Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council seeks state review of property‑appraiser budget and directs staff to comment on tax‑collector spending and benefits
Summary
After public concern over CRA use of funds and council questioning of some constitutional‑officer budget decisions, Volusia County directed staff to submit comments to state reviewers about the property appraiser and voted 6–1 to send a similar comment on the tax collector’s budget.
Council members expressed repeated concerns on Sept. 16 about transparency and the fiscal impacts of constitutional‑officer budgets and Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs).
The council voted 7–0 to submit a comment package regarding the property appraiser’s budget to the Florida Administration Commission (staff had requested an opportunity to comment). That vote followed questions about year‑over‑year increases and capital spending that councilmembers said merited a closer look. Councilman Santiago framed it as a transparency request: "If we feel that the system is broken ... this is the time to make the noise," he said, urging staff to submit supporting documentation during the state comment window.
Separately, after extended debate about whether the county’s budget indirectly funds items such as family health coverage and employee bonuses for constitutional officers, the council voted 6–1 to send a similar comment to the Division of Revenue regarding the tax collector’s approved budget and those line items. The dissenting vote argued that staff had since met with the tax collector and found nothing plainly improper; the majority said the council should use the state comment window to ask questions about bonuses and the expansion of family health coverage beyond what the county provides employees.
CRA oversight: Councilman Santiago also asked staff and legal to evaluate individual CRAs to determine whether any are acting outside their enabling ordinances and to report options, including audits or dissolution where appropriate. County manager and planning staff said CRA ordinances vary by city and by vintage, and staff will return with legal options and an implementation plan.
Why it matters: Constitutional officers are elected officials who submit budgets under state law, but the council must adopt some related funding decisions and supplies a public forum where residents attribute county tax increases to these budgets. Councilmembers sought both greater public clarity (a plain‑language TRIM mailing) and an avenue to question or flag questionable items to state reviewers.
Next steps: Staff will prepare and submit the two comment letters within the Division of Revenue/Administration Commission comment windows and will report back on proposed CRA‑oversight audit scope and feasibility.
