Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Cities should account for tax money's use

Pasco County wants a few answers. That might be all it gets. On Tuesday, commissioners approved the annual checks to the four Pasco cities involved in community redevelopment.

The amount has grown each year as the taxable value within those designated redevelopment areas increases. Under state law, county tax dollars attributed to growth in the cities' tax bases are returned to those municipalities for redevelopment. It's known as tax increment financing.

It's a legitimate redevelopment tool that allows small cities to finance capital improvements. This year, the county is writing four checks totaling just under $3.4-million, with the lion's share earmarked for New Port Richey ($2.24-million) and Port Richey (about $940,000), the two local governments that declared their entire cities blighted.

The rising amount didn't escape notice. Commissioner Ted Schrader wondered if the county can cap the contribution. You can't fault him for asking. The dollars, after all, come from Pasco's general revenue fund, money that otherwise would be available to run county government operations.

But a cap is prohibited and would jeopardize the cities' long-term economic health because some have borrowed against the anticipated future revenue.

County Attorney Robert Sumner posed a more reasonable question: How is this money being spent?

New Port Richey, for instance, used some of the proceeds for personnel costs. It also borrowed against the future revenue to finance the $14-million renovation of its recreation center and to acquire downtown property for future residential and commercial development.

"I haven't seen any correction of the blight. Redevelopment is about correcting blight or poor sanitary or poor housing conditions and things like that," Sumner said Wednesday. "And then the one true redevelopment project (Main Street Landing), they killed."

In Zephyrhills, the stakes aren't nearly so grand. Its modest community redevelopment district is to receive a little more than $72,000 from the county, and the city plans to spend $15,000 to develop a long-term redevelopment plan. Previously, the city used the money for its downtown streetscape project and for parking lot construction.

Then there is Port Richey. Its taxable value has nearly doubled since it declared itself blighted in the spring of 2002, and its council has shown a willingness to use some of the annual allocation to pursue permits to dredge canals abutting residential property. The spending on the permit application continues unabated even though the city has not said how it expects to come up with as much as $14-million needed for the dredging - if the permit allocation passes muster with the state. The idea of allocating all of its redevelopment money for the dredging is unconscionable. Community redevelopment is not intended to enrich waterfront property owners with little tangible benefit to the public.

No wonder Pasco County wonders exactly how its communities are being redeveloped. An accounting should be provided.

[Last modified December 6, 2006, 22:53:38]