• Budget Advisory Committee Home
• Committee Members
• Committee Policy
• Meetings
• Subcommittee Material

• Internal Auditor Home
• Budget Advisory Committee
• Audit Committee Charter Workshop

MEETING: BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEE

1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS: February 1, 2007, at 8:04 a.m., in the Palm Beach County Governmental Center, West Palm Beach, Florida.

   MEMBERS AND OFFICERS PRESENT:

   Commissioner Warren H. Newell, Chairperson
   Robert C. "Bud" Kneip, Economic Council Chairperson
   Ken Nielson, Former City of West Palm Beach Assistant Internal Auditor
   John A. "Jack" Warner, Financial Executive
   Arthur Bernstein, Financial Executive and taxpayer
   Steve Templeton, Templeton & Company, LLP, President
   Carolyn Williams-Smith, Young Women's Christian Association CFO - Absent
   Vivian Valentin, Deputy Clerk

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2007 MEETING

   County Internal Auditor Joseph F. Bergeron stated that there were two changes that needed to be made to the minutes from the January 10, 2007 meeting. He said that Mr. Warner's title should be changed to Financial Executive and that Mr. Warner's name was misspelled in the discussion summary item VIII.

   Mr. Bernstein stated that he wanted to make an addendum to the minutes to add that he had been absent from the January 10, 2007 meeting because it had been scheduled without consultation with committee members.

   Mr. Templeton asked that rather than being identified as an Economic Council member, he would prefer to have his title read Templeton and Company, LLP, President.

   Mr. Nielson clarified that at the last meeting he had asked if it was acceptable under the Sunshine Law to communicate by email with all of the committee members. He said that the way it had been worded, that type of communication would not have been permitted.

   Mr. Bergeron stated that he would make the revisions to the minutes and distribute them to the members.

3. COMMITTEE CALENDAR AND DELIVERABLES

   Mr. Bergeron asked how frequently the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) wanted to meet and suggested that it be no less than once a month.

   Mr. Kneip stated that the wanted to discuss having subcommittees that would delve into specific subject matters and report back to the BAC on a periodic basis. He said that this could reduce the need for the BAC to meet more frequently.

   Discussion ensued and the following comments were made:

   • If the subcommittees were composed of two or more members, then under the Sunshine Law they must schedule, advertise, and conduct their business in an open forum.
     
     
   • The various subcommittees could be composed of one of the BAC members, as well as volunteers or subject matter experts that could help them analyze some of the issues in depth.
     
     
   • It would be an important part of the BAC to have some working groups that would not have to meet in the same forum and would have a free flow of discussion with staff.
     
     
   • In terms of deliverables, they had agreed at the last meeting that they would focus on process.
     
     
   • Since they were still unsure if the BAC's recommendations would have an effect on the FY 2008 budget, they should discuss it further.
     
     
   • The time of the meeting should be reconsidered to make it easier for the public to attend because the BAC could be most effective if its proceedings were transparent and accessible.
     
     
   • There was a consensus to have subcommittees and to have the BAC meet on a monthly basis at 3:30 p.m. on Thursdays.
     
     
4. CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS/REQUIREMENTS

   Assistant County Attorney Lenny Berger clarified that subcommittees had to follow the Sunshine Law even if individuals that were not on the BAC were involved. He said that those discussions still needed to be publicly noticed, and minutes of the meetings needed to be taken and approved.

   He also made the following comments regarding charter amendments:

   • They were done by a referendum or a majority vote by the county electorate.
     
     
   • They needed to be initiated by either an affirmative vote of at least four members of the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) or by petition of at least seven percent of voters qualified to vote in the last general elections.
     
     
   • The proposed amendment would be placed on the ballot on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November or any presidential primary election.
     
     
   • Typically, if the charter amendment was approved in November it would go into effect on January 1st following that election or unless otherwise stated by the amendment itself.
     
     
   • The commission needed to initiate the change in the charter at least 30 days before the election.
     
     
   • If it was the citizens' initiative, the Supervisor of Elections received an additional 45 days to verify the signatures.
     
     
   • The charter was the equivalent of the constitution and it was a broad, general law that survived from one commission to the next.
     
     
   • Having the charter be too detail-oriented would make it very difficult to change if there was an error.
     
     

   Mr. Kneip stated that he was concerned that the conversations from the last meeting regarding efficiency and sharing an accounting platform, may have morphed into discussion of changes in the constitutional structure. He said that he thought the separation of constitutional officers was appropriate and offered valuable protection.

   After a brief discussion, Commissioner Newell stated that the members needed to understand the process but that further discussion of the charter amendment would not be necessary. He also welcomed Clerk and Comptroller Sharon Bock and Sheriff Ric L. Bradshaw to the meeting.

5. GOVERNMENT-WIDE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE DISCUSSION

   Assistant County Administrator Brad Merriman stated that pursuant to the BAC's request, staff had concluded an analysis of the other counties in the state and made the following comments:

   • The state constitution laid out the structure of the county government, such as the elected county commissioners, sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, and clerk of the court.
     
     
   • The only way the county could change the structure of government was to have a charter amendment. Of the 67 counties in the state, 19 had chosen to be charter counties.
     
     
   • A few counties had made major structural changes as a result of the charter, the most significant one being Miami-Dade County.
     
     
   • Miami-Dade County had the property appraiser, supervisor of elections, tax collector, and police department all as county departments. They were the only county in the state that did not have an elected sheriff.
     
     
   • In Broward County the tax collector operated as a county department. Additionally, the accounting and recording duties which were generally duties of the Clerk were operated as county departments. However, all the other constitutional officers functioned the way they did in Palm Beach County.
     
     
   • Duval County was a true hybrid, consolidating city and county governments.
     
     
   • The BCC was the biggest entity by far, and if any of the constitutional officers wanted to avail themselves of the services of the BCC through mutual agreements or conversely, it could be done.
     
     

   Commissioner Newell reminded the BAC that they had not yet determined that efficiencies would result from combining these operations. Mr. Warner stated that his experience in organizations similar to the county, led him to believe that great efficiencies and benefits resulted for all participants. Commissioner Newell responded that there had been several attempts at increasing efficiency and there was a lot of associated trial and error.

   County Administrator Robert Weisman stated that unless it was mandated that the parties share operations, they had generally remained separate. He said that the only shared services the county had were with the Criminal Justice computer operations.

   Mr. Bernstein asked if the BCC could continue having the separation of operations while mandating any type of sharing of overhead services. Mr. Weisman answered that it could not, unless it underwent a charter amendment that would mandate that the services be separate.

6. SUMMARY OF COUNTYWIDE PROGRAMS BY FUNDING SOURCE

   Office of Financial Management and Budget (OFMB), Director of Budget Liz Bloeser referred to the Summary of FY 2007 Adopted Operating and Capital Budgets, listing programs/projects that had been funded by countywide ad valorem, dependant district ad valorem and other revenues sources.

   Discussion ensued and the following comments were made:

   • After OFMB passed out the Budget Instructions Manual to all county departments they would each formulate their own budget needs for the following fiscal year's budget.
     
     
   • Once the departments submitted their budgets to the OFMB, the information would be incorporated into one system, and a package would be prepared for review by the county administrator and his management team.
     
     
   • The county administrator would then decide what would be included in that year's budget.
     
     
   • The BCC had workshops shortly after the property appraiser supplied the OFMB with their values and two public hearings in September to discuss the budget.
     
     
   • There was a little over $86 million in ad valorem funds for capital projects.
     
     
   • The capital projects were approved by the county administrator at his management team meeting and the team's recommendations and department project requests were then presented to the board.
     
     
   • Capital projects priorities were determined at the management team meeting which included department heads.
     
     
   • There were a myriad of reasons why approved capital projects sometimes took months to start, particularly if there was a bond issue involved.
     
     
   • OFMB routinely checked on the county departments for any inactive projects and asked them if they needed more funds. Generally in those situations, the projects were delayed but there was an intent to move forward.
     
     
   • If a project's funds were nearly exhausted, the OFMB would make sure the project was finished before sweeping those unspent funds back into reserves.
     
     
   • The OFMB was currently in the process of sweeping projects in preparation for the FY 2008 budget.
     
     
   • It was suggested that projects be prioritized by importance and potentially sunsetted.
     
     
   • Rarely was a project identified for a specific reason and then deemed unnecessary in the future.
     
     
   • There were no incentives provided to departments regarding capital projects or of a broad general nature to encourage reducing spending.
     
     
   • In terms of the operational budget, the BCC had the most ability to change the county departments, dependent taxing districts, and proprietary departments.
     
     
   • There were some constitutional offices' budgets that the BCC had specific approval authority over, but for the most part they had less influence.
     
     

   Discussion of subcommittees ensued and the following comments were made:

   • If the BAC was contemplating having subcommittees, they should explore the operational and capital budget areas.
     
     
   • Examination of those areas should also include the potential prioritization and sunsetting of projects.
     
     
   • Mr. Kneip agreed to head the subcommittee to examine the capital budget and welcomed any other BAC members that wanted to assist him.
     
     
   • Mr. Templeton stated that he would help Mr. Kneip on the subcommittee and offered to make available some staff from his CPA firm.
     
     
   • The subcommittees could also explore the budget process, shared services, excess funds, and reserves.
     
     
   • Mr. Warner stated that he was primarily interested in examining the budget process.
     
     
   • When asked to what extent a subcommittee could request and share information under the Sunshine Law, County Attorney Denise Nieman responded that with respect to email responses, the key was not to have an exchange of information with each other that would invite discussion or engage in dialogue.
     
     
   • Subcommittees, if composed of two or more members could not participate in discussions except in a public meeting, even if they were not BAC members.
     
     
   • If they could not have a free-flow exchange of ideas and information with staff at a subcommittee level, then an outside consultant should be hired.
     
     
   • A subcommittee could be comprised of just one member without restrictions, if there were no discussions between BAC members.
     
     
   • There was a free flow of ideas among county staff, and they would be extremely cooperative in gathering information.
     
     
   • The BAC agreed with having one-person subcommittees.
     
     
   • Mr. Bernstein stated that he would be examining the operational budget.
     
     
   • Mr. Kneip stated that he would examine the capital portion of the budget by himself.
     
     
   • Mr. Nielson stated that they needed to look at how government was using its resources to accomplish its goals and objectives because it was relative to performance measurements.
     
     
   • The BCC had been considering the possibility of requiring certain disclosures in the government's published financial statements about activities and accomplishments which would make them subject to an audit and would have to be published as part of the county's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
     
     
   • Commissioner Newell clarified that when looking at the operational budget, all the projects labeled in blue on the Summary of FY 2007 Adopted Operating and Capital Budgets were not under the BAC scope.
     
     
7. GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (GFOA) RECOMMENDED BUDGET PRACTICES COMPARISON

   OFMB Director Richard Roberts stated that at the last meeting he had been asked to examine the recommended practices from the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting, and made the following comments:

   • The report contained four principals for ideal budgeting processes that were further broken down into elements that they felt would be an ideal government or countywide process.
     
     
   • The OFMB did not perform many of the elements, such as annual reports, surveys, or town meetings to address the overall goals for the government to use as a basis.
     
     
   • The OFMB did have a budget calendar, a Budget Instructions Manual, and addressed its debt management policies which were some of the recommended practices in the report.
     
     
   • They had not gone through the 59 practices in the report but would do so if directed by the BAC and the county administrator to do so.
     
     

   Discussion ensued and the following comments were made:

   • The first four principles were beyond what could be reasonably asked from the OFMB and should be grappled by the BAC because it fell under the purview of elected officials.
     
     
   • The four principles should be considered by the subcommittees in formulating recommendations to bring back to the BAC.
     
     
   • Mr. Warner stated that the four principles fell under budget process which was the area he wanted to pursue in his research.
     
     
   • The biggest difference between the county and the industry budget practices was that the BCC did not agree on a targeted total spending level at the beginning of the budget process.
     
     
   • Mr. Warner proposed that the BAC vote on a recommendation that the BCC adopt at their next meeting a targeted spending level that would serve as a guide to Mr. Weisman and his staff.
     
     
   • Departments had established workload indicators and performance measures which had been agreed to by the departments and the county administrator.
     
     
   • At some point midyear the departments would report what they had accomplished compared to what they had anticipated and from there, the OFMB and the county administrator would review the reports.
     
     
   • The OFMB looked at the departments expenditures to date and compared the budget to their actual revenues and expenditures.
     
     
8. INACTIVE CAPITAL PROJECTS (CP)

   Ms. Bloeser stated that the CP Status Project Inactivity Report that she had passed out to the BAC showed the projects that had no activity in the last six months and made the following comments:

   • The entire list was reported on the September 30, 2006 CP Status Project Inactivity Report to the BCC and all the department heads.
     
     
   • The report was done every six months as part of the CP Status Project Inactivity Report.
     
     
   • The OFMB would automatically sweep any projects with balances of $10,000 or less that had been inactive for more than six months, or they would wait for the project manager to submit paperwork informing them they were done with the project.
     
     
   • They had started sending a routine memo to the departments reminding them that they had inactive projects and asking them to explain why they should not be swept, or to prepare the paperwork to allow for them to be swept.
     
     

   Mr. Weisman stated that the list was an accumulation of projects from several different budget years.

   Mr. Roberts made the following comments:

   • The projects on the list that had round numbers most likely had not begun yet, and the ones that had odd dollars or smaller figures were projects that were underway but which had some issues that were holding them up.
     
     
   • Many times project managers did not inform the OFMB when their projects were complete and that was why they initiated the routine memos with the departments.
     
     
   • The information was needed for accounting and insurance purposes and for proper recording in financial statements.
     
     

   When asked how many of the projects on the list had been closed out since September 30, 2006, Ms. Bloeser replied that she estimated around twenty projects had been removed from a project line item and added to the reserves since then. She stated that if OFMB closed out a project and then received an unexpected invoice a month later, they had the authority to reestablish enough budget out of the reserve sweeps to pay that invoice. She said that generally, once the money was in reserves, it could only be re-appropriated to a new project by the BCC.

9. TAXWATCH ISSUES

   Mr. Roberts stated that at the last meeting the BAC had received the TaxWatch Report that was dated July 12, 2006, along with the OFMB response and made the following comments:

   • The first TaxWatch finding stated that the overall rate of taxes was high compared to other counties, school districts and municipal governments in the state.
     
     
   • The consultant that performed the report clarified that he had not meant tax (millage) rate.
     
     
   • The county's taxes were the 19th largest per capita in the state. If the consultant had factored in the county's income per capita, the county's figures would have been below the state's and four peer counties' averages.
     
     
   • The second TaxWatch finding stated that the county placed too much money in their reserves.
     
     
   • The consultant had misunderstood some of the comments on the Clerk and Comptroller's financial statements.
     
     
   • The consultant had determined that there was $1.3 billion in reserves, which would be true if they had included capital projects and a variety of other factors that had nothing to do with property taxes.
     
     
   • The important figure to rating agencies and tracked by the county was the general fund unreserved fund balance which was $182 million, a percentage of the county's budget that had not increased.
     
     
   • The county's goal had been to maintain the general fund unreserved fund balance between 25 to 30 percent for expenditures, and they had done so since 2002.
     
     
   • The consultant had included the other sources of reserves but those dollars were not available for tax relief or refunds, and did not relate to anything that the county tracked as far as being available for general government operations.
     
     
   • The report had data on the county's standing compared to other AAA rated counties by Standard and Poor's and they felt that the county was in the middle range of those different counties.
     
     
   • The TaxWatch third finding stated that there was a need for intensive review of capital reserves and county operations, and a quantitative ranking of priorities.
     
     
   • Some of the elements under the third TaxWatch finding had merited incorporation into the county's budget process, but there were others that the county would not recommend doing.
     
     

   Mr. Kneip stated that county residents were having a hard time paying their tax bills and the committee members needed to keep in mind that the purpose of the BAC was to find meaningful relief for those people.

   When asked if it was appropriate to use money from capital projects that had been swept for tax relief, Mr. Roberts responded that if the source of the project's fund was property taxes, then money could be placed back into the general fund for non-capital purposes.

10. COMMENTS
    1. MEMBER COMMENTS

       Discussion on the subcommittees ensued and the following comments were made:

       • Examination of the amount of money that should be kept in reserves would be incorporated into Mr. Warner's subcommittee which would be looking at the budget process. His subcommittee would also study performance measures, service effects of accomplishments, and the TaxWatch issue.
         
         
       • The actual amounts in reserves more aptly fell under the capital budget category, which was Mr. Kneip's scope of research.
         
         
       • Ultimately, the BCC was looking for solid recommendations from the BAC based on the expertise of its members that would have an effect in reducing the tax burden of the community.
         
         
       • Mr. Bernstein would look into the operational budget, specifically the BCC departments, agencies, constitutional officers, and line items. He would be requesting some of that information from Mr. Bergeron.
         
         
       • Shared services would also fall under operational budget consideration because constitutional offices were partially or completely funded by ad valorem tax dollars and it would be important to examine if there were any efficiencies in sharing services.
         
         
       • The BAC had agreed at the last meeting that because of the concept of fungibility, they would not be governed by a narrow definition of their charge, and if they needed to go to the BCC for clarification, they would.
         
         
       • Mr. Nielson stated that the matter of process was big and he was concerned that some of the subsets would not adequately be addressed. He stated that he had gathered a large amount of information in the key areas of performance measures, and service efforts and accomplishments that he could share with the BAC.
         
         
       • It would be easier for the BAC if they gave task assignments to their members rather than calling them individual subcommittees. These assignments would not be a violation of the Sunshine Law.
         
         
       • Objectives to be accomplished in a budget needed to be defined and at the end of the budget process, the outcomes needed to be studied.
         
         

       After a brief discussion of the four principles contained in the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting report, the BAC agreed that Mr. Warner would examine Principles 1-3 and Mr. Nielson would study Principle 4.

       Commissioner Newell reminded the BAC that they needed to focus on the big picture and on the recommendations that would have the most effect.

       Mr. Warner stated that without a policy from the BAC, the county would spend all the money that was available and the county administrator needed guidance on deciding which programs received funding. He added that the BCC should adopt an overall spending cap for the FY 2008 budget at its next meeting.

       Mr. Weisman stated the following:

       • He had never given the BCC a proposal that showed expenditure of all the money received.
         
         
       • He always prepared a target budget based upon anticipated revenues and did so conservatively.
         
         
       • There were always excess revenues that went to the BCC either for return for property taxes or for expenditure, which were typically split.
         
         
       • He did not propose to spend all the money that came in.
         
         

       Mr. Warner clarified that he was addressing the BCC, not staff, as the ultimate decision-making authority.

       Mr. Kneip stated that since it seemed that their ability to immediately impact the FY 2008 budget was somewhat limited, they should freeze FY 2008 budget spending to FY 2007 budget figures. He clarified that the tax-supported portion of the budget should be frozen to prevent increases until the BAC had a better understanding of the complex budget process.

       When asked if they would be freezing FY 2008 at the FY 2007 budget level or at the FY 2007 actual budget spending level, Mr. Roberts answered that they could not freeze at the actual budget spending level because they would not know those figures until after October 1st of the following year. Commissioner Newell added that the freeze would have to be at the FY 2007 budget level.

       MOTION to make a recommendation to the BCC that they enact a spending limit to freeze the FY 2008 budget at the levels of the FY 2007 budget. Motion by Mr. Warner and seconded by Mr. Bernstein.

       Mr. Bernstein asked if the motion would stop consideration of any operating and capital items, such as bond issues, that could impact the total budget making the FY 2008 budget exceed the FY 2007 budget level. Mr. Kneip answered that that was the intent.

       Commissioner Newell stated that he was concerned with constraining bond issues and suggested that they bring back the exact wording at the next BAC meeting.

       Mr. Bergeron stated that giving specific direction on what the BAC wanted to freeze in the budget would be more beneficial. He stated that if they wanted to focus on the amount of money spent, they could manage it based on the amount of revenue that the county was given.

       Mr. Warner responded that the BAC members were suggesting an arbitrary spending level for 2008 because they did not have a true zero-based budget to evaluate and therefore the FY 2007 budget was the only available benchmark. He stated that he would rather keep the wording vague because he was confident that Mr. Weisman would formulate verbiage that would reflect the spirit of what the BAC was intending. He added that to exclude categories of funding would be a mistake.

       Mr. Kneip stated that absent any other kind of benchmark, the only thing the BAC had to manage was the spending cap, not revenue generation of the FY 2007 budget. He said that hopefully in the future they would become better acquainted with the mechanics of the process and would be able to offer more specific direction.

       Mr. Nielson said that there were some built-in spending increases like union contracts that could not be avoided. He added that the mission of the BAC should not be to just reduce taxes but rather to maximize the value to the taxpayers, such as improving services.

       UPON CALL FOR A VOTE, the motion carried 5-1. Mr. Nielson opposed. Ms. Williams-Smith absent.

       Commissioner Newell asked that Mr. Weisman place the recommendation on the agenda for the second BCC meeting in February, making sure to clearly define what the potential effects would be if the recommendation was adopted. Mr. Warner asked that when Mr. Weisman had framed the recommendation and associated impacts that he provide it to the BAC through Mr. Bergeron.

       Mr. Bernstein recommended that Mr. Bergeron establish a website where documents and information could be posted for use by the BAC members and the public, rather than relying on email distribution. Mr. Bergeron replied that he had already contacted the Information Technology Department to begin working on the website.

       There was consensus by the BAC that they would continue working through Mr. Bergeron to distribute information.

    2. PUBLIC COMMENT

       Economic Council President Michael Jones made the following comments:

       • He had extended an open letter to every taxing authority in the county on how they could build a budget with a flat base and rank projects/programs by priority, keeping the essentials for expansion.
         
         
       • If the public was allowed the opportunity to come forward, there would be many taxpayers who would feel that they were paying tax dollars that they were not benefiting from.
         
         
       • The BAC should invite TaxWatch to come to a meeting and explain their recommendations so there could be discussions to determine where the court of public opinion would be. He said he believed that taxpayers would agree with the TaxWatch recommendations.
         
         
       • Year after year, the Budget Instruction Manual included words which signaled that there would be increases to the budget from the previous year and he commended the BAC on its recommendation to freeze the FY 2008 budget.
         
         
       • There was a chart in the TaxWatch report that showed a pattern of spending in the county since 1997 that far exceeded any inflation, population, or personal income growth for the individuals that were paying taxes.
         
         
       • The assumptions that they had traditionally accepted without question needed to be discussed by the BAC, the BCC, the school board, the cities, and all taxing districts in the county.
         
         
       • He urged that they look over a report issued by TaxWatch in December, 2006.
         
         
       • The BAC was limited to ad valorem property taxes but other areas not being considered, such as licensing, permits, and intergovernmental revenue, also had major impacts on the budget.
         
         

       John Hallman asked the BAC if they were going to be taking into consideration that Governor Crist had proposed several initiatives that would decrease revenue to the county over the following few years. He also asked if there was the possibility that the county would approach the state and ask the legislators to stop passing costs to local governments.

       Commissioner Newell responded that any changes in state government would have an effect on the county and that was a continuing problem. He stated that every year the county made its position known to the state on things the board did not support and that would have a major effect on the county. He added that Mr. Hallman's suggestion could be one of the BAC recommendations to the BCC.

       Jupiter, Tequesta, and Hobe Sound Association of Realtors Government Affairs Director Jane Pike stated that the Florida Association of Realtors were supporting a comprehensive property tax reform that they planned to take to the state.

       Commissioner Newell stated that the county's top priority was to have complete comprehensive tax reform at the state level.

       John Early stated that when talking to the BCC, there needed to be specific examples of government waste because if it was generalized it was easy to dismiss. He said that the BAC needed to look at the line-by-line budget of each department to see where the money was being spent.

       Mr. Templeton stated that if there had been some analysis or work that Mr. Early had done, the BAC would be interested in taking a look at it.

       Mr. Weisman stated that the old Budget Oversight Committee did not have citizen input. He stated that allowing public comment would cause an overwhelming amount of people asking for money to be spent and the meeting could become a public forum. He asked that the BAC consider not having public comments in future meetings.

       Discussion ensued and the following comments were made:

       • They would prefer to hear from the taxpayers, but if it became unwieldy they could limit the comments to three minutes like they did in the BCC meetings.
         
         
       • The charge of the BAC was to use the members' expertise to give advice to the BCC.
         
         
       • The BCC heard much public comment, and had heard these comments previously.
         
         
       • There was a consensus to continue hearing from the public until further notice.
         
         
       • The next meeting would be on Thursday, March 1, 2007, at 3:30 p.m., in the McEaddy Conference Room in the Governmental Center.
         
         
       • They would bring back reports on the subcommittees for the next meeting.
         
         
       • Tax relief was a critical issue in the county but they needed to recognize that there were municipalities and over 200 taxing agencies that needed to follow suit with the county in order to make a major impact.
         
         
11. ADJOURN

The chair declared the meeting adjourned at 10:04 a.m.