Thank you, the link worked. I would not have clicked that title for impact fee information.

I was a little surprised by the phrasing used for that information but the disclaimer explained it well.

To follow the logic here, if $4000 is comical for a young couple buying a first home then the couple of hundred dollars retired villagers are complaining about is really comical. Did they not budget in price increases for their golden years. Can not argue that the paper is less than one sided but that and the social media are not where people should get their facts. There are open meetings that probably would be a better place to get information.

Totally agree that things need to change on both sides of the equation but to say it will not have an effect on business I believe is short sighted. A growth in population does not mean that budget and taxes from 15 years ago are still valid in the current environment. Concrete cost is nowhere near what it was when the last tax increase occurred, salaries are higher, do not even start to talk about benefits for employees and you could go on and on.

It seems that there has been a failure or lack of ability to budget and prepare for the future. This needs to be a resolved with all the parties involved with logical proven facts not innuendos and hysteria.

Your bond does not pay for the roads. It covers rec centers, pools, golf courses and other amenities. The impact fee is what is supposed to cover the cost of the roads. If all the new roads weren't needed the tax would not of needed to be increased by 25%. The only reason the roads are needed are so that the developer can continue to build. We as the tax payer should not have to subsidize the builder.

Impact fee issue and daily sun front page
 

Bottom Line Upfront: I support increasing the Impact fee paid by the developer. I do not understand all the “ins and outs” of impact fees and there is no clear comparison that I have found that compares “apples to apples” in this area. I do understand that:
1. If the developer does not pay the full cost ofi mpact; taxpayers must pay it. The only question is how much is shifted from developer to taxpayer.
2. The developer may physically pay the impact fee but that fee is amortized over time in the building rent and ultimately the users will pay that fee; not the developer.
3. While the Commissioners may not wish to burden the developer for the full impact cost, they certainly can increase it to be at or slightly above surrounding areas which should not erode any growth.
4. Any increase in a house price as a result of the impact fee would only be the difference between what is not paid and what the new rate is and that increase would be again amortized over a 30- or 15-year loan; not even noticeable to a majority of the buyers.

I was annoyed that the Daily Sun chose to put what looked like its editorial page on the front page of the paper as I did not find the answers to present both sides of the issue. My take on each question and answer is as follows:
1. Villages should pay their fair share. Paper reported the developer paid a lot of moneyt o the country…yes that is true because they built a lot of places. If they had a higher impact fee, the country would have gotten even more and taxpayers saddled with a bit less.
2. Independent report did not provide a recommendation. That was true however, it would be difficult for me to read and understand all the tables. What I got from the report was the fully burdened cost of the impact was $6,444 dollars and the developer is paying less than that. Other counties do their impact fees differently by having multiple districts, one flat fee etc. which makes comparison difficult. Daily Sun in their multi page county comparison did not help with an accurate comparison.
3. Developer reaps all benefits and pays nothing for other services. A self-serving question with its own self-serving answer. Developer pays impact fees that are direct fees allocated only to the project (which they recoup in rental fees over time from the business) and property taxes which they also recoup either in rental fees or tax incentives.
4. Higher fees will wipe out 25% tax increase. Question and answer mixes impact fee and county taxes to confuse the issue. There is no evidence that the current board will cut services and growth may actually pay for increased services.
5. New roads won’t benefit anyone who already lives here. Maybe, maybe not. If the developer does not pay full loaded cost of impact fees, taxpayer will no matter if they use the roads or not. The county taxpayer will certainly pay for the upkeep over the next 25 years and the replacement after that.
6. Increase if levied just on big business who can afford it. Article is correct that the impact fee will affect all taxpayers when levied, the only question is how much.
7. Adding 1,458 to the existing rate will not deter retiree from buying here. I agree with the statement and not the answer provided. $1,458 added to a home cost anywhere in the county spread over a 15- or 30-year mortgage will not add significantly to the cost and is probably less than the cost to upgrade from builder grade carpet to something nicer.
8. Increase has no effect of current property values. Paper answers with the standard developer’s soundbites which can neither be proven or disproven. Again, would a $1,458increase drive someone away from this county with all those buyers to another with no buyers; I think not.
9. Small businesses will be fine. Paper argues that pandemic has closed businesses and now is not the time to raise fees. This is an impact fee on new construction not old construction where the fee has already been paid. In any case, businesses borrow money at 1%and again amortize the cost over time as well as receive many tax benefits. Should not be an issue
10. Bill moving through Tallahassee is work of the Developer. Sure, seems like it. Why isTallahassee even concerned over what Sumter County does and IF it was such a concern why not have a bill that eliminates all impact fees state wide…that would really benefit all developers and negatively hurt taxpayers.
11. Daily Sun can’t be trusted. I would only say that the Daily Sun’s reporting tends to be biased in many ways in how a story is presented or even what stories are presented. Article would have been more believable if it had provided some “pros” to impact fees as when they were enacted a lot of forks thought it was a good idea and many counties still do.
Bottom Line: I support increasing the Impact fee paid bythe developer.

I do believe the impact fee should be raised to the developer and all others who build here.

How much is a good question and let the two sides come to a fair agreement.

The Daily Sun article today is a disgrace to good journalism especially the last paragraph of their story.

I would have a better opinion of the paper if they put above the story we are owned by the developer and this is what he wants to tell the people who live here. Of course that will never happen.

There's no "agreement".
The County sets the fee schedule.

The bond pays for all the infrastructure WITHIN each new village. It pays for the streets, roads, utilities, amenities, water and sewer lines, etc. WITHIN each new village. The bond does NOT pay for improvements to existing county network roads nor for new county network roads and was never meant to pay for them. New buyers to each new village, pay for all of the infrastructure for their village through their bond. The impact fee cannot be used for maintenance costs of existing roads but can be used for improvements to existing county network roads and to needed new county network roads. While I may never drive on a road or street within any village south of 44, I will and do drive on county network roads south of 44 when I go to Orlando or Fort Lauderdale or Lakeland. The network roads benefit not only those going to and from the newer villages south of 44, but they also benefit all county residents and visitors that travel from the south to the north in Sumter County as well as those of us living north of 44 that travel from north to south through Sumter County to cities to the south. So I don't view my taxes as subsidizing the builder, but helping the county provide safe and efficient network roadways.

Despite the Developer's dirty tricks and propaganda campaign, the impact fee/rollback-the 25%-property-tax increase issue was decided, by the voters, in the last election. There is no reason to re-debate now.

The EMS Team of County Commissioners needs to simply do what they promised to do in their campaign: Increase the Developer's sweetheart impact fee and roll back the 25% property-tax hike correspondingly.

There should be no "negotiation" with the Developer. That is crazy. Did you negotiate your income-tax rate with the federal government?

Today's headline "article" in the Developer's Daily Sun is laughable. In addition to all the lies and distortions, it nowhere mentions that the increased impact fees would be matched by a decrease in property taxes.

The newspaper editors would have mentioned that but they would have been fired and marched off the property if they had done so.

There are only two things that you can’t escape. “ Death and Taxes”