[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

...

The vote occurred last November, and the majority of voters rejected the formation of an independent Villages fire district. If memory serves, for some unknown reason, a vocal group encouraged a no vote claiming it would financially benefit "the developer", who had nothing to do with it. But the emotional argument prevailed at the voting booth. So now you have the cost increase you would have had anyway, but it is now under County, not Village control.

Originally Posted by pokeefe45@aol.com

Very good summation of the 'current situation'. It amazes me how some people's intent is to ensure the 'evil developer's' don't benefit from anything. Why do I care if they benefit from something that will also benefit me? There is no one who can tell us how much this increase might have been-lower or higher, had we voted to authorize the IFD-but having that expense more under OUR (TV) control, rather than lumped in with more disparate interests in the rest of the county, in my mind was a no-brainer. I don't work for TV, nor have any financial interest in anything beyond my own home, but let's get off the 'bash the developer' bandwagon-It's visceral and unfounded. If I see the words 'Katie Belle's' referenced one more time in a social media post, I'm going to take this Lenovo and throw it in an alligator infested retention pond.

I can say that the maximum I would have paid for fire protection under the IFD was $717. It is likely I would have paid less since it is likely the variable Ad-Valorem would not have been maxed out in the first year. I can say that under the proposed budget I will be paying $727 to fund fire protection in the upcoming year.

I will be paying $10 more than the maximum I could have been charged under the IFD and $300 more than what I expected to pay under the IFD.