Aug 21, 2012

FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE ANNEX AUGUST 21, 2012 9:00
AM AGENDA
The Board of County Commissioners asks that all cell phones are turned off or placed on silent (vibrate) mode. If you would like to comment on any matter, when recognized by the Chairman, state your name, sign the speaker log, and please adhere to the 3 minute time limit. If you plan on distributing any handouts (information) to the Commission, please provide a copy to the Clerk for the official records.
9:00 AM
Call to Order Prayer and Pledge Approval of Minutes Payment of County Bills Department Supervisors Report Hubert Chipman Superintendent of Public Works Fonda Davis Solid Waste Director Nikki Millender- Parks & Recreation/Greg Sasnett-Soccer League Pam Brownell- Emergency Management Bill Mahan- Extensions Dewitt Polous- Mosquito Control Ms. Marsha Lindeman- Health Department Update Open RFP for Airport FBO and New Hanger P & Z Consent Agenda Bob Nabors & John Jenkins- Nabors, Giblin Law Firm to discuss Water Utilities Marcia M. Johnson- Clerk of Courts- Report Alan Pierce Director of Administrative Services Report Michael Shuler- County Attorney- Report Commissioners and Public Comments Adjourn for Lunch Executive Session Meeting
9:15 AM
9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 1:30 PM
FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE ANNEX JULY 3, 2012 9:00 AM MINUTES
Commissioners: Pinki Jackel Chairman, Bevin Putnal Vice Chairman, Cheryl Sanders, Noah Lockley, Joseph Parrish
Others Present: Marcia Johnson Clerk of Court, Mark Curenton Assistant County Planner, Michael Shuler County Attorney, Michael Morn Deputy Clerk/Board Secretary
Call to Order (9:01 AM) Chairman Jackel called the Meeting to order.
Prayer and Pledge (9:01 AM) There was a prayer followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Payment of County Bills (9:02 AM) Motion by Sanders, seconded by Lockley, to approve the payment of the Countys Bills as presented; Motion carried 5-0.
Department Supervisor Report Hubert Chipman Superintendent of Public Works (9:03 AM) Mr. Chipman discussed a time table for completing work requests in each of the Commissioners districts. Commissioner Sanders discussed Gulf Shore Blvd on Alligator Point and the destruction caused by the recent storm. She said some of the residents are having trouble returning to their homes and informed the Board that Clay Kennedy, of Preble-Rish, is trying to find an alternate route for these residents. The Board thanked Mr. Chipman for the work done by his department during and after the storm. The Board discussed damages done throughout the County.
FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 2 of 13
Commissioner Lockley stated the need for an assessment on the Bay for those types of damages. Chairman Jackel discussed the possibility of getting assistance from FEMA to repair the road going to the St. George Island Boat Ramp. Chairman Jackel asked Mr. Chipman to check with Ms. Nettie Page regarding a ditch on Old Ferry Dock Rd. Commissioner Sanders stated the need to start the mosquito spraying program as soon as possible.
Fonda Davis Solid Waste Director (9:11 AM) Mr. Davis presented his report to the Board. SOLID WASTE: (Storm Debris) FOR BOARD INFORMATION: For two weeks, starting June 27th, the Franklin County Landfill will be amnestying storm debris, do to the impact of Tropical Storm Debby. This measure will no doubt help our cleanup efforts, and allow us to eventually continue our regular Debris Pickup Schedule. Schedule: Alligator Point, St James & Lanark Village Carrabelle Eastpoint & St George Island Apalachicola ACTION REQUESTED: None The Board discussed the amount and types of debris on the sides of the roads. Mr. Davis updated the Board on the schedule for the Dixie Youth League Tournament activities which will be held at Will Kendrick Sports Complex in Carrabelle. Chairman Jackel complimented the Solid Waste Dept. on their hard work helping with the storm clean up. Commissioner Sanders mentioned some work that Nikki Millender has been doing to help Mrs. Brownell at the EOC. 1st week of the month 2nd week of the month 3rd week of the month 4th week of the month
Pam Brownell Emergency Management Director (9:18 AM) Mrs. Brownell presented her report to the Board.
Mrs. Brownell discussed the total amount of damage in the County ($2,682,201.00) and how it will affect a claim for the State and the Federal government. The Board discussed the need for assistance for County residents who have been affected by the storm. Chairman Jackel asked about and discussed damage to the Bay. Shannon Hartsfield, of the Franklin County Seafood Workers Association, stated that he went out on the Bay with DACS and there are problems at East Hole. He talked about problems with some of the other locations and how it will affect the seafood workers. The Board discussed the problems with the seafood workers. Mrs. Brownell explained part of the requirements to help the seafood workers with assistance. Commissioner Lockley discussed his experience with working the Bay the day before and stated the need for the State to test the bottom of the Bay. Mr. Hartsfield named some of the State Officials who accompanied him on the Bay. Motion by Lockley, seconded by Putnal, to send a letter to the State requesting an inspection of the Bay; Motion carried 5-0. The Board thanked Mrs. Brownell for her departments efforts during the storm. Mrs. Brownell asked the Board to consider re-writing the Countys personnel policy to include directing County Staff to assist her office during a storm. Mrs. Brownell stated the names of the volunteers who assisted her during the storm. She explained the procedure for activating her office during an emergency. Commissioner Sanders discussed issues in her area which were caused by the storm and her disappointment with the National Weather Service and other federal advisory agencies. Commissioner Sanders thanked Mrs. Brownell for her efforts. Motion by Putnal, seconded by Sanders, to direct Attorney Shuler and Mrs. Brownell to work on a personnel policy which will include the assistance of County Staff during a storm; Motion carried 5-0. The Board and Mrs. Brownell discussed the damage assessment for the County and the problems she has been having with gathering information she needs from the State. Chairman Jackel asked Mark Curenton to look into data stating that the County beaches have been engineered in order to help Mrs. Brownell with beach damage assessment. The Board and Mrs. Brownell discussed the importance of including Franklin County in the Individual Assistance portion of the damage assistance request.
Motion by Sanders, seconded by Lockley, to send a letter to the Governor, Legislative Delegation and the President requesting that Franklin County is included in all assistance, especially Federal Individual Assistance; Motion carried 5-0.
Bill Mahan County Extension Director (9:49 AM) Mr. Mahan presented this item from his report. Franklin - UF IFAS Updates 1) AFDO Seafood HACCP Trainer Certification Last week I completed the 20-hour Seafood Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Train-the-Trainer certification class. As a result of the training I will be better able to answer questions about HACCP and help seafood dealers develop their plans. Charlene Burke also completed the training.
Jimmy Harris Tax Collector (9:50 AM) Jimmy Harris, Franklin County Tax Collector, presented the Recapitulation Report of the 2011 Tax Roll. He said it had been certified to the Department of Revenue in the amount of $22,221,749.30. Mr. Harris gave the Board a tax distribution breakdown and said he has a copy if anyone wants those figures. He said the Tax Certificate Sale went well and every available certificate was sold. Mr. Harris asked that the Board sign the Errors and Insolvencies List and also asked that he be allowed to remove computers from his offices inventory. Motion by Lockley, seconded by Putnal, to remove obsolete computers from his office inventory; Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Sanders, seconded by Parrish, to have the Chairman sign the Errors and Insolvencies Report; Motion carried 5-0.
Recognition of Community Leadership (9:55 AM) Chairman Jackel asked the Board to recognize the Pennycuff Family, of Eastpoint, for their contributions to the community. Motion by Putnal, seconded by Sanders, to recognize the Pennycuffs for their contributions to the community; Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Jackel asked Charles and Rex Pennycuff to the podium and read the Resolution which recognizes all of the contributions the Pennycuffs make to the community. Commissioners Putnal and Sanders also commented on the hard work done by the Pennycuffs in and for the community.
Rex Pennycuff stated that it was more than just themselves who make the fishing tournament happen and would like to recognize those who help with it. He said he would also like to thank the Board for the Pavilion in Eastpoint, as it is a great asset to the community. Beth Brinkley also thanked the Pennycuffs for their contributions to the Franklin Toy Project and the St. George Island Festival. Chairman Jackel gave an update on the Eastpoint dredging project. Rex Pennycuff asked for the installation of fish cleaning tables at the Countys boat ramps and also some kind of resolution to repairing the road to the boat ramp in Eastpoint as soon as possible.
Recess (10:05 AM) Chairman Jackel called for a recess.
Reconvene (10:21 AM) Chairman Jackel reconvened the Meeting. Commissioner Parrish asked the Chairman to recognize Mr. Steve Davis. Steve Davis asked the Board to consider a small dredging project that would help out in the area of Marker 5 (2 Mile Channel). He presented maps for the Board to review. Dan Tonsmeire, of ABARK, suggested that this project be included in a damage assessment claim. Chairman Jackel asked Mr. Curenton to look into the possibility of adding this project in with the damage assessment claim. Mr. Davis suggested other alternatives for acquiring approval for the dredging. Chairman Jackel stated the importance of getting projects like this on the Army Corps of Engineers list and asked Mr. Curenton and Mr. Pierce to be sure and keep these projects on the list. Motion by Parrish, seconded by Sanders, to direct Staff to look into the possibility of doing this project as a maintenance project; Motion carried 5-0.
Ms. Cindy Drapel/Steve Lanier Hospital Update (10:28 AM)
Steve Lanier, Comptroller of Weems Hospital, reviewed the income statement and financial summary, which he provided to the Board. Mr. Lanier asked for Board action to transfer funds from the healthcare trust fund to cover the match on an Emergency Medical Services Grant in the amount of $26,180. Motion by Parrish, seconded by Sanders, to approve the transfer of funds from the healthcare trust fund in order to cover the match on the Emergency Medical Services Grant; Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Putnal asked Mr. Lanier to look at some options of keeping Weems East open after a storm or a disaster in order to assist emergency workers in the event of an emergency. Commissioner Sanders reminded Mr. Lanier to have them be prepared at Weems East for the upcoming tournament that will be held in Carrabelle next week. Commissioner Sanders asked Marcia Johnson to present an item from her report at this time. Marcia Johnson, Clerk of Court, read the following item from her report. 1- For information, the hospital has now completed the 6 month agreed upon period to receive 100% of the hospital sales tax collections. They received a total of $652,657.65 or an additional $326,328.83 for the 6 month period. Weems also receives an ambulance subsidy of $505,592 and $120,000 for the operations of Weems East from property tax proceeds in the countys general fund. Commissioner Parrish asked Attorney Shuler to address the advertising requirements and scheduling for the upcoming meeting with the USDA. Chairman Jackel suggested scheduling the meeting for the afternoon of July 17th since the Board will meet that morning in regular session.
Debbie Belcher CDBG Update (10:42 AM) Debbie Roumelis-Belcher, Franklin Countys CDBG Consultant, updated the Board on the status of the Eastpoint Water and Sewer Project. She said they have issued notice to proceed for the water and sewer connections that are funded with the Community Block Grant. She also discussed the overlay of the cuts on the roads in Eastpoint. Ms. Belcher asked for Board action to make a minor amendment to the grant. Chairman Jackel asked for a breakdown for the projects engineering fees. Ms. Belcher stated that she doesnt have any numbers available at this time. Commissioner Sanders expressed her concerns with authorizing this amendment without numbers.
Chairman Jackel asked if this request could be addressed at the next Board meeting and Ms. Belcher said it could and stated that she would try to have more information by then. Chairman Jackel asked that the intersection at Otter Slide and 4th Street be considered when doing repairs. Attorney Shuler and Ms. Belcher discussed the timeline on this grant and how the monies would be divided. Mark Curenton provided the Board with some of the information he had received from Clay Kennedy concerning this project. Motion by Sanders, seconded by Putnal, to table this item until the July 17, 2012 regular meeting; Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Sanders and Ms. Belcher discussed other locations of this project.
Marcia Johnson Clerk of Courts Report (10:54 AM) Mrs. Johnson presented her report to the Board. 1- For information, the hospital has now completed the 6 month agreed upon period to receive 100% of the hospital sales tax collections. They received a total of $652,657.65 or an additional $326,328.83 for the 6 month period. Weems also receives an ambulance subsidy of $505,592 and $120,000 for the operations of Weems East from property tax proceeds in the countys general fund. This item was discussed earlier in the Meeting. 2- My finance office is getting ready to prepare the budget books. We have received the final certification of taxable value from the Property Appraiser, Doris Pendleton. If you recall, Mrs. Pendleton reported to you last month she estimated a 10% drop in values but stated it could be higher. The certification we received amounted to a drop in property values of 13%. If all other revenues and expenditures were to remain the same, this lower taxable value at the current millage rate would generate $8,219,534 in ad valorem proceeds, a reduction of $1,238,133. Unfortunately, the county has lost other revenues this year as well. The contract with the Department of Corrections to house state prisoners was terminated on March 31st which will amount to a loss next year of around $293,000. The passage of HB 5301 allowed the State to reduce the Countys Revenue Sharing Proceeds by past due Medicaid charges which will amount to a reduction next year of $32,497. I am requesting you schedule two dates for budget workshops this month. Working around our finance schedules and court dates, I suggest we meet twice, on July 19th and 20th. Also, weve had budget requests turned in from Patrons of the Apalachicola Library Society for $20,000 and Gulf Countys Senior Citizens for meals on wheels for $12,000. Since the Board hasnt entertained requests from them in the past, are
those to be included in the budget now? Motion by Lockley, seconded by Sanders, to schedule budget workshops on July 19th and 20th; Motion carried 5-0. The Board discussed which services are being provided by the City of Apalachicola versus Gulf County for the Meals on Wheels Program and determined that they need more information on this issue in order to make budget decisions. The Board discussed the Apalachicola Library Society request and expressed concerns about them requesting funds yet they arent covered under the Countys umbrella. Mrs. Johnson said these items could be added to the budget workshop agendas without adding any additional numbers at this time. Commissioner Parrish wanted to make sure that a representative from each agency is available to discuss both of these requests at the workshops. Commissioner Sanders expressed her concerns with the likely reductions to the taxable value on the Tax Roll. The Board discussed areas where budget reductions will have to be made and also reductions to budgeting for non-governmental agencies. Motion by Sanders, seconded by Putnal, to direct the Clerk to send letters to all Departments and Constitutional Officers and to also submit the same budgets as last year. Also to inform non-governmental agencies to expect a 10-13% reduction in their budget; Motion carried 5-0. 3-At the June 19th meeting, the Board agreed to accept Roberson & Associates as the auditing firm for the County. Florida Statutes 218.391 is very specific regarding the auditor selection process. I believe you need the advice of your attorney regarding the procedure to negotiate a price to be included in the budget. Motion by Lockley, seconded by Sanders, to direct Attorney Shuler to start negotiations with Roberson & Associates as the auditing firm for the County; Motion carried 5-0.
Mark Curenton Assistant County Planner Report (11:09 AM) Mr. Curenton presented his report to the Board. 1 Franklin County has received notice from the U. S. Department of Interior that it can expect a Payment in Lieu of Taxes from the federal government of $29,957 this year. This income is already included in the budget.
2 At the last meeting the Board opened bids for pressure cleaning the courthouse. The low bid was J. J.s Tree Service out of Eastpoint. They have liability insurance and a bucket truck to access the building. The committee recommends them for the project. Board Action. Commissioner Parrish asked that care is taken when using heavy equipment on the Courthouse lawn due to the installation of a new sprinkler system. Attorney Shuler suggested having the contractor use the lift from the airport. Ted Mosteller, of the Apalachicola Airport commented on this item. Motion by Putnal, seconded by Parrish, to engage J.J.s Tree Service to pressure clean the Courthouse; Motion carried 5-0. 3 Working with Commissioner Jackel, 26 power poles have been identified along the south side of Highway 98 in Eastpoint as locations for Christmas ornaments. The steel for the decorations has been delivered to the Carrabelle prison, and the inmates are fabricating the ornaments. The Board has already approved spending up to $7,500.00 for this project. Progress Energy offers three options for holiday lighting on their poles; two options allows the county to own the equipment while in the third option Progress Energy would own the equipment and the county would pay on a monthly basis. In this third option Progress Energy is responsible for all maintenance of the equipment. The cost over time for each option is roughly the same. I recommend the county contract with Progress Energy for a total amount of $6,683.04 for 6 years. Board Action. Mr. Curenton and Chairman Jackel explained the process further. Motion by Sanders, seconded by Putnal, to approve a 6 year contract with Progress Energy in the amount of $6,683.04 for the installation of electrical receptacles on 26 power poles in Eastpoint in order to have electricity for the Christmas ornaments; Motion carried 5-0. 4 In 2010 Franklin County applied for $350,000 for a special category grant from the Florida Division of Historic Resources to repair the Fort Coombs Armory. The legislature has never funded this particular grant program in recent years, so the Division of Historic Resources allows the applicants to just renew their application each year. This money, if awarded, would be used for repairs and upgrades over and above what is being accomplished with TDC funds. This grant program does require the County to put up a 10% match. Does the Board want to renew the application? Motion by Sanders, seconded by Parrish, to renew the application and needed Resolution for the grant from the Florida Division of Historic Resources to repair the Fort Coombs Armory, and send a letter to Legislative Delegation as to the renewing of the application; Motion carried 5-0.
5 Tropical Storm Debby damaged the roof of the Public Defenders office. Four local roofers responded with proposals to replace the roof with a metal roof. The low proposal is $4,339.53. Board Action. Commissioner Parrish asked if this action will void any possibility of a reimbursement from the State or Federal government disaster relief. The Board, Mr. Curenton and Mrs. Johnson discussed extensive damage to the Courthouse. Motion by Parrish, seconded by Lockley, to approve the low bidder, in the amount of $4,339.53, for a new roof on the Public Defender office; Motion carried 5-0. The Board, Mrs. Johnson, Attorney Shuler and Mr. Curenton discussed the fact that repairs to the Courthouse are an emergency at this time and discussed the need to bypass the normal bid advertising and requirements. 6 At the last meeting the Board was notified of the vacancies on the Planning and Zoning Commission. The next P & Z meeting is scheduled for July 10. Does the Board have any appointments at this time? The Board discussed this issue and is still looking for candidates. Commissioner Parrish stated that Tom Brocato is interested as the at large appointment. Motion by Lockley, seconded by Parrish, to appoint Tom Brocato as the Planning & Zoning at large member; Motion carried 5-0. The Board and Attorney Shuler discussed filling seats on other Boards and also the need to appoint the Planning & Zoning members as soon as possible. 7 The Apalachicola Bay Chamber of Commerce has provided summary of the publicity they have generated using FCTDC/BP funds.
T. Michael Shuler County Attorney Report (11:30 AM) Attorney Shuler had no report for the Board. Chairman Jackel asked Attorney Shuler to look into the situation concerning the barge that destroyed a portion of the fishing pier on St. George Island during the recent storm. Attorney Shuler asked that the Board let him research this matter and report back to the Board Commissioner Parrish suggested that the remaining structure be inspected for public safety and use.
Motion by Parrish, seconded by Lockley, to direct Attorney Shuler to contact the responsible company about repairing the fishing pier on St. George Island; Motion carried 5-0.
Bud Hayes St. George Island Fire Department- MSBU Discussion (11:34 AM) Steve Kearney, representing the Board of Directors for the St. George Island Volunteer Fire Department, asked the Board to approve an increase to the MSBU to $95 for homes and no increase to unimproved lots. He stated that the SGIVFD is in dire need of more funding. Mr. Kearney explained efforts to contact all of the residents and property owners regarding this increase and he explained where the extra funding will go. Attorney Shuler asked the Board to table this item until he is able to determine if the Board can increase the MSBU on St. George Island only and not throughout the entire County. Mr. Kearney asked the Board to consider directing the Supervisor of Elections to include this matter on the August ballot. Attorney Shuler said that he will include this request when doing his research. Commissioner Parrish explained his position on this matter, which is to do the will of the residents of St. George Island. Mrs. Johnson stated that based on a phone call to the Supervisor of Elections, this item can be placed on the General ballot in November but at this time its too late for it to be on the August ballot. Mr. Bud Hayes asked the Board to consider voting on this item instead of putting it on the ballot as the residents of St. George Island have already responded in favor of the increase. Attorney Shuler asked the Board to wait until he has time to gather more information on this matter before making any decisions. Motion by Lockley, seconded by Putnal, to table this item until the next meeting to allow Attorney Shuler an opportunity to review and gather information for this request; Motion carried 5-0.
Bud Hayes Franklin County Humane Society Update (11:50 AM) Mr. Hayes introduced Karen Martin, the Executive Director of the Franklin County Humane Society, updated the board on the actions and efforts of the Humane Society. She explained a few of the programs that have been implemented at the Humane Society in the past few years.
Joe Byron Blan III Airport Credentials (11:54 AM)
Joe Blan stated some of his education background, including degrees and experiences. He explained how his experience would benefit the Airport. Commissioner Putnal stated that he has received some good recommendations for Mr. Blan and had learned more about him. Mr. Blan stated some of his ideas and explained some of the amenities and services pilots like to have when they fly in to an airport. Commissioner Lockley commented on this item and believed this would be a good opportunity to bring some of the young people home to start businesses. Mr. Blan thanked the Board for allowing him to come before the Board.
Dave McLain Update on ACF Water Wars (11:59 AM) Dave McLain stated that he would give a quick review of his report. He congratulated the County for successfully advocating for restore monies to be directed to Franklin County due to the BP Oil Spill. Mr. McLain commented on the current litigation concerning the equitable distribution of the waters of the Bay. Commissioner Sanders thanked Mr. McLain for all of his work on the ACF Water Wars.
Commissioners & Public Comments (12:02 PM) Commissioner Sanders stated the correct dates as July 12th for the banquet and the games will begin July 13th for the Dixie Youth Softball Tournament. Michael Hall, Sunset Eagle Aviation, submitted a lease proposal to the Board for the Airport and stated his experiences as a helicopter mechanic. He discussed how his experience could benefit the Airport. Commissioner Putnal said he had heard good things about Mr. Hall. Ted Mosteller, of the Apalachicola Airport, discussed some items regarding the airport and his discussions with Gulf Coast Job Force regarding help at the Airport. The Board encouraged discussion with the Gulf Coast Job Force. Motion by Putnal to start the advertising process for an FBO at the airport, Motion failed for lack of a second. Mr. Mosteller discussed damages to the door of the FBO hangar and the Board asked that he inform Mrs. Brownell of these damages. Bud Hayes discussed the purchase of Water Management Services by the City of Carrabelle. He would like Board action to consider an MSBU for water and sewer services on St. George Island.
Attorney Shuler and Mr. Hayes discussed some of the particulars of this request. It was stated that a private board would have to make this decision, not the County. This item was discussed further by the Board, Attorney Shuler and Mr. Hayes. Attorney Shuler asked for the opportunity to research this matter and discuss at the next Meeting. Commissioner Putnal commented on the future intent of Northwest Florida Water Management Districts to create larger districts. Motion by Parrish, seconded by Lockley, to direct Attorney Shuler to research the matter of Northwest Florida Water Management Districts creating larger districts and discuss at the next meeting; Motion carried 5-0.
Adjourn (12:18 PM) There being no further business, Chairman Jackel adjourned the Meeting.
___________________________ Pinki C. Jackel, Chairman FCBCC
Attest: ____________________________ Marcia M. Johnson, Clerk of Courts
FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE ANNEX AUGUST 1, 2012 9:00 AM MINUTES
Commissioners: Pinki Jackel Chairman, Bevin Putnal Vice Chairman, Cheryl Sanders, Noah Lockley, Joseph Parrish Others Present: Marcia Johnson Clerk of Court, Alan Pierce Director of Administrative Services, Michael Shuler County Attorney, Michael Morn Deputy Clerk/Board Secretary
Call to Order (9:02 AM) Chairman Jackel called the Meeting to order.
Prayer and Pledge (9:03 AM) There was a prayer followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Payment of County Bills (9:04 AM) Motion by Sanders, seconded by Putnal, to approve the payment of the Countys Bills as presented; Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Sanders, seconded by Putnal, to rescind the motion made at the July 17, 2012 Meeting to pay for Commissioners travel expenses to the Dixie Youth League Softball World Series; Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Jackel introduced Commissioner Bill Williams of Gulf County, who also serves as the President of the Florida Association of Counties Board. Commissioner Williams discussed the Restore Act, how it affects Franklin County and also the other seven counties. The Commissioner discussed some options of how to move forward with the expenditures of the Restore Act funds. He discussed the new BP claims process, distributed some information for seafood workers to file claims and stated that the administrator of the program is willing to come to Franklin County to explain how the process works. He said the new categories for claims are as follows: Seafood compensation, business and economic loss, individual economic loss, loss of substance, vessel physical damage, VAO Charter payments,
FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 2 of 15
coastal real property damage, wetland real property damage and real property sales loss. He discussed the claims process further. Commissioner Williams asked that the Chairman be sure that future meetings be set up with the administrator of the program. Commissioner Williams thanked the Commissioners for their continued efforts with this matter. Commissioner Putnal and Commissioner Williams discussed possible benefits of the new claims categories for business owners. Commissioner Williams said the new administrator is very interested in helping people in the Southeast be compensated for their losses. Commissioner Parrish and Commissioner Williams discussed the need to re-file claim applications and also discussed the simplicity of filing the claims. Commissioner Sanders and Commissioner Williams discussed eligibility for new claims. The Board discussed more details of the Restore Act litigation, timelines and the distribution of funds with Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Parrish thanked Commissioner Williams for his efforts on this matter. The Commissioners discussed how many businesses have been affected in Franklin County and also the fact that they have not been compensated for their losses.
Department Supervisor Report Hubert Chipman Superintendent of Public Works (9:29 AM) Mr. Chipman discussed problems with grading the roads and grass cutting due to the rain and flooding issues throughout the County. Commissioner Sanders mentioned the mosquito problem. Commissioner Putnal mentioned issues with Mosquito Control equipment constantly in need of repairs. Chairman Jackel discussed having a one-time upgrade for the Patty Lane and Wood Duck intersection in Eastpoint. Attorney Shuler discussed the unique circumstances for these requests due to the recent tropical storm. Motion by Putnal, seconded by Sanders, to approve a one-time upgrade at the Patty Lane and Wood Duck intersection in Eastpoint; Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Jackel discussed an area on Highway 98 at the Apalachicola Bridge that needs attention.
Fonda Davis Solid Waste Director (9:36 AM) Mr. Davis had no report but inquired about the job description for the Assistant Solid Waste Director. Attorney Shuler said it had been finalized but he didnt have it at this Meeting. Chairman Jackel said this could be finalized at the next Meeting. Chairman Jackel and Mr. Davis discussed the conclusion of amnesty days, due to Tropical Storm Debby, at the Landfill. Nikki Millender Parks & Recreation (9:41 AM) Mrs. Millender mentioned that the girls will be leaving for the World Series Tournament in Virginia tomorrow morning. She said the girls were able to collect over $30,000 in fundraising to help with trip funding. For Board Action: I have discussed with Fonda Davis, Director of Solid Waste the issue of him in need of a van to transport state inmates to and from the Landfill. He is currently using Parks & Recreations 2006 Van and can continue to do so if the board approves him keeping the 2006 Van in Exchange for the 2007 Chevrolet Silverado Pickup that is currently not being used by the Solid Waste Department. In doing so this will save the county having to purchase a new van. REQUESTED ACTION: Board Approval for Parks & Recreation and Solid Waste Departments to Exchange Vehicles. The Board and Mrs. Millender discussed the benefits of the vehicle switch. Motion by Sanders, seconded by Putnal, to approve the transfer of vehicles between the Solid Waste Dept. and Parks & Recreation; Motion carried 5-0. For Board Information: Fort Coombs Renovations Armory Convention Center Section One: Summary EMO/ARCHITECTS is currently completing their Task Two services for partial re-roofing and gutter repairs. Through 16 July 2012 EMO has completed approximately 75% of the Preliminary Architectural Construction Documents (Drawings and Specifications). The EMO Engineering Consultants are currently finalizing their respective scope of services, including production of Construction Drawings. EMO is on schedule to review and incorporate the Engineers drawings to allow the project to be Bid in early August which is in accordance with the Contract.
Section Two: Activities and Progress Basic Services 400 Construction Documents 500 Bidding/Negotiations 600 Construction Administration
75% Complete 0% Complete 0% Complete
EMO has submitted a copy of the 75% Preliminary Architectural Construction Drawings and Specifications dated 3 July 2012 which are stamped preliminary.
Pam Brownell Emergency Management Director (9:45 AM) Mrs. Brownell had no items for Board action. Action Items: None Information Items: The Emergency Management participated in the Senior Summit on July 19, 2012 at the Carrabelle Senior Citizens building. Joyce Durham gave out re-entry tags and handed out preparedness information. July 23, 2012 at 1:00pm the FEMA/STATE applicant briefing for the county was conducted at the Emergency Management office. July 25, 2012 at 10:00am the Local Mitigation Strategy Plan meeting was held at the EOC to review and update the county plan. July 27, 2012 the State Region 2, Bryan Lowe conducted our ranking survey for the Governors office. July 31, 2012 the Emergency Management office participated in the Apalachicola NERR Disaster Response Planning meeting. August 4, 2012 the FEMA/State Disaster Recovery Center will be closing. Mrs. Brownell updated the Board on reflectors on the power poles in the Bay and also on the clean-up work on Highway 319.
Bill Mahan County Extension Director (9:46 AM) Mr. Mahan had no items for Board action.
Franklin - UF IFAS Updates

1) Lightening Hit/Power Surge at the Armory I want to inform the Board that a few weeks
ago during one of the many storms moving through the County that a lighten strike/power surge hit the Armory, knocking out our Carrabelle/County intercom line, UF Internet Server, photocopier and FAX. At this time, all but the FAX are up and running. Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission (FWC)
2)
FWC Announces 2012 2013 hunting Season Dates Please note, the statewide hunting season for gray squirrel on private lands has been extended. From now on, it will open the second Saturday in October and close the first Sunday in March. This season, the dates will be Oct. 13 March 3 (Seasons and dates do not apply to wildlife management areas)
Franklin County is in Zone D Season Archery Deer-dog training Crossbow Zone A Zone B Zone C Sept. 15 Oct. 14 Sept. 29 Oct. 18 Sept. 15 Oct. 19 Zone D Oct. 20 Nov. 21 Oct. 27 Nov. 15 Oct. 20 Nov. 21 and Nov. 26-30
July 28 Aug. 26 Oct. 13 Nov. 11 Aug. 11-30 Oct. 27 Nov. 15
July 28 Aug. 31 Oct. 13 Nov. 16 Sept. 1-14 Nov. 17-30
Muzzleloading gun General gun
Oct. 20 Nov. 2 Dec. 1-7 and Feb. 18-24
Sept. 15 Oct. Dec. 1 Feb. 17 Nov. 3 Jan. 20 Nov. 22-25 and 14 and Dec. 8 Feb. 17 Nov. 17 Jan. 6 Nov. 17-23 Dec. 26 Jan. 1 Nov. 17-23 Dec. 26 Jan. 1 Oct. 8-14 and Dec. 1 Jan. 27 Nov. 17 Jan. 6 Nov. 3 Dec. 30 Nov. 22-25 and Dec. 8 Jan. 13 *
Antlerless deer Fall turkey
Gray squirrel
Oct. 13 March Oct. 13 March Oct. 13 March Oct. 13 March 3 3 3 3
Quail Bobcat and otter Youth spring turkey hunt ** Spring turkey
Nov. 10 March Nov. 10 March Nov. 10 March Nov. 10 March 3 3 3 3 Dec. 1 March 1 Dec. 1 March 1 Dec. 1 March 1 Dec. 1 March 1 Feb. 23-24 March 9-10 March 9-10 March 9-10
March 2 April March 16 April March 16 April March 16 April 7 21 21 21 *** Wild hogs, rabbits, raccoons, opossums, skunks, nutrias, beavers and coyotes may be taken year-round. * Except for Holmes County, where there is no fall harvest of turkeys allowed. ** Only youths under 16 years old will be allowed to harvest a turkey while supervised by an adult, 18 years or older. *** In Holmes County, spring turkey season is limited to March 16-31
Curt Blair TDC Update (9:47 AM) Curt Blair, of the Franklin County Tourist Development Council, presented information for the Boards review and approval. He discussed the small grant application program, the sustaining grant awards and the renewal of vendor contracts. Mr. Blair discussed an increase in the amount for the sustaining grant award, which allowed the TDC to fund five grant applications and also add some seed money to help get the businesses going. He said this will be the first year out of the past three that there will be no BP funding to distribute. Mr. Blair discussed the good results from the current marketing team and asked that the Board renew these contracts. Commissioner Sanders asked if any of the small grant applications had been denied and Mr. Blair said they had not. He said the funds were distributed equally among the applicants. Motion Putnal, seconded by Sanders, to approve the 2012/2013 FCTDC small grant and sustaining grant programs; Motion carried 5-0. Allan Feifer, of Concerned Citizens of Franklin County, asked about the management contract for the TDC and the change in funding that has to be administered. Mr. Blair discussed the increase of last years budget in order to help with the management of the BP Grant and stated that this years budget was back to the same as two years ago. Motion by Putnal, seconded by Sanders, to approve the FCTDC vendor contracts; Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Sanders reminded everyone that she expressed concerns at a previous Meeting regarding the loss of the BP funding affecting the TDC program.
Ms. Cindy Drapel Hospital Update (9:59 AM) Steve Lanier, Comptroller of Weems Memorial Hospital, reviewed the Hospitals financial report. Commissioner Lockley asked if a FQHC in Apalachicola would lessen the visits to the emergency room, which causes a loss in funding. Mr. Lanier agreed that it would because uninsured patients are not turned away from the emergency room and have to be seen versus the clinic collecting payments at the time of service. The Board and Mr. Lanier discussed the possibility of opening a FQHC clinic in Apalachicola. Motion by Lockley, seconded by Sanders, to direct the Hospital Board to investigate the possibility of a clinic or other emergency services in Apalachicola to help offset the cost of the Emergency Room at Weems; Motion carried 5-0. Allan Feifer, of the Concerned Citizens of Franklin County, stated that the biggest problem with indigent care in the County is the lack of paper work being completed in a comprehensive manner, which would allow the County to seek funding from other sources. He stated that the Hospital Board discussed this previously but he didnt know what has been done to remedy this situation. Mr. Feifer believed that a clinic wouldnt solve the payment issues because people would still go to the emergency room if they werent seen at the clinic. Chairman Jackel explained some of the problems the Hospital experiences with people who use the emergency room. Mr. Lanier agreed with Chairman Jackel and provided additional information on the efforts of the Hospital to get the paper work completed. Commissioner Lockley believed that refusing service to patients for additional visits if proper paperwork has not been filled out for the first visit would eliminate some of the payment issues. Mr. Lanier discussed the Electronic Health Record project financing/contract, which is in the amount of $800,000. He said an additional amount of $202,000 had been added to the additional request due to infrastructure issues at the Hospital. Commissioner Sanders asked if any of the services to make changes to the infrastructure of the Hospital will require the Board to go out for proposals or bids. Attorney Shuler stated that they would be required to go out for bids if the architectural services exceed $250,000. Mr. Lanier explained that the work is part of the Hospitals current contract with the Blue Manta Company and they will be doing the majority of the work. He said Blue Manta will not be charging for labor to make infrastructure changes. Mr. Lanier and Attorney Shuler discussed the financing terms for this project. Mr. Lanier explained the reimbursement process. Chairman Jackel expressed her concerns of the liability the County has with this loan but stated that the County cant opt out of the EHR so it has to be done.
Commissioner Sanders stated that she doesnt want the County to pay for this loan out of capital outlay funding. Chairman Jackel explained that the Board will be liable for paying $88,000 of this loan. The Board discussed where this funding would come from, which would be from Hospital operating funds. Attorney Shuler said he would double check on bidding some of the work for this project out for local contractors. Motion by Putnal, seconded by Parrish, to approve the Electronic Health Record project financing/contract; Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Lanier discussed the USDA financial application and also informed the Board that the EMSs current location in Lanark Village has been temporarily relocated until the air conditioner can be repaired.
Recess (10:30 AM) Chairman Jackel called for a recess.
Reconvene (10:57 AM) Chairman Jackel reconvened the Meeting.
Budget Discussion (10:58 AM) Marcia Johnson, Clerk of Court, distributed some suggestions regarding the upcoming budget. The Board stated that they would like an opportunity to review the information that was given to them and discuss at a future Meeting. Commissioner Putnal asked if the old Highway Patrol building in Eastpoint could be used for housing the ambulance instead of renting space in the plaza. Attorney Shuler stated that he will look into the transfer of the ownership of the building. Mr. Pierce and Attorney Shuler stated that the lease for the current location also has to be looked at before that decision can be made. Chairman Jackel commented on the proposed options of reducing the budget. She stated that at first glance the proposed cuts are all on the Boards side and not the Constitutional Offices side. Mrs. Johnson stated that at the Budget Workshop Meeting the Board asked that ideas for cutting the budget be submitted to Erin Griffith, Finance Clerk. Chairman Jackel wanted to know who submitted ideas on behalf of the County and Mrs. Johnson stated that she wasnt sure.
Commissioner Lockley suggested reducing the non-governmental budgets. Commissioner Putnal discussed issues with the equipment at the Mosquito Control Dept. Chairman Jackel and Mrs. Johnson discussed that in order to avoid a tax increase the Board would have to make $837,560.00 in budget cuts as it stands now. Chairman Jackel and Mrs. Johnson discussed receiving quotes from an outside insurance source. Attorney Shuler stated that the Board could go forward with receiving a quote. The Board discussed this matter further. Motion by Sanders, seconded by Parrish, to table this discussion to allow Commissioners the opportunity for review of the presented budget information; Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Parrish, seconded by Sanders, to allow the request for quotes for HRA/HSA insurance; Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Lockley asked the Sheriffs Department representatives to inquire about cheaper rates for the County. Commissioner Sanders stated that a representative of the Franklin County Senior Citizens Center, Ms. Cathy Puckett, would like to address the Board. Ms. Puckett explained how funding received from the County and the City of Carrabelle for the Senior Center is distributed. She said all of the workers are volunteers and also discussed the services and events offered by the Senior Center. Commissioner Putnal commented on the services offered at the Senior Center and said the seniors enjoy the events at the Senior Center. Commissioner Sanders and Ms. Puckett discussed the funding received from the City of Carrabelle. Commissioner Lockley was in favor of giving money to the food banks rather than agencies that use the money for salaries.
BOA Consent Agenda (11:20 AM) Mr. Pierce presented the item to the Board. The Franklin County Advisory Board of Adjustment met on July 11, 2012, and made the following recommendations:
Approve unanimously a request for a variance to construct a single family dwelling 8.5 feet into the front setback line and 2.5 feet into both side setback lines on property described as Lot 2, Block B, Range 3, McKissack Beach Village, Franklin County, Florida as requested by Dave and Denise Discepoli, owners. Request was based on the use of existing pilings and engineers report stating they were adequate for construction of a house. Attorney Shuler stated that there were some concerns regarding the existing pilings. Dave Lansford, an engineer for the project, appeared to answer any questions the Board may have. He stated that the existing pilings are adequate for the construction of a house. Motion by Putnal, seconded by Sanders, to approve request to construct a single family dwelling 8.5 feet into the front setback line and 2.5 feet into both side setback lines on property described as Lot 2, Block B, Range 3, McKissack Beach Village; Motion carried 5-0.
Marcia Johnson- Clerk of Courts Report (11:23 AM) Mrs. Johnson presented her report to the Board. 1. I have a resolution for adoption submitted by the Health Department to establish the fees they charge. Each of you have been provided a copy of the schedule in your agenda packet. I was informed the health department has an entirely new process where set fees, sliding fees, and dental fees are established. The sliding fees will all decrease due to a reduction in Medicaid Cost Based Reimbursement, the set fees remain the same with no changes from last year, and the dental fees are new and identical to the dental fee schedule used at Gulf County's Health Department. Chairman Jackel commented on the recent ratings of the Franklin County Health Department, which was 66 out of 67. She expressed her disappointment and stated that she wants to ask Staff to contact the Health Department Director and asked that she make a presentation to the Board to explain what will be done to rectify it. Motion by Putnal, seconded by Parrish, to approve a Resolution to establish the fees charged by the Franklin County Health Dept.; Motion carried 5-0.
Alan Pierce Director of Administrative Service (11:26 AM) Mr. Pierce presented his report to the Board. Mr. Pierce presented to the Board some names to fill the vacancies on the Planning and Zoning Board. The Board, Mr. Pierce and Attorney Shuler discussed these appointments and the types of seats available. Commissioner Parrish discussed Chester Reeses request to serve and his eligibility.
Motion by Lockley, seconded by Sanders, to accept Bill Laine and Paul Riegelmayer to serve on the Planning & Zoning Board; Motion carried 5-0. Attorney Shuler stated that he will check to see if Mr. Reese can serve on the Planning & Zoning Board since he serves on the TDC Board. 1- Provide Board with copy of USACOE permit application to dredge the Eastpoint Channel. The county has also made application through Emergency Management to dredge the Eastpoint Channel and the Two Mile Channel because of the impacts caused by Tropical Storm Debbie. 2- Provide Board with copy of memo sent to Mr. Joe Shields, DACS, explaining the timing and location of the re-shelling project the Board discussed with Mr. Shannon Hartsfield at the last meeting. It is the intention of Mr. Hartsfield to run a very tight re-shelling program where he plans to load up to 300 boats in one day with shell. Friday, Aug. 10 will be the first day of shelling, and it will occur in Eastpoint at the same location used last year. The shells will be placed on Cat Point. The second day of shelling will occur on Friday, Aug. 17th, at Lombardis, and those shells will go to Hagans Flat. There should be a 3rd day of shelling, on Aug. 24, and that will be back in Eastpoint, and the remaining authorized trips will be back to Cat Point. The DACS funds will pay for 800 boatloads and the agreed price of $125 per boatload. The total budget for the project is $112,000, with $100,000 (800 boatloads) going to participants; $7500 to the Association to provide monitoring and guidance during the project, and $4500 for an operator to move the shells and load the boats. While the Board had authorized up to $30,000 at the last meeting for a check to be cut to the Association, after talking to Mr. Hartsfield I have asked the Finance Office to increase the check to $42,500 because Mr. Hartsfield intends to do more trips than I had initially calculated, and the Association needs to get partial payment for its work, and the loader operator needs to get paid for his work. I recommend the Board amend the existing contract with the Association to let them pay the operator to move the shells directly. Board action. Commissioner Lockley asked if there is the possibility of additional people signing up for the program. The Board discussed this matter. Shannon Hartsfield, President of the Franklin County Seafood Workers Association, stated that he has had the 10 required meetings and has also had two emergency meetings. He said they have advertised each meeting by newspaper and radio. Commissioner Sanders thanked the Seafood Workers Association for their efforts with this matter. Attorney Shuler commented on the amount of loads to be shelled and also the amount of the check to be distributed to the FCSWA.
Motion by Putnal, seconded by Sanders, to approve the request to amend the existing contract with the FCSWA to let them pay the operator to move the shells directly and to authorize a manual check if necessary; Motion carried 5-0. 3- Inform the Board that I have scheduled the opening of the RFPs for the FBO for the August 21 meeting. 4- Inform the Board that this afternoon, Aug. 1, FEMA will be at the EOC to begin the process of filling out the PWs for all the damaged sites in the county. Personnel from all your departments will be with FEMA most of the afternoon so that we can begin the reimbursement process. 5- Inform the Board that Mark Curenton and Clay Kennedy met with Bald Point State Park personnel to begin the process of re-routing Gulf Shore Blvd. Commissioner Sanders and Mr. Pierce discussed this item. 6- Inform the Board that Franklin County received a Warning Letter from DEP about activities on Gulf Shore Blvd that the county undertook right after Tropical Storm Debbie. The County Attorney has responded to DEP. 7- Mr. Ted Mosteller has informed me that the FAA will be making its annual inspection of the airport on August 28. He requests 4 inmate crews for 2 days so they can weed eat all of the joints in the runway and taxiway as there is not time to apply herbicide to kill the weeds. Commissioner Parrish and Ted Mosteller discussed other options for killing the weeds. Commissioner Sanders asked that the new FBO be responsible for the weed eating and herbicides spraying at the Airport. 8- At the last Board meeting, the Supervisor of Elections asked for permission to buy and install a back-up generator. The Supervisor has provided the Board with 3 prices for a Generac generator. Generac is a brand recommended for its reliability. The prices are $9500 for a 22KW; $7300 for a 20KW, and $13,803 for a 27KW. The Supervisor recommends that the 22KW generator be purchased as that is the size recommended by her electrician. Robin Brinkley, Building Official, has inspected the building and agrees a 22 KW generator is the appropriate size. Board direction. Motion by Parrish, seconded by Sanders, to authorize the purchase of a 22KW generator for $9,500, with local vendor preference; Motion carried 5-0.
9- Inform the Board that the Hospital is now eligible to apply for what is known as the miniEMS grant of $1,436. The grant is normally used to make improvements in equipment on the ambulances. The Hospital EMS Director has received a copy of the grant award.
T. Michael Shuler County Attorney Report (11:53 AM) Attorney Shuler presented his report to the Board. 1. Catlin v. Weems I request that the board hold an executive session with me to discuss this lawsuit. This would not be a public meeting. However, you are authorized by law to hold such meetings privately with me during the course of litigation. However, I am required by law to request the executive session during a public meeting. Thus, this request that you hold an executive session. Board Action Requested: a. Motion authorizing an executive session b. When does the Board want to hold the executive session? Motion by Sanders, seconded by Parrish, to approve authorization to schedule an executive session between Attorney Shuler and the Board to discuss the Catlin vs. Weems case; Motion carried 5-0. Non-Action Items 2. Bill Ruic - T-Hanger Lease Mr. Ruic's T-Hanger Lease rent for July 2012 was not paid. I have filed suit to evict him for nonpayment of rent for July and I have notified him that his T -Hanger lease would not be renewed after July, even if he paid the rent. Mr. Ruic claims that he paid the July rent by allowing the airport to use a piece of his equipment to pump-out the septic tank on a plane. Mr. Mosteller denies this to me. In any event, the county is not legally obligated to rent the T-Hanger to Mr. Ruic beyond July 2012. Mr. Ruic's Attorney has requested that his law firm be allowed to rent the T-Hanger in its name and that Bill will not come to the airport. I do not know exactly what Mr. Ruic has stored in the T-Hanger, but I am informed that it contains the airplane that he is holding a possessory lien on, claiming that the airplane owner owes Mr. Ruic for work performed on the airplane. I am informing you of this offer because I am required to notify you of all settlement offers. However. unless you direct me otherwise. it is my belief that the Board has previously directed that I remove Mr. Ruic from the airport. Given Mr. Ruic misdeeds at the termination of the lease, such as not paying the last month's FBO rent of $1 ,500.0, taking the light fixtures and taking the air compressor system, I do not recommend allowing the law firm to rent the T-Hanger on Mr. Ruic's behalf.
3. David Ard I have spoken with Mr. Ard and I am scheduled to meet with him next week about the possible zoning code violation of R1 zoning. 4. SGI Fishing Pier Attached is my latest correspondence with Orion Marine Group regarding repairs they need to make to the pier for damages caused by their barge during TS Debby. Chairman Jackel asked that Attorney Shuler stay on top of this issue as the pier is missed by the public. 5. Capital City Bank v. DEP and Franklin County The Bank filed its second amended complaint and both DEP and Franklin County have again filed motions to dismiss. The hearing on the motions will occur in Tallahassee before Chief Judge Charles Francis on August 20,2012. 6. Possible SGI Water Utility John Jenkins and Bob Nabors are scheduled to make their presentation to you at your August 21, 2012 meeting. The two issues I have asked them to address are as follows: a. Options for the Board to consider regarding regulating the purchase and sale of utilities in the unincorporated area of the county. b. Options for the Board to consider regarding mechanisms for an entity on SGI to purchase and operate the water utility.
Commissioners & Public Comments (11:56 AM) Chairman Jackel thanked Commissioner Sanders for representing the Board at the World Series in Virginia. Chairman Jackel introduced her family members who were attending the Meeting. Clay Kennedy, of Preble-Rish, presented two change orders for Board action. Highway 67 Project - $8043.60 Motion by Sanders, seconded by Parrish, to approve Change Order in the decreased amount of $8,043.60; Motion carried 5-0. Road Paving Project - $124,000.00
Motion by Sanders, seconded by Putnal, to approve Change Order in the decreased amount of $124,000; Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner Putnal asked Mr. Kennedy to look into flooding problems. Chairman Jackel thanked Preble-Rish for all of the work they do in the County.
Adjourn (12:01 PM) There being no further business, Chairman Jackel adjourned the Meeting.
____________________________ Pinki C. Jackel, Chairman FCBCC Attest: _____________________________ Marcia M. Johnson, Clerk of Courts
FE907
2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment 2: Veterans Disabled Due to Combat Injury; Homestead Property Tax Discount1
Rodney L. Clouser2
Preface
This document is one in a series of six fact sheets intended to provide information on proposed constitutional amendments having direct individual or government tax impacts. As some details of the proposed changes may not have been discussed due to space limitations, the series should not be considered an all-inclusive assessment of the proposed constitutional changes, and any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University of Florida. These fact sheets are not intended as a replacement for personal knowledge about actual or proposed changes but are a guide to inform the public on the issues.
by various individuals, groups, and organizations, they could still possibly be removed from the ballot if challenged successfully. The intent and purpose of this fact sheet is to present information on the proposed 2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment No. 2 in order to help voters make informed decisions on Election Day.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2

When people go to their polling place in November 2012, they will see information on the amendment, references to the portion of the constitution that will be altered, sponsor of the amendment, the ballot title, and the ballot summary. The information for Amendment 2 will be similar or identical to the following and the ballot title and ballot summary are direct quotes from the Florida Department of State website: Proposed Constitutional Amendment: No. 2 Reference: Article VII, Section 6 & Article XII, Section 32 Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Introduction
In addition to 2012 being a presidential election year, Florida voters also will be asked to vote on a number of proposed amendments to their state constitution. Many voters remain either unaware or less informed regarding the effects and impacts of the proposed constitutional amendments. Adoption of the constitutional amendment requires a vote in favor of the amendment by a minimum of 60 percent of those voting. Voters are reminded, however, that because the proposed amendments are subject to legal challenges
1. This is EDIS document FE907, a publication of the Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Published July 2012. Please visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu. 2. Rodney L. Clouser, professor and associate chair, extension public policy specialist, Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A&M University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Thomas A. Obreza, Interim Dean
Ballot Title: Veterans Disabled Due To Combat Injury; Homestead Property Tax Discount Ballot Summary: Proposing an amendment to Section 6 of Article VII and the creation of Section 32 of Article XII of the State Constitution to expand the availability of the property discount on the homesteads of veterans who became disabled as the result of a combat injury to include those who were not Florida residents when they entered the military and schedule the amendment to take effect January 1, 2013.
to units of local government (county, municipal, special districts, etc.), and just slightly less than half of the revenue loss would be to school districts. Those in favor of the amendment might argue that the amount of revenue loss is an extremely small price to pay for individuals who have sacrificed for the country and state and suffered a combat-related injury. Those who oppose the amendment might argue that the states property tax system is not fair and continually adding exemptions and reductions makes it even less fair. Some might even argue that any more reductions to units of local government or schools would be unacceptable based on budget cuts already made by local governments during the economic downturn. As you consider whether you favor or oppose Constitutional Amendment No. 2, some factors that you might want to think over include: 1. The amendment basically broadens eligibility for the reduction by eliminating the requirement of a recipient to have been a Florida resident at the time of entering military service that resulted in a combat-related injury. 2. The ad valorem discount only applies to homesteaded property. Therefore, part-time Florida residents who do not own a homestead in the state will not receive any benefits from this proposed amendment. 3. The revenue reduction from this amendment over the long term was estimated at about $7.6 million per year. This is approximately 25 percent higher than the current cost for the program, where only individuals who were Florida residents when entering military service are eligible for the program.
The Effects and Impacts of Amendment 2

Constitutional Amendment No. 2 would permit partially or totally permanently disabled veterans who were not Florida residents when entering military service to be eligible for a combat-related disabled veterans ad valorem tax reduction on their homestead property in Florida. The amendment, if passed, becomes effective on January 1, 2013. This means the reduction in ad valorem taxes would not be realized by disabled veterans until tax year 20132014. Florida already provides a discounted ad valorem tax payment for combat-related disability, but it is currently limited to those individuals who were Florida residents when entering U.S. military service. The amount of the reduction allowed is based on the percentage of the veterans disability as determined by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. To be eligible for the discount, veterans also must have been honorably discharged.The discounted tax payment is offered as recognition of the veterans commitment, service, and sacrifice for our country and the state. The impact of Amendment 2 will be at the local level of government (county, city, school board, and special districts) since the state does not collect ad valorem taxes on real property (land and buildings) and tangible personal property (goods and belongings). Data from 2010 indicated that there were just over 1,200 veterans in Florida who received the Disabled Veterans Homestead discount. The statewide cost of the property tax discount was approximately $28.7 million, or about $23,800 per individual in taxable value on average. In March of 2011, the states Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) estimated that the cost of this proposed amendment would be about $2.4 in state fiscal year (FY) 20132014, $4.9 million in FY 20142015, $7.6 million in FY 20152016, and $7.6 million yearly thereafter. Slightly more than half of the estimated revenue losses would be
Summary
Voters in Florida have the opportunity to change the state constitution during the 2012 general election. Adoption of the constitutional amendment requires a vote in favor of the amendment by a minimum of 60 percent of those voting. The intent and purpose of the information contained in this fact sheet on Amendment 2 is not to tell individuals how to vote. Rather, the fact sheet is provided to help voters become more informed. Informed voters need to be more knowledgeable of the ballot issue and what they are voting on, rather than just reading a ballot title and ballot summary. Ballot titles and summaries do not inform voters in significant detail, or inform voters on policy implications of
what a yea or nay vote implies. It is thought that informed voters make informed public policy decisions. As the November election gets closer, expect to see increased information on the proposed amendments in the media and popular press, and on the Internet. Some of this information will be from groups advocating or opposing the specific amendments. Other information will be put forth by groups not associated with advocacy or opposition of the amendments. Read this information, but be aware of the source of the information and the role of the organization supplying the information. Your challenge as a voter is to become informed, understand the issues, learn the particulars, know the stakes, and then, by casting your ballot, make your values and preferences known.
References
Bangor Daily News. 2009. Online resource available at http://bangordailynews.com/2009/10/22/opinion/ why-mainers-should-approve-tabor/ Center for Budget Policies and Priorities. Online resource available at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=753 Colorado Department of the Treasury. Online resource available at http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/ Treasury_v2/CBON/1251592160342 Florida Senate. Online resource available at http:// www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0958/Analyses/EN wtK4hS=PL=1u0w8c0oCmx852OzY0=%7C7/Public/ Bills/0900-0999/0958/Analysis/2011s0958.rc.PDF Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. 2012. Initiatives / Amendments / Revisions. Online resource available at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initiativelist. asp?year=2012&initstatus=ALL&MadeBallot=Y&ElecType =GEN
FE909
2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment 4: Property Tax Limitations; Property Value Decline; Reduction for Nonhomestead Assessment Increases, Delay of Scheduled Repeal1
Rodney L. Clouser2
Preface
those voting. Voters are reminded, however, that because the proposed amendments are subject to legal challenges by various individuals, groups, and organizations, they could still possibly be removed from the ballot if challenged successfully. The intent and purpose of this fact sheet is to present information on the proposed 2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment No. 4 in order to help voters make informed decisions on Election Day.

When people go to their polling place in November 2012, they will see information on the amendment, references to the portion of the constitution that will be altered, sponsor of the amendment, the ballot title, and the ballot summary. The information for Amendment 4 will be similar or identical to the following and the ballot title and ballot summary are direct quotes from the Florida Department of State website: Proposed Constitutional Amendment: No. 4
Introduction
In addition to 2012 being a presidential election year, Florida voters also will be asked to vote on a number of proposed amendments to their state constitution. Many voters remain either unaware or less informed regarding the effects and impacts of the proposed constitutional amendments. Adoption of the constitutional amendment requires a vote in favor of the amendment by a minimum of 60 percent of
1. This is EDIS document FE909, a publication of the Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Published July 2012. Please visit the EDIS website athttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ 2. Rodney L. Clouser, professor and associate chair, extension public policy specialist, Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Reference: Article VII, Sections 4, 6 & Article XII, Sections 27, 32, 33 Sponsor: The Florida Legislature Ballot Title:Property Tax Limitations; Property Value Decline; Reduction for Nonhomestead Assessment Increases; Delay of Scheduled Repeal Ballot Summary: (1) This would amend Florida Constitution Article VII, Section 4 (Taxation; assessments) and Section 6 (Homestead exemptions). It also would amend Article XII, Section 27, and add Sections 32 and 33, relating to the Schedule for the amendments. (2) In certain circumstances, the law requires the assessed value of homestead and specified nonhomestead property to increase when the just value of the property decreases. Therefore, this amendment provides that the Legislature may, by general law, provide that the assessment of homestead and specified nonhomestead property may not increase if the just value of that property is less than the just value of the property on the preceding January 1, subject to any adjustment in the assessed value due to changes, additions, reductions, or improvements to such property which are assessed as provided for by general law. This amendment takes effect upon approval by the voters. If approved at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, it shall operate retroactively to January 1, 2012, or if approved at the 2012 general election, shall take effect January 1, 2013. (3) This amendment reduces from 10 percent to 5 percent the limitation on annual changes in assessments of nonhomestead real property. This amendment takes effect upon approval of the voters. If approved at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, it shall operate retroactively to January 1, 2012, or, if approved at the 2012 general election, takes effect January 1, 2013. (4) This amendment also authorizes general law to provide, subject to conditions specified in such law, an additional homestead exemption to every person who establishes the right to receive the homestead exemption provided in the Florida Constitution within 1 year after purchasing the homestead property and who has not owned property in the previous 3 calendar years to which the Florida homestead exemption applied. The additional homestead exemption shall apply to all levies except school district levies. The additional exemption is an amount equal to 50 percent of the homestead propertys just value on January 1 of the year the homestead is established. The additional homestead exemption may not exceed an amount equal to the median just value of all homestead property within the county where the property at issue is located for the calendar year immediately preceding
January 1 of the year the homestead is established. The additional exemption shall apply for the shorter of 5 years or the year of sale of the property. The amount of the additional exemption shall be reduced in each subsequent year by an amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of the additional exemption received in the year the homestead was established or by an amount equal to the difference between the just value of the property and the assessed value of the property determined under Article VII, Section 4(d), whichever is greater. Not more than one such exemption shall be allowed per homestead property at one time. The additional exemption applies to property purchased on or after January 1, 2011, if approved by the voters at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, or to property purchased on or after January 1, 2012, if approved by the voters at the 2012 general election. The additional exemption is not available in the sixth and subsequent years after it is first received. The amendment shall take effect upon approval by the voters. If approved at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, it shall operate retroactively to January 1, 2012, or if approved at the 2012 general election, takes effect January 1, 2013. (5) This amendment also delays until 2023, the repeal, currently scheduled to take effect in 2019, of constitutional amendments adopted in 2008 which limit annual assessment increases for specified nonhomestead real property. This amendment delays until 2022 the submission of an amendment proposing the abrogation of such repeal to the voters.

Constitutional Amendment No. 4 has several potential changes recommended: 1. For homestead properties, the proposed amendment allows the legislature by general law to prohibit an increase in the tax assessment of the homestead if the just value is less than the just value assessed the prior year, except in cases where there were changes, additions, reductions, or improvements to the property. 2. For non-homestead properties, the proposed constitutional amendment limits the annual assessment increase in a year to five (5) percent (rather than 10 percent) on non-homesteaded property. The change also allows the legislature by general law to prohibit an increase in the assessment of the non-homestead property if the just value is less than the just value assessed the prior year.
3. The third component allows for an additional homestead tax exemption under the conditions that the owner is entitled to the homestead exemption within one year of the property purchase, has not owned property in the three (3) previous calendar years, and has not received a homestead exemption. The additional exemption is applied to all taxing units except for school district tax levies. If passed, the additional exemption allowed by the amendment is equal to 50 percent of the homesteaded property just value in the year the homestead was established. The additional exemption cannot exceed the median just value of homesteaded property in the county and the additional exemption is applied for a period of five (5) years or until the property is sold. The additional exemption decreases over the five-year timeframe by 20 percent annually of the initial exemption, or the difference between the just and assessed value, whichever is larger. Only one exemption is allowed per homesteaded property and the proposed changes are only applicable for property purchased on or after January 1, 2012. The effective date of the amendment is identified as January 1, 2013. Amendment 4, if passed, would have impacts that would be felt at the local level of government (county, city, school board, and special districts) and at the individual taxpayer level. The state estimates (at current millage rates) that statewide impacts would range from a decrease in tax revenue of $156.2 million in state fiscal year (FY) 20132014 to a decrease of $565.8 million in FY 20152016. In addition, the state estimates additional tax impacts from the recapture provision (point 1 above) would be an additional decrease of $6.2 million for school property tax revenues beginning in FY 20132014, with a recurring (yearly) impact of $17.7 million, and for non-school property tax revenue a decrease of $10.3 million in FY 20132014, with a recurring impact of $32.5 million. Units of local government and individuals concerned with the quantity and quality of local government services might argue that this amendment results in further inability to provide needed services at the levels desired. Local governments also might suggest that they have had several years of declining property values that impact local revenues to fund local services, coupled with increased federal and state mandates they have been required to fund, and they cannot continue to operate effectively with continued financial stress. Some Floridians may believe changes proposed in this amendment represent a classic example of problems with
the states current property tax structure: piecemeal policy changes that are not fair, that provide tax breaks to special interest groups, and although made for short-term problems, have long-term impacts. Owners of non-homesteaded property may see changes proposed in this amendment differently since the amendment lowers the annual assessment increase allowed. Relative to the existing law, this could potentially lower their tax bill if property values rise rapidly at some point in the future. It may be assumed that any property owner who had been impacted by the recapture provision that resulted in his/ her propertys market/just value declining but his/her assessed value for tax purposes increasing is supportive of this amendment. In the popular press, it is clear that a group of individuals championing passage of the amendment is involved in the real estate industry. Naturally, these individuals are concerned with the poor performance and unemployment conditions that have existed in the industry during the recession and still linger post-recession. They would argue that anything to stimulate the real estate and housing industries is beneficial and necessary. However, other individuals believe that the real estate sector is slowly improving like most other sectors of the economy and it should continue that recovery without government intervention that carries with it a long-term fiscal impact. Finally, it needs to be recognized that the state analysis on revenue change is based on the assumption that units of local government would not change the current millage rate level. However, if local governments did change the tax millage rate to offset the changes proposed in this constitutional amendment, those not eligible to benefit from the proposed changes would have higher local property tax bills because of a shift in the relative tax burden.
Summary
what a yea or nay vote implies. It is thought that informed voters make informed public policy decisions. As the November election gets closer, expect to see increased information on the proposed amendments in the media and popular press, and on the Internet. Some of this information will be from groups advocating or opposing the specific amendments. Other information will be put forth by groups not associated with advocacy or opposition of the amendments. Read this information, but be aware of the source of the information and the role of the organization supplying the information. Your challenge as a voter is to become informed, understand the issues, learn the particulars, know the stakes, and then, by casting your ballot, make your values and preferences known.
References
Florida House of Representatives. Online resource available at http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/ loaddoc.aspx?FileName=h0381z1.FTC.DOCX&Document Type=Analysis&BillNumber=0381&Session=2011 Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. Initiatives / Amendments / Revisions, Online resource available at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initiativelist.asp?yea r=2012&initstatus=ALL&MadeBallot=Y&ElecType=GEN
FE911
2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment 10: Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption1
Rodney L. Clouser2
Preface
could still possibly be removed from the ballot if challenged successfully. The intent and purpose of this fact sheet is to present information on the proposed 2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment No. 10 in order to help voters make informed decisions on Election Day.

When people go to their polling place in November 2012, they will see information on the amendment, references to the portion of the constitution that will be altered, sponsor of the amendment, the ballot title, and the ballot summary. The information for Amendment 10 will be similar or identical to the following and the ballot title and ballot summary are direct quotes from the Florida Department of State website: Reference: Article VII, Section 3 & Article XII, Section 32 Sponsor: The Florida Legislature Ballot Title:Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption Ballot Summary: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to (1) Provide an exemption from ad valorem taxes levied by counties, municipalities, school districts, and other local governments on tangible personal property
Introduction
In addition to 2012 being a presidential election year, Florida voters also will be asked to vote on a number of proposed amendments to their state constitution. Many voters remain either unaware or less informed regarding the effects and impacts of the proposed constitutional amendments. Adoption of the constitutional amendment requires a vote in favor of the amendment by a minimum of 60 percent of those voting. Voters are reminded, however, that because the proposed amendments are subject to legal challenges by various individuals, groups, and organizations, they
if the assessed value of an owners tangible personal property is greater than $25,000 but less than $50,000. This new exemption, if approved by the voters, will take effect on January 1, 2013, and apply to the 2013 tax roll and subsequent tax rolls. (2) Authorize a county or municipality for the purpose of its respective levy, and as provided by general law, to provide tangible personal property tax exemptions by ordinance. This is in addition to other statewide tangible personal property tax exemptions provided by the Constitution and this amendment.
fiscal year 2011, it was estimated that the TPP tax generated about $1.7$1.8 billion in tax revenue. It should not be surprising that businesses, especially relatively small businesses, are very supportive in general of the proposed amendment. It was estimated by the state Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) that the cost of the extra $25,000 exemption would result in a reduction in local government revenues of $20.1 million beginning in fiscal year 20132014 (based on 2011 local government millage rates and tax rolls). There is always the possibility there would be no loss in local government revenue because local governments could increase their tax millage rates. If this were to happen, it would result in a tax shift to individuals/businesses that do not qualify for the additional $25,000 exemption. Proponents of the amendments passage may suggest that with the recession and sluggish economic recovery, any assistance that could be provided to the business sector would be a wise investment. A more global argument by proponents of passage of the amendment would be that any reduction in taxes for businesses would provide the state a comparative advantage to other states and encourage business development and relocation possibly in Florida. Opponents of the amendment may suggest it is another classic example of problems with the states current tax structure: piecemeal policy changes that are not fair, that provide tax breaks to special interest groups, and although made for short-term problems, have long-term impacts. Opponents also will probably note that because Florida already has some of the lowest business taxes in the country and is already mentioned in the popular press as business friendly, there is no need to provide any additional tax exemptions. Finally, it should be recognized that the impact of this proposed change may be very lumpy or unequal across the state, dependent upon population size of the county and the proportion of county taxable value in TPP, and the contribution of the TPP tax to total property taxes collected. In counties with very small TPP collections due to a lack of businesses who pay this tax, or with large real property (land, buildings, etc.) values, TPP impacts may be relatively small. However, in counties with relatively large businesses who pay considerable TPP taxes, the potential impacts of either scenariotax collections being reduced, or tax shifts occurringcould be relatively significant.

Constitutional Amendment No. 10 proposes two major changes: 1. The proposed amendment increases the exemption amounts with regard to ad valorem taxes of tangible personal property from $25,000 to $50,000. Tangible personal property is defined as follows by Florida Statutes 192.001 11(d) as Tangible personal property means all goods, chattels, and other articles of value (but does not include the vehicular items enumerated in s. 1(b), Art. VII of the State Constitution and elsewhere defined) capable of manual possession and whose chief value is intrinsic to the article itself. Construction work in progress consists of those items of tangible personal property commonly known as fixtures, machinery, and equipment when in the process of being installed in new or expanded improvements to real property and whose value is materially enhanced upon connection or use with a preexisting, taxable, operational system or facility. Construction work in progress shall be deemed substantially completed when connected with the preexisting, taxable, operational system or facility. Inventory and household goods are expressly excluded from this definition. 2. The proposed amendment also permits the legislature to authorize counties and local municipalities to provide further tangible property tax exemptions by local ordinance subject to general law. If passed, the amendment becomes effective January 1, 2013, and is applicable to the 2013 tax rolls. Household goods and money are exempt from tangible personal property (TPP) tax. So are motor vehicles, boats, airplanes, etc., and in most instances, mobile homes are exempt. Therefore, most of the states TPP tax is paid by businesses on their machinery, equipment, furniture, etc. In
Summary
Voters in Florida have the opportunity to change the state constitution during the 2012 general election. Adoption of the constitutional amendment requires a vote in favor of the amendment by a minimum of 60 percent of those voting. The intent and purpose of the information contained in this fact sheet on Amendment 10 is not to tell individuals how to vote. Rather, the fact sheet is provided to help voters become more informed. Informed voters need to be more knowledgeable of the ballot issue and what they are voting on, rather than just reading a ballot title and ballot summary. Ballot titles and summaries do not inform voters in significant detail, or inform voters on policy implications of what a yea or nay vote implies. It is thought that informed voters make informed public policy decisions. As the November election gets closer expect to see increased information on the proposed amendments in the media and popular press, and on the internet. Some of this information will be from groups advocating or opposing the specific amendments. Other information will be put forth by groups not associated with advocacy or opposition of the amendments. Read this information but be aware of the source of the information and the role of the organization supplying the information. Your challenge as a voter is to become informed, understand the issues, learn the particulars, know the stakes, and then, by casting your ballot, make your values and preferences known.
References
Florida House of Representatives. Online resource available at http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/ loaddoc.aspx?FileName=h1003z.FTC.DOCX&DocumentT ype=Analysis&BillNumber=1003&Session=2012 Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. 2012. Initiatives / Amendments / Revisions, Online resource available at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initiativelist. asp?year=2012&initstatus=ALL&MadeBallot=Y&ElecType =GEN Florida Taxwatch. Report and Recommendations of the Florida Tangible Personal Property Tax Task Force, Online resource available at http://www.floridataxwatch.org/ resources/pdf/20111128TPPTaskForce.pdf
FE908
2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment 3: State Government Revenue Limitation1

Rodney L. Clouser2
Preface
could still possibly be removed from the ballot if challenged successfully. The intent and purpose of this fact sheet is to present information on the proposed 2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment No. 3 in order to help voters make informed decisions on Election Day.

When people go to their polling place in November 2012, they will see information on the amendment, references to the portion of the constitution that will be altered, sponsor of the amendment, the ballot title, and the ballot summary. The information for Amendment 3 will be similar or identical to the following and the ballot title and ballot summary are direct quotes from the Florida Department of State website: Proposed Constitutional Amendment: No. 3 Reference: Article VII, Sections 1 And 19 & Article XII, Section 32 Sponsor: The Florida Legislature Ballot Title: State Government Revenue Limitation
Introduction
In addition to 2012 being a presidential election year, Florida voters also will be asked to vote on a number of proposed amendments to their state constitution. Many voters remain either unaware or less informed regarding the effects and impacts of the proposed constitutional amendments. Adoption of the constitutional amendment requires a vote in favor of the amendment by a minimum of 60 percent of those voting. Voters are reminded, however, that because the proposed amendments are subject to legal challenges by various individuals, groups, and organizations, they
1. This is EDIS document FE908, a publication of the Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Published July 2012. Please visit the EDIS website at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ 2. Rodney L. Clouser, professor and associate chair, extension public policy specialist, Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Ballot Summary: This proposed amendment to the State Constitution replaces the existing state revenue limitation based on Florida personal income growth, with a new state revenue limitation based on inflation and population changes. Under the amendment, state revenues, as defined in the amendment, collected in excess of the revenue limitation must be deposited into the budget stabilization fund until the fund reaches its maximum balance, and thereafter shall be used for the support and maintenance of public schools by reducing the minimum financial effort required from school districts for participation in a statefunded education finance program, or if the minimum financial effort is no longer required, returned to the taxpayers. The Legislature may increase the state revenue limitation through a bill approved by a super majority vote of each house of the Legislature. The Legislature may also submit a proposed increase in the state revenue limitation to the voters. The Legislature must implement this proposed amendment by general law. The amendment will take effect upon approval by the electors and will first apply to the 20142015 state fiscal year.
taxes, fees, licenses, fines, and charges for services imposed by the legislature on individuals, businesses, or agencies outside of state government. Several items are excluded from the state revenue limitation and include receipts of public universities; receipts from the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation; revenue needed to meet bond obligations prior to July 1, 2012; revenues used to provide matching funds for the federal Medicaid program; balances carried forward from prior fiscal years; and charges for school district services, etc. The proposed constitutional amendment necessitates that if revenue exceeds the limitation level in any year, that excess revenue is to be transferred to the state budget stabilization fund until that fund reaches the maximum amount established in the state constitution (10% of the last completed fiscal years net revenue collections for the general revenue fund), then be used to reduce the minimum financial effort required by school districts, but should that minimum financial effort be no longer required, the funds are then to be returned to taxpayers. The amendment also proposes three different methods by which the revenue limit can be increased: 1. A two-thirds vote by both houses of the legislature is required. Unless otherwise provided within the legislation, the increased revenue limit would be used in future years to establish the state revenue limit. (Requires a 72-hour waiting period before a vote can be taken by the legislative houses.) 2. The state revenue limit can be increased for a single fiscal year by a three-fifths vote of the legislature. This increase would not be used to calculate maximum revenue amounts in future fiscal years. (Requires a 72-hour waiting period before a vote can be taken by the legislative houses.) 3. The legislature can propose a resolution to increase the revenue limitation by a three-fifths vote of both legislative bodies with the resolution voted on by Florida voters. Passage by Florida voters would require 60 percent voting for approval. The amendment states that it will become effective upon approval and will first apply to the 20142015 state fiscal year. According to analysis by state legislative staff, there is no immediate impact expected if proposed Constitutional

Constitutional Amendment No. 3 would revise the method by which the state revenue limitation in any given state fiscal year is calculated. This amendment is one of the more complex of those proposed. The proposed amendment limits state revenues collected beginning in FY 20142015 to the same amount collected in the previous fiscal year (20132014) with adjustments. In other words, the prior state fiscal year revenue collected determines the base state revenue for the next fiscal year. This is then multiplied by a growth factor and a small adjustment factor (to be phased out after state FY 20172018) to determine the revenue limit. The adjustment for growth in the state FY revenue base, as it is referred to in the amendment, is calculated using the preceding five-year average of an inflation factor and a population growth factor. The inflation factor is defined as the percent change in the calendar year annual average Consumer Price Index-Urban (CPI-U) plus one. The population growth factor is the percent change in the states current population on April 1, compared to the states population in the prior year on April 1, plus one. While the amendment proposes to limit state revenue growth, the term state revenue is not all-inclusive. According to the amendment, state revenue is defined as
Amendment No. 3 is passed. Why? Staff analysis indicates that while the proposed amendment will reduce the maximum state revenue limit, growth in state revenues included in the proposed amendment will not exceed the revenue limit, at least based on estimates through state FY 20192020. Florida currently has a state revenue limitation, but that limitation is based on the average annual growth rate in Florida personal income for the most recent 20 quarters. Under current law, it is estimated that the state revenue limit would be more than $60 billion in state FY 20192020. With proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 3, it is estimated the state revenue limit in FY 20192020 would be approximately $40 billion. However, in state FY 20192020, it is projected that state revenues collected, subject to this amendment, would only be about $3738 billion. Based on these projections, and realizing that it is extremely difficult to project revenues this far into the future, there would be no excess revenue to transfer to the state budget stabilization fund if this amendment were adopted. That does not mean, however, that the amendment will not have some sort of fiscal impact at some point in the future. Constitutional Amendment No. 3 falls under the general category of similar legislation across the United States, often bearing the acronym of TABOR. TABOR is the short form for Taxpayer Bill of Rights. While many states have enacted or considered some form of state revenue limitation, the state with the most stringent program adopted is Colorado. The following quote indicates the impact of the Colorado revenue limitation effort: Under TABOR, the state has returned more than $2 billion to taxpayers, rather than using these funds to pay for K-12 education, higher education, transportation, public health services, public safety, and other services. Colorados TABOR was so restrictive that the program was suspended for five years. Those in favor of this amendment may feel that the only way to restrain government expenditures is to limit the amount of revenue available for the government to expend. Likewise, some in favor of the amendment may believe the only way to reduce programs that go beyond the scope of appropriate government involvement is by reducing the amount of funds available for government to spend, thereby forcing governments to prioritize program/service importance. A former Governor of Colorado argued that, in Colorado, revenue limits provided more influence to the taxpayer and less influence to special interest groups and suggested that this is why revenue limits should be supported.
Those who oppose this amendment might argue that the growth factor allowed in the amendment is too restrictive and does not apply to units of government. For example, the market basket of goods used to determine the CPI-U is in no way reflective of government costs for infrastructure. They also might believe the formula used to derive future revenue limits, especially in times of economic downturn, is too restrictive in limiting government revenue in future years. Concerns have been expressed that restrictive revenue limiting measures result in gaps for safety net programs for those individuals with low incomes and special needs. Other factors need to be considered when determining your support for or opposition to this proposed amendment. Florida already has enacted revenue limiting requirements. This amendment further refines the revenue limiting structure. In general, the proposed amendment is more restrictive in terms of the revenue limit. However, based on current analysis, there is no expectation that the revenue limit will have any impact through FY 20192020.
Summary
Voters in Florida have the opportunity to change the state constitution during the 2012 general election. Adoption of the constitutional amendment requires a vote in favor of the amendment by a minimum of 60 percent of those voting. The intent and purpose of the information contained in this fact sheet on Amendment 3 is not to tell individuals how to vote. Rather, the fact sheet is provided to help voters become more informed. Informed voters need to be more knowledgeable of the ballot issue and what they are voting on, rather than just reading a ballot title and ballot summary. Ballot titles and summaries do not inform voters in significant detail, or inform voters on policy implications of what a yea or nay vote implies. It is thought that informed voters make informed public policy decisions. As the November election gets closer, expect to see increased information on the proposed amendments in the media and popular press, and on the Internet. Some of this information will be from groups advocating or opposing the specific amendments. Other information will be put forth by groups not associated with advocacy or opposition of the amendments. Read this information, but be aware of the source of the information and the role of the organization supplying the information. Your challenge as a voter is to become informed, understand the issues, learn the particulars, know the stakes,
and then, by casting your ballot, make your values and preferences known.
References
Bangor Daily News. 2009. Online resource available at http://bangordailynews.com/2009/10/22/opinion/ why-mainers-should-approve-tabor/ Center for Budget Policies and Priorities. Online resource available at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=753 Colorado Department of the Treasury. Online resource available at http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/ Treasury_v2/CBON/1251592160342 Florida Senate. Online resource available at http:// www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0958/Analyses/EN wtK4hS=PL=1u0w8c0oCmx852OzY0=%7C7/Public/ Bills/0900-0999/0958/Analysis/2011s0958.rc.PDF Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. 2012. Initiatives / Amendments / Revisions.Online resource available at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initiativelist. asp?year=2012&initstatus=ALL&MadeBallot=Y&ElecType =GEN
FE910
2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment 9: Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of Military Veteran or First Responder1
Rodney L. Clouser2
Preface
by various individuals, groups, and organizations, they could still possibly be removed from the ballot if challenged successfully. The intent and purpose of this fact sheet is to present information on the proposed 2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment No. 9 in order to help voters make informed decisions on Election Day.

When people go to their polling place in November 2012, they will see information on the amendment, references to the portion of the constitution that will be altered, sponsor of the amendment, the ballot title, and the ballot summary. The information for Amendment 9 will be similar or identical to the following and the ballot title and ballot summary are direct quotes from the Florida Department of State website: Proposed Constitutional Amendment: No. 9 Reference: Article VII, Section 6 & Article XII, Section 32 Sponsor: The Florida Legislature
Introduction
In addition to 2012 being a presidential election year, Florida voters also will be asked to vote on a number of proposed amendments to their state constitution. Many voters remain either unaware or less informed regarding the effects and impacts of the proposed constitutional amendments. Adoption of the constitutional amendment requires a vote in favor of the amendment by a minimum of 60 percent of those voting. Voters are reminded, however, that because the proposed amendments are subject to legal challenges
Ballot Title: Homestead Property Tax Exemption for Surviving Spouse of Military Veteran or First Responder Ballot Summary: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature to provide by general law ad valorem homestead property tax relief to the surviving spouse of a military veteran who died from service-connected causes while on active duty or to the surviving spouse of a first responder who died in the line of duty. The amendment authorizes the Legislature to totally exempt or partially exempt such surviving spouses homestead property from ad valorem taxation. The amendment defines a first responder as a law enforcement officer, a correctional officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic. This amendment shall take effect January 1, 2013.
There may be less opposition to the amendment from those who are opposed to exemptions in property taxes since this amendment affects the tax bill paid, rather than exempting a portion of the property value from taxation. Of course, some might suggest that there are other ways to honor this service and provide financial relief to surviving spouses other than reducing the property tax bill.
Summary
Voters in Florida have the opportunity to change the state constitution during the 2012 general election. Adoption of the constitutional amendment requires a vote in favor of the amendment by a minimum of 60 percent of those voting. The intent and purpose of the information contained in this fact sheet on Amendment 9 is not to tell individuals how to vote. Rather, the fact sheet is provided to help voters become more informed. Informed voters need to be more knowledgeable of the ballot issue and what they are voting on, rather than just reading a ballot title and ballot summary. Ballot titles and summaries do not inform voters in significant detail, or inform voters on policy implications of what a yea or nay vote implies. It is thought that informed voters make informed public policy decisions. As the November election gets closer, expect to see increased information on the proposed amendments in the media and popular press, and on the Internet. Some of this information will be from groups advocating or opposing the specific amendments. Other information will be put forth by groups not associated with advocacy or opposition of the amendments. Read this information, but be aware of the source of the information and the role of the organization supplying the information. Your challenge as a voter is to become informed, understand the issues, learn the particulars, know the stakes, and then, by casting your ballot, make your values and preferences known.

Constitutional Amendment No. 9, if passed, allows the Florida Legislature, by general law, to provide ad valorem (property tax) relief to the total or portion of ad valorem taxes owed on homesteaded property by surviving spouses of active duty members of the Armed Services or first responders who died in the line of duty. The proposed amendment defines first responder as a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or a paramedic. In line of duty is defined as actual performance of duties required when employed as a first responder. Military personnel must have died on active duty from service-connected causes. If passed, the amendment would become effective on January 1, 2013. The estimated impact of Amendment 9 is relatively small according to the state Revenue Estimating Conference (REC). The REC assumes that with current millage rates, the cost per year beginning in state fiscal year 20132014 would be approximately $300,000 in lost school tax revenue and $300,000 per year in non-school (local governments, special districts, etc.) taxes. Individuals may support this proposed amendment because the fiscal costs are relatively small, it is a fair compensation to surviving spouses of active-duty military personnel and first responders who have died in job service, and it serves as a mechanism to honor the deceased in service to the country, state, and units of local government (counties, cities, etc.) in Florida.
References
Florida House of Representatives. Online resource available at http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/ loaddoc.aspx?FileName=h0093z.FTC.DOCX&DocumentT ype=Analysis&BillNumber=0093&Session=2012 Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. 2012. Initiatives / Amendments / Revisions, Online resource available at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initiativelist. asp?year=2012&initstatus=ALL&MadeBallot=Y&ElecType =GEN
2
FE912
2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment 11: Additional Homestead Exemption; Low-Income Seniors Who Maintain Long-Term Residency on Property; Equal to Assessed Value1
Rodney L. Clouser2
Preface
those voting. Voters are reminded, however, that because the proposed amendments are subject to legal challenges by various individuals, groups, and organizations, they could still possibly be removed from the ballot if challenged successfully. The intent and purpose of this fact sheet is to present information on the proposed 2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment No. 11 in order to help voters make informed decisions on Election Day.

When people go to their polling place in November 2012, they will see information on the amendment, references to the portion of the constitution that will be altered, sponsor of the amendment, the ballot title, and the ballot summary. The information for Amendment 11 will be similar or identical to the following and the ballot title and ballot summary are direct quotes from the Florida Department of State website: Proposed Constitutional Amendment: No. 11 Reference: Article VII, Section 6
Introduction
In addition to 2012 being a presidential election year, Florida voters also will be asked to vote on a number of proposed amendments to their state constitution. Many voters remain either unaware or less informed regarding the effects and impacts of the proposed constitutional amendments. Adoption of the constitutional amendment requires a vote in favor of the amendment by a minimum of 60 percent of
Sponsor: The Florida Legislature Ballot Title: Additional Homestead Exemption; LowIncome Seniors Who Maintain Long-Term Residency on Property; Equal to Assessed Value Ballot Summary: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature, by general law and subject to conditions set forth in the general law, to allow counties and municipalities to grant an additional homestead tax exemption equal to the assessed value of homestead property if the property has a just value less than $250,000 to an owner who has maintained permanent residency on the property for not less than 25 years, who has attained age 65, and who has a low household income as defined by general law.
The impact of Amendment 11 if passed is estimated by the state Revenue Estimating Conference (REC) to have a negative (decreasing) impact on local government revenue in fiscal year 20142015, with a loss of $9.1 million and another $9.4 million in fiscal year 20152016. This assumption is based on current local government millage rates and an additional assumption that all counties/municipalities currently offering the low-income senior exemption would also adopt a local ordinance for the additional increase proposed by this amendment. The relative size and the fiscal impact of the amendment are easy to understand when looking at some of the specific criteria. For example, it is becoming less common for people to live in the same residence for a long period of time and this amendment requires permanent residency of at least 25 years. On the other hand, people are also living longer and the possibility of living in the same homestead for at least 25 years may become more likely, even for those who move to Florida after retirement. Those who advocate in favor of the amendment might suggest that individuals living on a fixed income or those who have suffered significant economic loss due to health problems are worthy of a property tax break. Opponents of the proposed amendment might argue that all Floridians who use local government services should pay something for the services used and not be totally exempt from taxation as this amendment might allow. Some may also oppose the amendment since it represents another example of the property tax system being used as a piecemeal policy change, which is not fair to other taxpayers, and could well shift the estimated revenue decline at the local government level to other taxpayers who do not qualify for this exemption.

Constitutional Amendment No. 11 proposes an additional homestead property tax exemption for senior citizens who have and maintain a long-term residency on the property, equal to the propertys assessed value, specific to the following definitions and requirements: 1. The person must have legal or equitable title to the property. 2. The homesteaded property must have a just (market) value less than $250,000. 3. The property must have been the permanent residency of the owner for at least 25 years. 4. The owner must be a minimum of 65 years old. 5. The owners household income must not exceed $27,030 (F.S. 196.075(3) based on the general law implementing the proposed amendment). 6. The general law putting into practice the proposed amendment would also require the counties and municipalities providing the additional exemption to do so by passage of a local government ordinance. This exemption would only apply in counties and cities that offer the current low-income senior exemption in Florida. According to the Florida Department of Revenue, in 2010, 58 Florida counties and over 200 municipalities offer the low-income senior exemption. The amendment does not identify an effective date of adoption.
Summary
what a yea or nay vote implies. It is thought that informed voters make informed public policy decisions. As the November election gets closer expect to see increased information on the proposed amendments in the media and popular press, and on the internet. Some of this information will be from groups advocating or opposing the specific amendments. Other information will be put forth by groups not associated with advocacy or opposition of the amendments. Read this information but be aware of the source of the information and the role of the organization supplying the information. Your challenge as a voter is to become informed, understand the issues, learn the particulars, know the stakes, and then, by casting your ballot, make your values and preferences known.
References
Florida House of Representatives. Online resource available at http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/ loaddoc.aspx?FileName=h0169z.FTC.DOCX&DocumentT ype=Analysis&BillNumber=0169&Session=2012 Florida Department of Revenue. Online resource available at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/property/taxpayers/pdf/ FLsrhx.pdf Florida Department of State, Division of Elections. 2012. Initiatives / Amendments / Revisions, Online resource available at http://election.dos.state.fl.us/initiatives/initiativelist. asp?year=2012&initstatus=ALL&MadeBallot=Y&ElecType =GEN

Aug 21, 2012

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Aug 21, 2012

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING FRANKLIN COUNTY COURTHOUSE ANNEX AUGUST 21, 2012 9:00

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 2 of 13

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 3 of 13

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 4 of 13

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 5 of 13

Recess (10:05 AM) Chairman Jackel called for a recess.

Ms. Cindy Drapel/Steve Lanier Hospital Update (10:28 AM)

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 6 of 13

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 7 of 13

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 8 of 13

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 9 of 13

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 10 of 13

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 11 of 13

Joe Byron Blan III Airport Credentials (11:54 AM)

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 12 of 13

FCBOCC Regular Meeting 7/3/2012 Page 13 of 13

___________________________ Pinki C. Jackel, Chairman FCBCC

Attest: ____________________________ Marcia M. Johnson, Clerk of Courts

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 2 of 15

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 3 of 15

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 4 of 15

75% Complete 0% Complete 0% Complete

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 5 of 15

Franklin - UF IFAS Updates

July 28 Aug. 26 Oct. 13 Nov. 11 Aug. 11-30 Oct. 27 Nov. 15

July 28 Aug. 31 Oct. 13 Nov. 16 Sept. 1-14 Nov. 17-30

Muzzleloading gun General gun

Oct. 20 Nov. 2 Dec. 1-7 and Feb. 18-24

Antlerless deer Fall turkey

Oct. 13 March Oct. 13 March Oct. 13 March Oct. 13 March 3 3 3 3

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 6 of 15

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 7 of 15

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 8 of 15

Recess (10:30 AM) Chairman Jackel called for a recess.

Reconvene (10:57 AM) Chairman Jackel reconvened the Meeting.

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 9 of 15

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 10 of 15

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 11 of 15

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 12 of 15

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 13 of 15

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 14 of 15

FCBCC Regular Meeting 8/1/2012 Page 15 of 15

Proposed Constitutional Amendment 2

The Effects and Impacts of Amendment 2

Proposed Constitutional Amendment 4

The Effects and Impacts of Amendment 4

Proposed Constitutional Amendment 10

The Effects and Impacts of Amendment 10

2012 Florida Constitutional Amendment 3: State Government Revenue Limitation1

Proposed Constitutional Amendment 3

The Effects and Impacts of Amendment 3

Proposed Constitutional Amendment 9

The Effects and Impacts of Amendment 9

Proposed Constitutional Amendment 11

The Effects and Impacts of Amendment 11

Anda mungkin juga menyukai