Expansion means more tax base. The Villages expansion normally includes development infrastructure (Roads, water, sewers, drainage, lighting, retention ponds, etc). The budget increase discussion is relative to the county and not to incorporated towns. We paid a bond and pay an amenity fee to cover certain expenses such as water, sewer and trash. If the yearly expansion were 3000 homes and some equivalent business development, that expansion would be taxed adding to the county income. For 12 years that I have been here, that expanded tax income has been able to keep up to the additional county budget needs. Incremental cost increases to county expenses such as fire, law enforcement, criminal, retention, road repair, and schools have previously been managed within the increased income from the expanded tax base.
A dramatic increase of 25% needs to be "simply" explained to taxpayers. Are we suddenly adding a new school, unplanned fire station and equipment, replacing aging sheriff vehicles? Perhaps that would normally mean borrowing and associated expenses. Stating that the expansion means more roads to repair and appropriate added Sheriffs, firefighters, and teachers does not explain the increase. Roads have been repaired since day one.
If the increase was inflated to simply later be dropped to 5 or 10 % to give us the feel that we are getting a bargain would mean that we have incompetent county watchdogs.
Yes The Villages are a bargain but 25% is not a $1 a day as someone suggested.
|