Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council backs study of special assessments for RV/mobile‑home sites; public urges careful process for village land sales
Summary
Council signaled support to research a Chapter 170 non‑ad valorem special assessment to charge RV/mobile‑home parks for fire protection services and debated next steps for three village parcels; public speakers urged aligning land decisions with the comprehensive‑plan update and stronger community engagement.
Council discussed a long‑running equity issue for mobile home and RV park properties that do not pay standard ad valorem property taxes but receive municipal fire and emergency services. Mayor Don Horton and village attorney John outlined a path under Chapter 170 to create a non‑ad valorem special assessment (commonly structured with equivalent residential units, or ERUs) to allocate fire protection costs to affected properties.
"It would be under the special assessment statute, which can be found in chapter 170," John told the council, describing the statutory two‑prong justification (special benefit to property and fair apportionment) and the practical steps: procure an assessment consultant, produce an allocation study, hold a public hearing, and adopt rate resolutions.
Councilmembers expressed interest in issuing an RFP for an assessment consultant so staff can identify which properties are receiving a service without paying ad valorem taxes and how a fair ERU allocation would work; members noted consultant upfront costs can typically be rolled into a later assessment if an assessment area is established.
Separately, council continued a debate about three village‑owned parcels (the Machado property, the Island Christian Church site, and the former Island Sugar & Spice property). Habitat for Humanity of the Upper Keys (Scott Goss) urged the council not to rush sale or lease decisions and to use the comprehensive‑plan update, advisory committees and the county housing study to guide long‑term use, recommending single‑family affordable homeownership when appropriate. Public commenters also objected to what they described as a casual decision to place a 'for sale' sign and asked that the village engage broader community process before disposing of public land.
Next steps: staff will prepare an RFP for an assessment consultant to scope the special assessment study and gather data on candidate properties; council directed continued public engagement on village parcels and to align any disposition work with the comprehensive plan update.
