It is no surprise that a petition seeking a referendum to dissolve the city of Port Richey is flawed.
The petition should not be considered by the council, City Attorney Jerry Figurski recommended last week, because it failed to list the proposed ordinance to dissolve the city and did not consider pertinent issues such as the city's debt and its employees' rights.
In other words, missing information is imperative. We agree. The group of malcontents pushing the referendum hasn't been up front about its motives in the past. We don't mean the five names publicly associated with the referendum committee. Rather, look at the list of former officeholders who signed the petition: Bob Leggiere, Dale Massad, Pat Guttman and Tom Brown.
Leggiere is best known for browbeating city employees in the Building Department, which brought a grand jury investigation. Massad pushed a bingo ordinance for a special interest, and Guttman, Brown and Leggiere carried on private conversations about public business while all three were in elected office. Looking out for the public's best interests has never topped their agenda.
Massad's desire to dissolve the city apparently coincides with voters dismissing him from office in the April election. Ditto for Leggiere's three unsuccessful runs for office since 2000. If the city is so bad, how come they wanted to keep running it?
Although opponents promised a court challenge, the City Council should follow its attorney's advice. Most notably, the failure to spell out the city's indebtedness and other financial issues shows residents have not been given a true accounting of the financial ramifications of folding the city and becoming part of Pasco County.
For instance, several people signing the petition live along the city's waterfront and, in the spring, asked the council for help in getting their canals dredged. Do they understand that doing away with the city government is counterproductive to their goal?
The committee of five people circulating the petition cites the cost of operating a municipal government as its chief motivation. It is dubious reasoning.
The city's property tax rate has been near 5.8 mills since 1999, the year the council approved a 35 percent tax increase to cover the cost of building the new City Hall. Guttman and Leggiere were part of the council that authorized that increase. If the city tax rate is too high, then they share the blame.
Consider, too, that one of the five committee members seeking to dissolve the city, Eugene Reas, paid exactly $2.84 in property taxes last year for city, county, School Board, water management district, river basin board and mosquito control district levies. So much for a huge savings. His $58 solid waste assessment will not disappear even if the city does.
Saving money equates to saving slightly more than 4 mills on city tax bills. City residents are assessed 23.8 mills, and their neighbors in unincorporated west Pasco County are charged 19.7 mills under the tax rates in the current budget year.
To be determined are the city's liabilities, the expense of paying off those debts and how the costs would be shared among current city property owners.
As stated here previously, the push to dissolve the city is premature. Without adequate information, the electorate can't make an educated decision. And without a legally sufficient petition, the City Council has no decision to make.
