written editorials to the Board saying to keep the rate flat; no one wrote to the Board saying thank you for cutting their MSTU tax; instead people have been writing that it is an unfair fee; and then there has been a reverse Robin Hood. He stated now that something is being looked at that is not so reverse Robin Hood there is a different discussion; and that is exactly what is going to happen.
Commissioner Bolin stated she was looking at the old fee and she sees where because of the size of the Town of Palm Shore’s homes they are one square foot up to 2,999 was all one price; and so the majority of those homes sounds like were at that upper tier under that old price. Mayor McCormack stated she understands the inequity; she has senior citizens who live in mobile homes that should certainly get a break; and they
should not have to pay as much. Commissioner Bolin stated when the smaller bins are broken out it shifts the fees; if a person is looking at the old piece of paper the Board received last week versus the new ones that percentage has changed from 56 percent to 44 percent; so the Board is going in the right direction. Mayor McCormack advised she supports the County, fire department, and Sheriff’s Department; but she is asking the Board to cut the Town of Palm Shores as much as it can.
Commissioner Colon stated the Board is having the Consultant bring it information like crazy; every workshop there is more and more information; and everyone is overwhelmed. She stated once it is all said and done the Board, to the best of its ability, will do the right thing to watch the citizen’s pockets. She stated her heart goes out to the young couple who wrote the letter; anyone who bought a home in 2006 are the ones subsidizing everyone else who is being protected by homestead; and everyone knows that. She stated there is a portion of the community that are carrying the burden for everyone else; that is really where it hurts; the Board is feeling helpless; but she is grateful that Mayor McCormack is present today to voice her concerns.
Mayor McCormack thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak; she wants to thank Chief Farmer for attending Town of Palm Shores meeting the other evening; the Town supports the firefighters; and it wants them to get paid as well.
Charlotte Carle stated she missed the last meeting because she was elsewhere. She inquired if Mr. Burton could define bin as she is not familiar with that term. Mr. Burton responded it is a range of either square feet or value. Ms. Carle inquired which has the greater fire risk, garages or houses; with Chief Farmer responding houses. Ms. Carle inquired which has a greater fire risk, rentals or condos; with Chief Farmer responding he has no answer for that. Ms. Carle suggested the County have a surtax for people who have chemicals, tires, and such things on their property like the insurance companies do; stated the insurance companies charge more to insure buildings that have those dangerous materials; and it seems as though that would be a prudent thing to do. She advised as Commissioner Voltz pointed out there is no question that it has to be a harder fire to fight; and the potential damage is there. She noted she has never not recognized the need for fire services; she appreciates the firefighters are out there doing what they do; and inquired of the fires the fire department fights, does it fight more brush fires or house fires. Chief Farmer responded the fire department probably gets more calls for brush fires. She inquired how values can be determined in a fluctuating market when one apartment sold for $150,000 but now they are sitting there in the $80,000 bracket; with Mr. Burton responding in the presentation he indicated one of the cons or negatives about that approach is that the values do fluctuate; stated fixes have to be worked on that; sometimes those do not seem to be intuitive to people; and the values can go up and the values can go down, which is one of the reasons he came up with what he calls the hybrid approach where a base square foot number is used instead of a value number as calculated by the Property Appraiser that may be a little more stable. Mr. Burton advised that is an issued that would have to be dealt with under the value basis; and they would take the value off of the Property Appraiser’s system at a point in
time for all of the buildings on all of the parcels and then those would be frozen for the duration for the assessment because it is used to make a portioned allocation of the cost out to the different parcels. He stated he recognized what Ms. Carle is saying; it is true; and there would have to be a special provision of how to handle that with that method.
Mr. Burton stated he has been working with Chief Farmer’s staff and the
George Theriault stated in 1998 the MSTU for
by the Florida Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson; a fire in Lafayette and Dixie Counties, although the report only touched on the fuel build up on the land that burnt, Mr. Bronson said firefighters have reported that more than 90 tons of fuel per acre, including vegetation and underbrush were present at the land when it burnt; and when prescribed burning and other management techniques are used on a regular basis, the average level of fuel per acre is about ten tons. He stated according to federal spending or assistance to Brevard County Fire Rescue in 2003 was $161,000; in 2005 it was $248,651; from 2001 to 2006 the average number of fire calls made for Brevard County as follows: structural fires 409, brush fires 395, vehicle fires 454, and vehicle accidents 5,776; and the report for the calendar year 2007 was 1,716 structural fires, a few brush fires, and 4,287 vehicle accidents. He stated in looking at the numbers and types of fires and services that were provided between 2000 and 2006 the County was right in raising the MSTU in 1999; the hurricanes of 2004 left fuel on the ground on private and public land; and the MSTU needs to take care of those lands. He advised a spark of fire could travel over a mile and set someone’s house on fire or set another piece of property on fire.
Mike Cunningham stated he wants to begin with an old English admonition, “Walk this meadow with caution less there be snakes.” He stated assessments, ad valorem taxes, and non-ad valorem have been beat into the ground; people need to take into consideration that the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of
alone, and he lets the brush build up and the weeds grow; his neighbor down the lane does not like it and makes a phone call; very quickly he has Code Enforcement on his butt; and the property owners should be responsible for his or her property. He stated people did not know last week while attending the workshop that there was a brush fire; and inquired how much that fire costs the County in the manpower just to standby and watch that fire burn. He stated the fire fell into the wildfire category. He stated the assessments need to be defined; in the study Mr. Burton has done the classifications are too numerous; sometimes the Board is drawing at straws trying to pull hens teeth; the County needs to prioritize the type of structures, buildings, and the classification of RV’s and mobile homes; and there has to be a distinction in there. He stated it has to be done according to the piece of property or the building on that property. He stated everyone is in the game together; the fire department needs all the help it can get; the citizens will pay the fire assessment but it must be uniform; and the entire process needs to be prioritized.
Alida Hirschfeld stated she lives in the Snug Harbor Seniors Community in Micco. She stated she is present to find out how the fire tax assessment is going to work for those who live in manufactured homes; Mr. Burton did explain some of it; but it still is not something she can understand. She stated if the assessment is done on the square footage will it be just a manufactured home, attached sheds, porches, and parking areas that takes a home from either 1,600 square feet up to over 3,000 square feet, which would make a big difference in the amount of monies that the citizens would be paying on the tax; and if it is on the property assessment, the value then, a lot of people who built homes after the hurricanes will be paying an even higher tax than now because of the property assessed values. She stated where she lives she is listed as a condominium community; there is another community in Cocoa; even though she lives in a manufactured home it is listed as a condominium community; and inquired if that will effect her taxes also. She stated manufactured homes depreciate in value; and inquired with the housing slump is the County going to lower the assessed value of the homes or will it increase the assessed values as it did last year. She stated she would appreciate answers or at least the Board’s consideration as to what she is asking.
Commissioner Voltz stated Ms. Hirschfeld has a manufactured home; and inquired if a person has a carport and shed individually, by going by the Property Appraiser’s valuation of $38 per square foot versus $61 per square foot for a manufactured home, is the carport and shed identified as some other specific number per square foot. Mr. Burton responded it is probably under the one building, and in the value basis he will have to check with the Property Appraiser if he differentiates for those attachments; on the square foot he thinks if it is not in the HVAC space or the under air space, they attribute a fractional component to the square footage that is not under air; so if it is a porch or garage with 1,000 square feet they may only charge a fractional component to it. Commissioner Voltz stated if a person has a 1,700 square foot manufactured home and there is a 1,700 square foot home the Property Appraiser values that quite differently, so it is $38 per square foot versus $61 per square foot; so Ms. Hirschfeld would still not be assessed at the same value as home; and the other portion of that 1,700 square foot, if it is 500 square foot and that part of it is a carport or shed, that will
be valued at a smaller amount per square foot. Ms. Hirschfeld stated according to the last time she was before the Board, if she added that shed and porch to her under air home, she would be up over the 3,000 square foot limit. Mr. Burton advised what Ms. Hirschfeld just said is true on the building value based method; if she has a 1,700 square foot home, porch, and a garage and the single-family home is 1,700 square foot and has the same kind of porch and garage, Ms. Hirschfeld would have a lower assessment than a single-family home; and under the square foot basis she would have the same assessment. He stated on the value and hybrid basis it would be different because although they are the same size, the manufactured home would only carry a .6 multiplier so it would be only 60 percent of the assessment of the single-family home of the same size. Ms. Hirschfeld stated like the Mayor from the Town of Palm Shores said if only a portion of the homes that are under air is assessed it would work out well for most people in manufactured home communities. Mr. Burton stated in general the manufactured homes would probably benefit more from the building value basis than the square foot basis or from the hybrid basis. Ms. Hirschfeld advised her home is valued at $105,000, it went up $2,000 last year.
Kim Brown stated she, along with a few partners, owns and operates several businesses in Brevard County; she is concerned, not only about the apportionment of the fire fee assessment, but also regarding several aspects of the fire budget; and she has tried to figure out enough of what goes on in a workshop in a very complex system to provide some meaningful comments to the Board. She thanked Commissioner Voltz and her Assistant Jan for listening to her concerns and helping her learn more about the process, the budgets and the reality of the decisions that the Board is making. She stated she has three areas of concern. She advised the first matter relative to proposed reallocation is the inclusion of watchstanding monies in the entirety into the parcel allocations; she was going off of the worksheets provided at the last workshop that any of the sheets the Board has have all of the numbers that flow down; and she requested the Board pay attention with her for a minute. She stated in the middle section where there is the three percent service cost component, they have deducted $693,000 from that portion of the fee and for calls for non-real property incidents; there is a bit of a math problem; if the Board will look to the left of the $693,000 they are subtracting $55,000 but in reality it was added; and she thinks that is a mistake. She noted basically they are taking away $84,000 worth of the actual true cost of fire fighting of $693,000 and putting that aside in the excluded funds; they did not do the same on the watchstanding component, the big chunk of 92 percent; her issue with this is that watchstanding has to occur no matter what the call is; and they are pushing all of the watchstanding money, $25 million in the case she was looking at, into the assessments when only 16 percent of the watchstanding monies should have been pushed into the assessments. She stated in her opinion they are assessing much more money due to that factor than they should be; that amount of money should have stayed in the MSTU, the General Fund, or wherever this exclusion is going to come from; the amount that leaves is $4.2 million to allocate to the parcels; and it takes away about $21 million out of the parcel piece allocations. She stated Chief Farmer has acknowledged that a significant portion of the calls are not real property incidents; however, no such acknowledgement has occurred
with respect to the very large cost of this watchstanding component; and she is very concerned this has been contrived to achieve a certain outcome. She stated the second matter relates to the difference between the two proposed methods of allocations; they have this revised for the citizens, which helps add clarity to it; but she wants to give the Board some other examples. She stated she has commercial property in Viera; it is business offices on Murrell Road; the current assessment is $1,856; under the square foot method her assessment goes to $2,222, up 20 percent; using the value method the assessment goes to $3,298, up 78 percent; and it seems to her that the examples that were given were not reflective of her reality. She stated she has an apartment just south of Pineda Causeway on Highway A1A not beachfront; her current assessment is $4,031; under the square foot method, not counting garages, the assessment goes to $6,930, up 72 percent; using the value method it goes to $8,140, up 102 percent; so she does not think the examples of commercial business properties gave the Board what is her reality under those methods. She advised she is going off of the prior numbers, which have shifted downward slightly. She stated it seems there is no justified way the Board can consider a value method; there are too many variables and subjectivities; the Board has heard a number of them today on each method; but the bottom line is they are both convoluted. She inquired if it takes this much effort for people who deal with numbers every day to try to figure this out, how can anyone living anywhere in a normal life figure out what it is the County is trying to do. She stated when talking about what is the value of a fire service to her home; if she has a high quality carpet in her living room and an average quality carpet in her bedroom but she needs her carpets cleaned, she will pay the same price per square foot for either room; not paying attention to the cost of the service and the total cost that is coming down the funnel is a mistake; and trying to shift it over into benefit value by saying square footages, garages, porches, and building values is really looking at the wrong thing. She stated the Board needs to look at increases like these put people out of business; business people are citizens just like those of Mims, Merritt Island, and Barefoot Bay; business people cannot raise prices to cover taxes, insurance, fuel, and utilities; the consumers will not buy the product, will not lease her buildings, and will not live in her apartments; and she feels bad for the firefighters who are under the gun on this, she feels bad for the woman in the manufactured home, but it is businesses that are getting compromised just the same; and the Board should not differentiate between them. She stated when they go out of business, and they will, people will lose jobs and people will leave the community. She stated the last matter relates to revenues and budgets; in the last workshop people were told the revenue numbers being used in the examples were based on the 2007-2008 budget so anyone comparing this proposal to the actual assessment they receive could compare apples to apples; she sees the number has changed in the presentation but she wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention; and the revenue requirement in that proposal was $27.3 million, the revenue budget was $25.5 million, the per parcel calculations are greatly exaggerated; and that makes the comparisons even more dramatic. She stated the Board is seeing the effect of that in those new numbers today. She advised last week Florida TODAY reported that 5.4 million of unspent surplus had been found by the auditors; she has learned since there may be other inconsistencies such as unused capital expenditure money accounting inconsistencies regarding bad debt; she also learned compensation budgets were under spent, which is a good thing;
but under spent budgets and unused capital funds do not give rise to hide those funds and request them again. She stated in business if she can be fortunate as to under spend the budget, those funds generally pass on to the owners; and in the business of government that money belongs to the taxpayers. She stated when the swap was approved the Board was told it was revenue neutral; the Board has heard loud and clear that it was not revenue neutral to the citizens; if the Board reviews the Fire Rescue Department’s budget summary and compare the changes from the 2005-2006 to the 2006-2007, it will see there are three parts the revenue comes from; and the tax line item where the ad valorem taxes were collected decreased $20 million when the fire budget was removed and the remaining MSTU monies were left. She noted the miscellaneous line item where the assessment monies are recorded went up $10 million; the General Fund transfer where the
Commissioner Nelson stated the one thing the Board cannot do with the fire assessment is take it out of General Fund because it is a service provided solely to the unincorporated areas so those people who live unincorporated areas will be paying for it.
David Sinton, representing the Town of Melbourne Village, stated they met with Mr. Burton and his associates a week ago, and they have since then had a meeting. He stated the Town is concerned about the fact that the inequities in the current system were very high; and everyone will have to accept that there is some form of distribution across the values of properties. He stated last week the Town was dealing with the fact that five percent of its properties were being classified as duplexes because Mr. Burton was using the equivalent residential unit concept. Mr. Burton stated they have not removed that yet as they are still looking at it; the numbers he sees today take a multi-family property, take the number of units, take the total square feet or value, including the common area, divide it by the number of units, and then take that average square feet per unit and find it in a bin; and splitting those lower bins up will probably help it
some but they still need to look at that. Mr. Sinton stated the Town of Melbourne Village has a very unique cultural history; unfortunately all of the remaining historic buildings are classified as duplexes, which means they get hit twice on each one of those properties; and people were encouraged to build second structures for the elderly, people working for people, and they are all amongst historic ones.
Mr. Burton stated it is not uncommon to differentiate multi-family based upon number of units; and they could potentially handle duplexes or triplexes differently than the larger multi-family units; so they could say if they are a duplex or a duplex in a triplex the total square feet on the property is what would be considered as the equivalent residential unit. He stated the other approach would be to say in the residential class abandon the concept of equivalent residential unit all together and just look at the square feet or the value, whichever method it is, on the parcel. He stated maybe that would be a better solution to deal with these anomalies that are occurring where there is a small extra unit in a duplex that is really not the same as a unit in an apartment complex; and if the Board would concur he may purpose it go ahead and look alternatively, in addition to the equivalent residential unit complex to look at all residential properties on their gross square feet or value independent of how many units are there. Chairman Scarborough stated it would be good for Mr. Burton to jot down these different things he could offer as options, and after all of the public comment is heard and before the meeting is over he could see if the Board is interested in him looking into certain things.
Mr. Sinton stated he is going forward with the fact that they think that the Property Appraiser’s coding of these historic structures in the Village is actually incorrect. He stated one of the things he has heard a lot of today by several speakers is how in fact information is encoded in the Property Appraiser’s database. He stated 40 years ago he was building models when he was researcher of property values; in those days he had all sorts of phrases they wanted to put into them; he dug some of them out after he spoke with Mr. Burton; and now there actually is the data in the Property Appraiser’s office to implement the models that he never could. He stated there is a huge amount of data in the Property Appraiser’s Office; the problem is that most of the
data about a structure goes into the Property Appraiser’s database at the time the structure is built; when people asked how would the Appraiser know if there are marble floors; and when the building was built if there were marble floors the Property Appraiser would know it. He stated another problem is that he has an air conditioned garage. He stated every piece of information that is in the Property Appraiser’s database goes into the models of building value, and that has nothing to do with land value or assessed value, is perfectly valid but it is only as good as the data that is in the Property Appraiser’s Office. He stated if the County goes to this system it is incumbent as a responsibility of him as a citizen to know what is in the Property Appraiser’s database. He stated when going to the Property Appraiser’s database at the moment, quite a bit of the information that is being used in them model is not available to him because it is not open in the public domain; the Property Appraiser’s Office will get extremely busy with people looking at this; and the minimum is the Property Appraiser is going to have to add the building value to his website. He stated he heard several times that there was a slight shift from commercial to residential in the amount of money that is being put up; he is curious why that shift is taking place; inquired why there is more money being raised from the residential than from the commercial; and stated he does not understand the justification for that.
Mr. Burton stated when the business owner spoke earlier regarding the impact on her properties it was a bigger impact; it did appear that there was a shift from commercial to residential; he needs to do more research to be sure if that is true or not; and if there is a shift one way or another it would only be because the current method does it in some way, this method does it in another way, and it just turns out differently. He advised they would have to look at it to see if they could tell if and why that is happening; and they will do more research to answer that question for sure and show everyone why. He stated the Property Appraiser’s employees have expressed the concern regarding the building value method as the data that supports it is not readily available through the online queries; those adjustments would have to be made; and it is why they were interested in the hybrid type of an approach because that data would be more readily available or easier to make readily available than with the data to support the full value basis. He stated they will look into that when they meet with the Property Appraiser’s Office tomorrow.
Mr. Sinton stated the building hybrid was a new concept, which he has not had time to fully access; what worries him is they are using the BUC Code; he hopes the only thing they are getting out of the BUC Code is whether it is a mobile home or not; and there is a lot of problems with the BUC Codes and how properties are coded at this point in time. Mr. Burton advised that is one of the main reasons they are meeting with the Property Appraiser’s Office tomorrow to fully understand the validity and how they assign those values to that BUC Code. Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Burton is looking beyond just whether it is a mobile home or not with the BUC Code; with Mr. Burton responding they have not done that yet; stated if they do it they would need to be sure they are assigning the proper use codes to the buildings; and right now they would have to assign whatever the Property Appraiser said was the building use code. Chairman Scarborough inquired what the problem is with the building use code; with Mr. Sinton
responding the problem with the building use codes is that the Town of Melbourne Village has five percent of the properties that are zoned and built as single-family residential but coded as duplexes. Chairman Scarborough inquired if that is the only problem; with Mr. Sinton responding that is what he knows of. Mr. Burton inquired if Mr. Sinton knows that the building use code is that way; with Mr. Sinton responding it is part of the problem; stated he does not have access to all of those codes; Mr. Burton used the term building use code; and he does not know what he is actually referring to on the building Property Appraiser’s site. Mr. Burton advised they will clarify that tomorrow but it is his understanding that the building use code is the code attached to each building on the parcel no matter what the zoning or type of parcel it is.
Ms. Busacca stated the fire department currently has the ability to do what they call an E & I; it is basically to see if there has been an error in the use code; they have done that in the past with the assessment; they would continue to do that; but if the structure brought to them does have two kitchens and is defined as a duplex then perhaps the use code is correct. She stated if it is one of those historic uses, then on a case-by-case basis that could be resolved; so there will never be something that has some need to have a case-by-case review. Mr. Burton advised a person will never have it perfect.
Chairman Scarborough inquired if the Board wants Mr. Burton to proceed with an analysis including building use codes; inquired is it across the board systemic to the whole system that it is flawed; and the County will get into multiple issues. Mr. Sinton stated it is easy to look at the list of things that are in the Code and say that it is great; there are places in the County that the Code does not necessarily represent what would be considered or interpreted in a 2008 structure; and the assignment of the duplex code is an error. Chairman Scarborough stated there was a problem with the valuation because the built in value has not been pulled out separately; but with the valuation a person can get into a lot of issues. He stated by going to the square footage it may be too simple; then there is the building use code; and inquired how the building use code is flawed. Mr. Burton advised he will be able to tell the Board more after his meeting with the Property Appraiser’s Office. Chairman Scarborough requested Mr. Burton come back with a memorandum prior to the next meeting.
Commissioner Nelson stated he just ran into a case where there was a complaint; those people wanted to know why they were billed a certain way; and it ended up that the use code was incorrect. He advised that affected that person’s assessment. He stated he was always concerned that a system was being used that was not designed for this purpose. Mr. Burton stated it is his understanding that the building use code defines the base rate that the Property Appraiser uses to come up with the building value that goes into part of the overall assessed value that ends up determining what the ad valorem taxes are; and there should be a pretty good level of scrutiny put on that the Property Appraiser is assigning the proper building use code.
Mr. Sinton stated this came up because people got hit by dual assessments or assessments for two items on the fire assessment; all of these homes have been covered under Save Our Homes for a very long time; and no one had ever really thought
about the implication of what is out there. He advised there are a lot of houses around that have not necessarily looked very hard at what is in the Property Appraiser’s database because he or she has been attracted by Save Our Homes; and what is happening is a lot of people who are relatively new to Brevard County actually have looked hard at what is in the tax notice.
Commissioner Voltz stated every time someone comes up to speak there is a new category to look at; it is just going all over the place; and she suggested throwing the whole thing out and starting all over again. She stated every time someone speaks there is a new issue; Mr. Burton advises that he will look into each one; pretty soon Mr. Burton is going to be running ragged all over the County; he will be looking at people’s carpets; and she does not know if the Board will ever be able to get its arms around what it is all about.
Mr. Sinton stated the problem started when it was said a level assessment across the County; the people who really got hurt were the elderly and disadvantaged who had low income or lower valued properties; the process will create a lot of problems; but the issue is to try to create equity for the elderly, disadvantaged, and historic structures. He stated one of the things the Town of Melbourne Village is desperately concerned about is that people buy property in the Village, walk in and erase the property, and then build a new modern house on it; the Village is losing its history; and part of the problem is going to be is there is an extra assessment across the properties that are coded as duplexes that is creating an incentive to knock down the old historic buildings.
The meeting recessed at 3:16 p.m. and reconvened at 3:33 p.m.
DISCUSSION, RE: CITIZENS REQUESTS TO SPEAK BY TELEPHONE
Chairman Scarborough stated the Board needs to discuss a procedural matter. He advised he thinks he over extended his authority; and will probably not be treated kindly. He stated it appears from here on out people do not have to attend meetings he or she can attend by telephoning in; he has been told the Board should not do this; but Marlene Adams requested to speak at the workshop today. Chairman Scarborough stated he was told if he did it for one person unless he plans to do it for everyone else. He stated if the Board is going to accept comments by telephone it is a change of procedures, and he would need to entertain a motion to do so.
Motion by Commissioner Voltz, seconded by Commissioner Bolin, to deny Marlene Adams request to speak by telephone at the Fire Assessment Workshop; and to direct the County Manager to deny future such requests made by the public. Motion carried and ordered unanimously.
Chairman Scarborough requested that the County Manager contact Ms. Adams and tell her the meeting is still in session and she may come down and make her comments in person if she desires. He stated in the past the Board has had lobbyists, elected officials, and Commissioners who could not attend a meeting, but normally the Board has not made the public hearing process open to telephone conferences.
PUBLIC COMMENT (CONTINUED)
President of Space Coast Apartment Association Larry Berry stated asked last week when he attended the discussion workshop if the current system is not broken, why fix it; inquired why was it never considered to keep the current system and that the only consideration was change; and the answer he received is that is all they were asked to do. He stated it is no offense to Mr. Burton, but for the money that was spent for the study he could have charged $40,000 instead of $50,000 and give the firemen a three percent increase and keep the system the way it is. He stated a 210 unit apartment community in 2007, the non-ad valorem assessment was $11,531; prior to today it would have gone based on the per unit cost to $26,460; based on the new number it lowers it only to $24,360; and it is still an increase of $13,000 to one apartment community. He stated for apartment community owners taxes and insurance already represent approximately 60 percent of the operating expenses; it is already out of hand; and State Statutes require assessments be fairly and reasonably apportioned among property owners and is backed by Florida Case Law. He stated there was a comment that was made that multi-family has more of an opportunity for a fire because they have more than one dryer or stove; apartment communities statistically are less of a burden on infrastructure and County services such as fire or police; as an example, communities are being required to install monitored pole stations and notification for fire response services where homes and small buildings have no such requirements; and continued increases such as this have a significant impact on the ability to provide affordable housing to the 31 percent of the constituents that choose to live in an apartment home. He advised other municipalities have looked at this and agree it is unfair; there are legal questions that come up; and of the 31,799 responses by the fire department last year, 585 were due to structural fires. He stated he believes it is time that Brevard County and the government needs to call it what it is; all of the terminology, whether it is called an MSBU, assessment fee, ad valorem, non-ad valorem, whatever it is it is still a tax; and if it walks like duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck, it is a duck. He stated it is like saying the constituents of
opinion is that the taxpayers have been hoodwinked; and this subject has been presented three times and have still not answered questions dealing with property appraisers or values. He stated Mr. Burton said they still will not know how it will impact structures and cannot provide a comparison until they meet with the Property Appraiser’s Office tomorrow; as long as this process has gone on, that information should have been acquired before the proposal was given; and if they are proposing the system based on property value they may want to find out if the information they have is correct. He stated property value and building value was already addressed in ad valorem taxes; and the basis on building values separate from the ad valorem method is not fairly allocated based on the fact that the residents are already paying the fair share based on the value of the properties. Mr. Burton said benefit has to be the same under the MSBU, which is under the ad valorem part, if he is correct. Mr. Burton advised MSBU is non-ad valorem. Mr.
Geoff Kaercher stated he wants to keep it fair; Commissioner Nelson mentioned it; and fair is the bottom line in what should be talked about. He stated less a flawed neighborhood where there is a per unit call basis for fire response calls versus a more affluent area where there are less calls per unit, he does not see why people are being charged more money if it is a fairness issue; and people should be charged more money with larger square footage homes and higher assessed value homes. He advised the same rate is charged in
Kelli Brain stated Kim Brown and Larry Berry brought up some very good points; and kind of took a lot of what she had to say away from her. She stated she is very disappointed with Mr. Burton; and when they sat in the workshop last Thursday and
talked about the taxes and Mr. Burton said there was no increase, she asked him for examples of what people are paying now. She stated working at an apartment community she has wondered what it will do to the financial status; she asked Mr. Burton last week if he could provide him of how it is figured currently and he told her he did not have it but would get it to her; she has not seen or heard of it; and she provided her email address. She stated the charts and grafts are great and nice to look at but the packet she received the grafts are too small to see; they are shrunk down and not even a full page; but more importantly, the people in the audience are looking at each other as they do not understand this presentation. She stated she was so excited to see the business section, the non-residential example he gave from 2007 to 2008; she thought it would give people a real example of how it will effect people; when Kim Brown spoke she advised it was not the case; and based on what they are putting that is not accurate. She advised she does not understand how a person can look at all those figures and proposals when he or she cannot seem to get one example of how it is allocated now and how it will be apportioned the new way. She stated no one knows what the taxes will be on either of the two scopes; and a person cannot say how they were figured out this year. She stated she hopes the Board puts a lot of thought into it as there has to be a better way to do it; she is sure people do complain about what they are paying because it is expensive; homes are getting foreclosed on, people are losing their jobs, and the economic status of Brevard County is weak at best; and she is hoping the Board decides it is hard but to keep the fees the same.
Eva Nagymihaly stated she heard a lot of good comments from people; for her to repeat it would be redundant; it has been said the matrix or design show today does not make sense; there are too many variables; and something more basic needs to be established. She noted one point in figuring what to do, keep in mind that the residential has to be equal; it is a tax even if it is called a fee; and it is a service everyone is receiving. She stated if the County does it on square footage it makes more sense as logically it takes more time to put out a fire on a large piece of property. She noted by looking at concept of value the County is making a huge mistake as it will be in the courts; it does not mean value; it does not make any sense to say if a person has a more expensive home or items in it that it will take more to put out the fire; and that is what insurance is there for. She stated commercial from what she sees is going to get the biggest break; most of the fires are commercial if not vacant land; but it is not residences. She stated apartment units even though they are combined it is an owner that has to pay; a lot of people have apartments as a way to make a living; and if the Board hits apartment owners hard they will go out of business. She stated if the County has a certain amount of money that is what it deals with; it does not say it has to cover this or that; bring it down to the home budget; if the County brings in $50,000 a year, that is what the County has to work with; and the Board should take the basics and divide it up. She suggested the Board look at the big picture; take the money away from something else and not go to the people asking them to pay the money; and the issue is what the Board does with the amount of money it has. She stated it should be above the line; it is not legal to be below the line unless it is simply a fee; and that is what it is. She advised then it becomes a tax; and if it is kept below the line it will end up in the courts again. She stated services can be put in but a service has to be equitable amongst the
people; the way it is now is not equitable; it needs to be brought above the line; it is basic needs as a society to be protected by the government; and the County should not assess the people on something. She suggested getting the tax above the line as fast as possible as it is not what the County is all about.
Commissioner Nelson inquired if she understands what going above the line means; with Ms. Nagymihaly responding yes. Ms. Nagymihaly stated she understands it all came about because of Emergency Medical Services; that became illegal as oxygen cannot be given to a building; that portion did have to go above the line; but it did not say the other had to be reversed. Commissioner Nelson advised it is more complicated than that. He stated what should really be looked at is the rate the apartment was paying in 2004 versus what she would be paying under any of the other systems. He advised in his neighborhoods of Merritt Island where there are some houses on water, even though the square footage was a higher level it was much less than they were paying in taxes; to go back there they will have to pay more taxes; and that his big fear for some of the businesses because some of them may find that the value of their properties may put them back up there. Ms. Nagymihaly stated it has to be paid and she knows that. Commissioner Nelson stated this is a whole new group of people who are present today who have the questions and concerns, but the Board hired a consultant because there was a different group of people who had the same questions and concerns but they were on the other side of this. He stated the Commission Room was filled with people who said it was not fair, it needs to be changed, and that is how the Board goes here; the Board is trying not to raise the amount of money; the $27 million is what that was raised last year and now it has been revised down to $23 million; and it has only generated enough money to operate Fire Rescue the way it was operated last year. He stated the revenue is not supposed to go up as it was not the intent. Ms. Nagymihaly inquired if it is below the line it can go up; stated it is a real important issue; and that is why the Board has to work within its own budget. She stated if things are below the line they can be increased. She stated when it is above the line there are millage caps so a framework has to be worked within so the County does not bleed society; it cannot keep saying the County needs more money; that is the main issue; the County has to work within what it has. Commissioner Nelson stated Ms. Nagymihaly is saying that the Board wants to raise more money; but the Board is not trying to raise more money. She stated she did not mean it that way, but what she does understand if it is below the line the County can get more money. She advised the millage cap is there so that the budget can be divided appropriately between the most important services; and that is where it should go right back to.
Chairman Scarborough stated Ms. Nagymihaly says the budget can be divided; there are people who may be out there thinking the Board can move money from Libraries and Parks into this; but that is not the case. He stated the reason is that the cities like
out where things can be changed; and just to simply say that the County operated on 27 and now it is operating on 24, do not forget some other fire departments took out some other services so maybe it should be less. She stated there are so many areas where the County is getting money for fire; the Board should look at the fire department and not to come up with a system; and the fire department needs an independent audit. Ms. Busacca advised it has been done. Ms. Nagymihaly inquired if it is available to the public to look at for this year; with Ms. Busacca responding yes. Ms. Nagymihaly inquired if any money was found that could be used; with Ms. Busacca responding that is why that request has already been reduced from the 27 to the 24; and stated staff really is working on this. Ms. Nagymihaly noted there needs to be a better analysis between
Ms. Busacca stated she just read a report that said if the County did not roll fire trucks out to emergencies then it would need more ambulances, which would cost $13 million more. Chief Farmer advised that would be for just the ambulances. Ms. Busacca stated staff has that report also; she is welcome to read all of the reports; but that First Responder Program is economical. Commissioner Nelson stated it is also part of what the voters approved in 1999 in the unincorporated areas; and they put the third person on the trucks for that very purpose. Ms. Nagymihaly stated all of that is good if the money is there; and the County has to work with the money it has. She advised she did not understand any of the presentation today. Commissioner Nelson stated if nothing else has been accomplished through this process, it has made the old one look good.
Commissioner Bolin stated the Board did have citizens come before it who had a home that was 500 to 800 square feet and are paying $212; there were people around them with 2,000 square feet home paying the same amount; there was such a discrepancy there; and that is why it was brought to the Board to look at. She advised the Board is trying to make it equitable; the Board does not want to raise it any more money; it just wants to make it fair for everyone. Ms. Nagymihaly stated they would not have seen it or looked at it if it stayed above the line.
Chairman Scarborough inquired why was it moved below the line; with Chief Farmer responding the effect was they could not move and still cannot move the $21 million above the line; stated the ten percent cap that is on the County will not allow them to do it; Ms. Busacca has information that shows if the fire department is moved above the line there would be zero revenue availability for anything else in the County; and the Sheriff’s Office would have to be reduced seven percent. Mr. Burton inquired when Chief Farmers says ten percent cap, does he mean a cap of ten percent increase in any one year; with Chief Farmer responding yes. Commissioner Nelson stated then if the Board cuts the budget by $30 million then it is all there. Ms. Busacca advised in order to do that the Board would have to cut the budget by $50 million, which is significant
considering that property taxes are generated a total of $220 million. Commissioner Nelson stated it would not have to be cut by $50 million because there is the ten percent or up to ten percent that the Board does have the authority over; so that amount would just have to be offset. Ms. Busacca stated it depends if whether he is looking at the ten percent cap or the millage; by going by the millage required to reduce the $30 million then that has to be offset; it could not add $20 million; but that is looking at just millage. Commissioner Nelson stated if the County is reducing by $30 million that just brings it back to even if it goes up by $30 million; and now the County would be if it was not doing anything. He advised the County would be at zero revenue by cutting $30 million, based on what the State is proposing the County do, increase by $30 million, and it would balance out in terms of the cap. Ms. Busacca noted the property valuation has decreased. Commissioner Nelson stated that is a wild card. He stated in concept if the County is cutting $30 million and it adds $30 million it is a zero. Ms. Busacca stated she was thinking about the fact that there now is Amendment One in looking at the valuations. Chairman Scarborough stated there were some additional things added at the last hour, last Friday that Mr. Whitten has yet to get answers to that deals with the roll forward. He stated whatever the Board says today is probably wrong on that issue; and the trouble is that the Board is walking into a very difficult time with a difficult issue of moving it above the line.
Commissioner Bolin requested Ms. Nagymihaly take home with her the thought that the Board is working on this together.
DISCUSSION, RE: BOARD DIRECTION
Commissioner Voltz stated she wants to begin with the fact of did the fire department need the amount of money that they had in there because more was obviously found. She stated three years ago the fire flip was looked at; the Board was told it was revenue neutral; and it was not an honest assessment to her as a Commissioner. She stated last year she assumed it was going to be fixed; it was not; Chief Farmer said he was not directed to do so; and she disagrees with that assessment. She advised last year $10 million was found in the fire department budget; some was returned to the General Fund; and it was her understanding that those dollars were there because Finance calculated those bad debt dollars that had to be there in the fire department budget. She noted she voted against returning those dollars to the General Fund because she had assumed that the Board was working under what the Finance Department was requesting. She stated now the Board finds that there are more dollars in the fire department and are being told it is all needed; she does not know that it is all needed; she is not confident that the Board is even able to make this assessment fair at all in any way; and she is not confident that all the money in the budget is actually needed. She stated she believes because of all the “found” money gives the voters a huge lack of trust in competence in the Board; she is tired of taking the blame for a flawed fire department budget; and if there was any oversight in that budget it was minimal at best. She stated it is her understanding that the entire fire department budget department has turned over at least twice in the last two years; no one who was there during the fire flip is there now; and
that is a big problem. She stated with all of this being said a new leader is needed in the fire department and to start all over again; it has to start at the top; and she thinks that the
Board has been beaten up over this, and certainly Commissioner Nelson and Commissioner Bolin have been beaten up and they were not even on the Board during the whole thing. She advised on top of all these new fees the Board has now paid a consultant a great deal of money only to confuse everybody; someone needs to take responsibility for the assessment fee, budget, and ultimately who pays and how much they pay; she has lost all confidence in Chief Farmer and Ms. Busacca; and the County needs change now before the real budget starts. She stated the fire department needs to be funded but she does not feel that those in charge of setting the budget are able to do so.
Commissioner Bolin stated between the two methods she did not care for the building value, square footage made more sense to her; and she is fascinated by the idea of the hybrid method and she would like to have more information on that after the consultant meets with the Property Appraiser’s Office tomorrow. She stated she does not know if the Board can go with a status quo and not do anything; she has not heard the pros and cons with that; she does remember listening to the people who were paying this enormous cost when they had a petite home compared to a person with a large home; and that did not seem fair to her. She stated she is struggling with finding out what is fair; she does not want to jump into this and make mistakes; when it was before it was not done correctly; and obviously the consequences came up not to the benefit of the taxpayer in Brevard County. She inquired what the timeframe is to make a change; what happens if the Board cannot come up with something this year; is the Board looking at any legal situations; and further inquired if the Board can come to some conclusion that will be equitable and fair before the time period the Board has to make a decision. She explained as far as the management it is a topic that can be discussed at another time.
Commissioner Nelson stated the Board began this process with a room full downstairs complaining about the inequities; there are still built into the system; and he does not know that the Board has to necessarily fix everything or attempt to. He advised one of the advantages the Board has, and Mr. Whitten can assist him on this, is that with the three cities that are now participating, and in fact the original budget was built around what it cost to operate and to provide services to those cities as the County never stopped providing those services; they are now paying into that; so theoretically the County has more money coming in to provide the same level of services, which should give the Board some flexibility in terms of some of those low-end rates it has the concerns over; there may be the ability to do some adjustment that does not break the system into a whole new category but addresses some of those most egregious kinds of problems; and the Board truly needs to look at that. He stated it is clear to him, there is an audit, and it pointed out what he thinks are some significant inadequacies of the fiscal controls within Fire Rescue; the Board has to talk about that; it has to talk about the Fire Rescue budget; the Board needs to talk about the Capital Improvements Program that is associated with that; and it has to drill down into that organization to make sure that it is
doing what it should. He advised the guys out on the front line are doing a great job; how the dollars are being managed is his concern; and that is something that the Board has to talk about.
Commissioner Colon stated she agrees with Commissioner Nelson; the Board requesting that audit was crucial to try to understand what was there; it is so complex; and to expect the fire department to also be Finance was quite a difficult challenge to really give to anyone. She advised a lot of the dollars that are also there are part of the Capital Improvements; and some of them the Board are not able to go though because of the constraints and so forth. She noted some of the concerns, based on what the Mayor talked about, are some of those cities and towns that are going to be affected by it; and the Board needs to take its time of how it is going to be able to do it as it was so difficult. She stated in 2006 the Board liked its system; the citizens were not happy even back then; but it was what the County had. She stated when the Board’s world was turned upside down being faced with the fact that there was a lawsuit it was concerned what was behind the lawsuit; there was fighting between the municipalities and the County, which was quite ugly; and at that point the Board was even questioning the legalities and so forth. She stated the citizens that attended due to the square footage was concerned; there is someone who lives in a manufactured home, no income coming in, and barely making ends meet; and they were comparing to those on beachside. She stated in the same token the firefighters still go and assess the situation. The Board needs to continue to look at the recommendations that come in with the audit; the County needs to get along with what money it has; do the budget the same way a person would do it at home; there will be hard decisions this summer regarding every department; but she believes it is crucial to the community to have protection in regards to the safety, law enforcement, and fire. She stated she does not want to add more of a burden to the citizens; and the Board will not do that as it is not the philosophy of the Board. She stated there will be more of these workshops; and unfortunately it confuses the citizens even more. She noted she is concerned regarding every time someone comes up the format kind of changes; ever since the Board took this on last summer it keeps giving the consultants more and more to do; and it is almost like starting from scratch. She stated before the break she said to Chief Farmer and Ms. Busacca to completely take themselves out of the equation and look at it how the bosses are looking at it; and the citizens want to know how the County got into the situation and they want to be talked to in plain English. She stated it is not simple; and there are many obstacles to doing this. She stated Board Members need to put their heads together and try to do the best the Board can with the card it has been dealt.
Chairman Scarborough requested for the audience to raise their hands if he or she had a concern from an apartment owner perspective. He stated it is very interesting as there has been a disproportionate number of people present today as apartment owners; it appears as the Board gets more complex methodologies it is moving away from that basic concern; and Commissioner Voltz was the first to identify it. He stated there are some people who are marginally able to survive who live in single-family homes and then there are others who have very expensive homes. He stated the reason why the
Board hired Mike Burton was because he gave it a methodology that it felt was legally defendable; and the Board had been told that it was not legally defendable to go in that direction. He advised County Finance Director Steve Burdett from the Clerk of Court’s Office was present earlier and he is knowledgeable; and Mr. Burdett told him to be careful because the Board is beginning to do with the valuations it is getting to where the Attorney had previously advised it of the ad valorem issue as it gets to valuation. He stated he heard the apartment issue is a big issue, the duplexes and if they are really single-family, but the big issue is still there and there is a great number of people present today; and inquired how the Board gives them assistance. He stated as far as he is concerned he is not interested in Mr. Burton visiting with the Property Appraiser tomorrow; he is interested in proceeding forward with purely a square foot scenario as apparently he is hearing from the people who have watched the process that is the most simple and best thing; the board need not to involve the multi-family if at all possible and the apartments and move forward in a simplistic manner. He stated the Board has not had a presentation on the report; the Board should have a separate workshop and get into that; and the citizens are all welcome to come back and talk about the budget as that is just as important. He advised the fairness issue is almost like the closer the Board gets to that it moves away from it; that scares him; he would like to see if it could be brought back into range, simplify it, and for Mr. Burton to have another meeting with the citizens.
Commissioner Voltz stated the last time there was a workshop on this issue a gentleman brought his tax bill and calculated how much his bill would go up; and inquired if Mr. Burton ever got back to the gentleman on that issue. Mr. Burton responded there have been many people that has come to them; he may have dropped the ball on that one thing; it has been a very tight timeframe; he has been working in a very interactive mode with the Board, staff, and citizens; and they have not been able yet to change the method to look at the alternative methods. He stated ERU concept may mitigate some of the apartment issues; and he wanted to do that before the comparison was actually done.
Chairman Scarborough inquired if Mr. Burton has time once the chambers are vacated to have the people who are assembled here to meet with them because quite frankly there may be a solution; and if it does not work out that is perfectly fine. He stated he can meet the primary objection between the person in the small home and the very big home without going to the multi-family; and that would be the easiest thing for Mr. Burton to speak with the people. Mr. Burton suggested they take as a subset out of the entire property roll all of the commercial properties and calculate the comparison; he does not know how the folks are calculating; and there seems to be some confusion. Chairman Scarborough stated Mr. Burton needs to get into that with the citizens.
Mr. Burton inquired if Chairman Scarborough did not want them to go to the Property Appraiser’s Office tomorrow; with Chairman Scarborough responding he is not interested in proceeding but maybe the rest of the Board wants him to go. Commissioner Colon and Commissioner Bolin suggested that Mr. Burton still attend that meeting.
Upon motion and vote, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
_________________________________
TRUMAN
BOARD OF
___________________
SCOTT ELLIS, CLERK
(S E A L)