Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Guest column

Hearing on tentative budget misses the mark

By DENNIS DAMATO
Published October 17, 2005

As a new county commissioner experiencing the county's budget process for the first time, I thought I would take this opportunity to share with the citizens of Citrus County my observations from the tentative budget hearing, which occurred on Sept. 15.

During the hearing, fewer than 12 citizens addressed the County Commission, most of whom probably have property tax caps from Homestead Exemption and Save Our Homes legislation. Unfortunately, the information they presented was misinformation and had no direct connection to the budget process.

Conversely, there were several items not even mentioned during the public comment portion of the hearing.

Not one person complained of inadequate or poor quality services in our county. Not one new resident as the purchaser of vacant residential/commercial property at current market pricing spoke up. Not one purchaser of new housing (who also may have paid impact fees) or buyer of an existing home at historically higher prices spoke up.

These new residents create the new growth and will pay for their impact through fees and taxes paid on the higher taxable assessed value at the time of their buy-in. It is a prime example of growth paying for growth.

Furthermore, not one existing business owner or buyer of a new commercial enterprise spoke at the hearing. This sector also pays taxes and fees while providing services utilized by all. Our largest taxpayer, Progress Energy, was silent during the process, but was gifted with hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. I feel sure we will not see those dollars returned to the public in reduced rates for electric service.

Recently, a six-year constituent of my district, who is thankful to Citrus County that he recently sold his home for double what he paid for it, was not heard from. The increased value of his home allowed him to move closer to this children and grandchildren by purchasing a new home and setting aside a substantial amount of money for his continued retirement.

With this being said, I feel as though several projects could have been accomplished with the already generated property tax revenues.

Based on sound fiscal planning and prudent public policy, funding could have been provided for two identified goals of our county while still delivering tax relief through a decreased millage rate.

First, $1-million in a "storm recovery" account could have been used as a down payment for surveying, soil borings, planning, architectural/engineering services and utility connections for the new Emergency Operations Center.

Second, $1-million could have been put away to be used as a grant match to further water quality improvement projects. By leveraging these dedicated funds we could have provided more value for our citizens in times of escalating costs. The remaining $1.3-million dollars could have been returned to the taxpayers of Citrus County through the reduction of the property tax millage rate.

In conclusion, any time we can fund with already generated property tax revenues our proposed county budget and aid in the funding of two dedicated, needed, identified projects and still provide tax relief through reduction of the millage rate, this situation should be viewed as a win-win for the citizens of Citrus County.

--Dennis Damato is the county commissioner for District 1. Guest columnists write their views on subjects they choose, which do no necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.

[Last modified October 17, 2005, 01:18:14]