Okaloosa County BOCC — September 15, 2015 — 2016 FY BUDGET MSBU-BOD-MTG-MINUTES-07-14-15-APPROVED — reading text

BLUEWATER BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT PUBLIC MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS JULY 14, 2015 Call to Order Chairman Debbie Stretch called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. Present were Directors Debbie Stretch, Judy Griffin, Felix Beukenkamp, Steve Boswell and Jonathan Tallman. The presence of a quorum was established. Residents attending were Chris Olsen, Ruth Alford, Steve & Tami Rhodes, Kathy Dillon and Pat Fralix. Marcia Sanders from the Bay Beacon and Greg Stewart the Okaloosa County Attorney were also in attendance. Representing Bluewater Management Services were Darlane Landsberger, Laura Cohen and Megan Alford. Brittany Bair from The Cottage was present along with two characters from “Frozen”, the movie. Announcements Ms. Stretch announced that the next Public Board Meeting will be on August 11, 2015 at 6:00 pm at the Bluewater Management Services Conference Room, 4400 Hwy 20, East Suite 311 Niceville Florida. Approval of Minutes A. Approval of the June 9, 2015 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes Ms. Griffin made a motion to approve the June 9, 2015 Board of Directors Meeting Minutes. This was seconded by Mr. Boswell, none opposed. Committee Reports A. Communication - 1. Community Events 1. July 31, 2015 Movie Night Details Mr. Boswell discussed the details of the movie night which will be held at the Bluewater Bay Resort Golf Club driving range on Bluewater Boulevard. The movie “Frozen” will begin at 7:30 p.m. Many local vendors have donated their services in support of this event. CHELCO has agreed to provide banners and other advertising methods to help with the program. See the attached Summer Movie Night flyer for details. B. Finance – Felix Beukenkamp 1. Discussion of Assessments and Legal Opinion – Ms. Stretch Ms. Stretch reported: Comment: Our assessment increase of $3 was declined by the County. The first reason that Darlane received stated we did not follow Statute 197.3632 (4)(a) which reads in part……“all Non-Ad Valorem tax districts have to complete all of their statutory requirements by the June 15th date. If they are doing an Page 1 of 8 increase (MSBU’S) they can only increase up to the amount indicated within their Ordinance, and must complete their statutory requirements such as, advertisement of a meeting, notify all homeowners of the meeting by mailing each one a notice by first-class mail.” A local government shall adopt a non-ad valorem assessment roll at a public hearing held between January 1 and September 15 if: 1. The non-ad valorem assessment is levied for the first time; 2. The non- ad valorem assessment is increased beyond the maximum rate authorized by law or judicial decree at the time of initial imposition; 3. The local government’s boundaries have changed, unless all newly affect property owners have provided written consent off such assessment to the local governing board; or 4. There is a change in the purpose for such assessment or in the use of the revenue generated by such assessment. Comment: Having breached none of the above thresholds the Bluewater Bay MSBU Board has met the obligations of the Statue and should be able to increase the assessment up to the 5% allowed in the Ordinance. Comment: Only if the MSBU is classified as a governing body does 4(a) apply and only after meeting the threshold. According the MSBU Ordinance, in section 2 it clearly states the Board of County Commissioners is the governing body. We were to do a mail out to all parcels in Bluewater Bay. This would have cost us approx. $5,000 for the mail out. In Pete Smiths e-mail to Greg Stewart it suggested a designated representative of the MSBU meet with the county attorney to have the tax roll submittal process explained in hopes that there will be no problem in timely submitting their 2016 roll data. There were also some e-mails that said we did not meet our deadlines. Comment: Debbie Stretch asked attorney Mike Chesser, who wrote the Ordinance, if my understanding of our ordinance and statute 197.3632 was correct. He stated that he believed I was correct and only if the MSBU raised the assessment above 5% would 197.3632 apply. Comment: Darlane Landsberger and Debbie Stretch met with Kelly Windes this morning to discuss the assessment issue and a few other things. Response: Mr. Windes will speak to both attorneys to try to find a resolution or a compromise. The budget and assessment has been set for the next cycle and we should work on a solution for the future. Comment: We talked about the Bluewater Bay drainage issue and asked why the Board of County Commissioners offered to loan the MSBU $20K to cover the Lake Drainage Grant share. Response: Felix Beukenkamp approached Mr. Windes and said that the MSBU had no money to fund the share. He was trying to help. Comment: There was not prior Board approval for this action. I have no knowledge of the Board discussing or approving a representative to approach the BCC for a loan. Also, there was no prior Board approval for the Lake Drainage Grant submitted to the BCC, earlier this year. I found out about it an article in the Bay Beacon. Response: Surprised that this situation occurred. Comment: What function does the County Attorney serve for the BCC? What are his qualifications? Page 2 of 8 Response: The County Attorney, Greg Stewart provides legal advice and guidance to the BCC. He is affiliated with one of the premier municipal law firms in Florida and is invaluable to the legal operation of the BCC. Comment: What budgetary authority does the Public Works Department have in relation to the MSBU? Response: None. Discussion: The Public Works Department works with the MSBU to insure the County right-of-ways within Bluewater Bay are properly maintained per the Ordinance. They sign off on all disbursements for the MSBU but have not authority to impact budgets or assessments. Comment: Since the sidewalks have been deemed to belong to the County and are a capital improvement is there a possibility that the County could share the cost of Bluewater Bay sidewalks? Response: It is certainly something that can be discussed. No action can be taken, yet. Comment: Some of the entities serving the MSBU are: Okaloosa Board of County Commissioners County Attorney, County Clerk of Court - Finance Department, Tax Collector, Public Works and Tax Assessor. Ms. Stretch asked Mr. Stewart for comments. Mr. Stewart introduced himself as the attorney for Okaloosa County and explained that his law firm only represents government entities. He discussed the MSBU assessment increase issues: The first problem is that the increase is placed on the tax bill. The Property Appraiser, Mr. Pete Smith, and MSBU entered into an agreement for Mr. Smith to merge assessments on the tax bill. In order for the increase to take effect, the assessment increase must be placed on the Trim Notice which goes out to all the Bluewater Bay property owners. Under the agreement, the MSBU must submit the changes no later than June 15th. Mr. Stewart stated that Mr. Smith reported that the MSBU did not meet the deadline and the Trim Notice has already been sent to the Department of Revenue and has been approved with no increase. Ms. Landsberger reported that the MSBU met the June 15 th deadline and provided the information on Friday, June 12, 2015. Mr. Steward stated that if that is the case then the MSBU Board should take it up with the Tax Assessor’s office or directly with Mr. Smith. Mr. Stewart stated that he attempted to set up a meeting with representatives of the MSBU and the Tax Assessor. Mr. Smith’s office was uninterested in meeting. The second problem with the proposed increase was Florida Statute 197.3632 which has certain requirements. The Statute requires notices be published sent via USPS 20 days before the meeting where the increased is discussed. The MSBU Ordinance allows for an increase of up to 5% per year. However, the Statute seems to contradict the Ordinance. Mr. Stewart recommended that the MSBU Board schedule another meeting and follow the requirements in 197.3632 which allows noticing up to September 15th. Ms. Griffin asked if that method would allow an increase for the future year or current year. Mr. Stewart stated can be in effect for the current year. Mr. Beukenkamp asked, if the trim notice could be considered the “mailed notice” for increasing the assessments? Mr. Stewart stated that there are provisions in the Statute that gear towards making the Trim Notice the actual mailed notice, but it would have to be coordinated with Mr. Smith’s office. Mr. Beukenkamp volunteered to speak to Pete Smith about use this method. Page 3 of 8 Mr. Tallman asked if there was documentation that the increase of assessments was received before June 15th. Ms. Landsberger stated that it was sent electronically and mailed Friday, June 12, 2015, as soon as it was executed. Mr. Stewart stated that he would encourage someone from the Board to contact Mr. Smith’s office because it is preferable to have assessments included on the Trim Bill. There is still the cost of mailing which may not be possible with the MSBU budget. Overall, the MSBU ordinance needs to be updated. Mr. Stewart thinks it would be helpful to establish more defined uses and types of services. Also, stricter deadlines should be used so this issue is not brought up again. Ms. Stretch asked if it is easy to update the current ordinance which was voted for by the people in Bluewater Bay. Mr. Stewart stated that it can be changed by the Board of County Commissioners. Just because the original Ordinance was adopted by referendum does not mean changes require a vote of residents. Mr. Tallman asked Mr. Stewart if he had any experience with dismantling an MSBU and converting it to a Master Homeowners Association. Mr. Stewart stated that this has not been done, and the reason why is that there would not be a conversion from an MSBU, rather a Homeowners Association would be created and then the MSBU would be dissolved. The MSBU is a governmental entity, so once there is a replacement for it, it would not be wise to assign governmental powers to a Homeowners Association. Review of June 2015 Financials Mr. Beukenkamp reported the following: · Income: o For the month of June $27, 928.80 was collected in assessments and $806.58 in interest was collected. For a total of $28,738.38 which exceeds what was expected. · Expense: o Spent a total of $19,826.02 for the month of June. Mr. Beukenkamp made a motion to approve the June 2015 Financials. This was seconded by Ms. Griffin, none opposed. 2. 2016 Budget Approval as amended by the County Because the 2016 per unit charge will not increase, Mr. Beukenkamp stated that revenue will be $15,000 less in 2016. He stated that the budget is at $306,000 instead of $358,000. Ms. Landsberger stated that it is a little bit more than 2014-15 due to revision of the tax rolls. Mr. Beukenkamp made a motion to approve the amended budget for 2016. This was seconded by Mr. Tallman, none opposed. Ms. Griffin requested that the budget be submitted a month before the deadline in the future. Ms. Landsberger stated that Ms. Stretch had asked her to put together an annual tasking calendar to enable a clear understanding of county deadlines. It will be available by the next meeting. Landscape Page 4 of 8  1. Landscape Report – Judy Griffin Ms. Griffin reported that the trail