[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by TimeForChange

So your property tax goes up $300 per year. I moved from another place in the SE where property tax was almost twice what it is here. TV is growing, roads have to be built etc. If you didn't plan for some increase in retirement I'm sorry.

We planed for our expenses to go up based on the CPI, not by 25%. Since a good portion of our income is tied to the CPI, seeing a 25% increase in property taxes takes a bite out of our discretionary spending budget. Is it not unreasonable to expect our government officials to be fiscally responsible, just like seniors on a fixed budget have no choice but to be?

[Aw Man]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

We planed for our expenses to go up based on the CPI, not by 25%. Since a good portion of our income is tied to the CPI, seeing a 25% increase in property taxes takes a bite out of our discretionary spending budget. Is it not unreasonable to expect our government officials to be fiscally responsible, just like seniors on a fixed budget have no choice but to be?

If the property tax millage rate increased each year based on the CPI we would NOT have had tax decreases each of the past 6 years and the millage rate for next year would be even HIGHER (7.018) than the current proposed rate (6.7).
The Sumter County property tax millage rate was above 6.0 from 2009/2010 through 2013/2014 with the highest millage rate being 6.35 for 2012/2013.
If the proposed millage rate of 6.7 for 2019/2020 is approved, this would represent only a 5.5% increase to the 6.35 rate we were all paying in 2012/2013.
If the 2012/2013 millage rate of 6.35 had automatically increased each year based on the annual Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustments (CPI-W), then the proposed millage rate for 2019/2020 would be 7.018, an 11.5% increase to the rate we were all paying in 2012/2013.

[biker1]

You can't just look at the millage rate by itself. It is the millage rate times the total assessed value of the property in the county that matters. The millage rate has been rolled back for the last several years.

Originally Posted by Aw Man

If the property tax millage rate increased each year based on the CPI we would NOT have had tax decreases each of the past 6 years and the millage rate for next year would be even HIGHER (7.018) than the current proposed rate (6.7).
The Sumter County property tax millage rate was above 6.0 from 2009/2010 through 2013/2014 with the highest millage rate being 6.35 for 2012/2013.
If the proposed millage rate of 6.7 for 2019/2020 is approved, this would represent only a 5.5% increase to the 6.35 rate we were all paying in 2012/2013.
If the 2012/2013 millage rate of 6.35 had automatically increased each year based on the annual Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustments (CPI-W), then the proposed millage rate for 2019/2020 would be 7.018, an 11.5% increase to the rate we were all paying in 2012/2013.

[Aw Man]

Originally Posted by biker1

You can't just look at the millage rate by itself. It is the millage rate times the total assessed value of the property in the county that matters. The millage rate has been rolled back for the last several years.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. It's the county commissioner's proposed 25% increase to last years millage rate that has many of the posters upset or concerned.

Several posters have said they believe the commissioner's budget process seems arbitrary or flawed and they feel it would be better if annual changes to the millage rate were tied to the CPI.

My post above just makes the point that if the commissioners had used the CPI the last 6 years we would not have had 6 years of decreased millage rates and next years millage rate would actually be higher, at 7.018, than it will be if the current proposed millage rate of 6.7 is approved.

Yes, your total annual property tax amount is determined by dividing the taxable value of your property by 1,000 and then multiplying the result by the millage rate. But the county commissioners and their proposed 25% increase have nothing to do with establishing the taxable value of your property.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

We planed for our expenses to go up based on the CPI, not by 25%. Since a good portion of our income is tied to the CPI, seeing a 25% increase in property taxes takes a bite out of our discretionary spending budget. Is it not unreasonable to expect our government officials to be fiscally responsible, just like seniors on a fixed budget have no choice but to be?

Talking percentages is like a blind man touching the tusk or an elephant and concluding it is made of ivory ;-)

Devil is in the complex details well documemted in this thread,

I had a similar reaction until I comprehended this is an increase in just the county tax portion of the tax bill. It is not a 25% increase in the total property tax. Net increase if I understand correctly is less than a dollar a day for 300K property.

[biker1]

My point is you can't just look at the millage rate. Your taxes are your assessed value times the millage rate. There is no reason why the millage rate would have been tied to the CPI so I don't understand your point in making that comment. If the millage rate didn't change and the assessed value of each home didn't change, the county would realize about a 4% increase in revenue from the 2400 new homes built in Sumter each year. You can get any tax revenue you want by modifying the assessed value so concentrating on just the millage rate is not useful. The millage rate has been rolled back in the past after the total assessed values were determined to hit a specific revenue target. You also need to consider changes to the assessed values. I thought that was clear enough.

Originally Posted by Aw Man

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. It's the county commissioner's proposed 25% increase to last years millage rate that has many of the posters upset or concerned.

Several posters have said they believe the commissioner's budget process seems arbitrary or flawed and they feel it would be better if annual changes to the millage rate were tied to the CPI.

My post above just makes the point that if the commissioners had used the CPI the last 6 years we would not have had 6 years of decreased millage rates and next years millage rate would actually be higher, at 7.018, than it will be if the current proposed millage rate of 6.7 is approved.

Yes, your total annual property tax amount is determined by dividing the taxable value of your property by 1,000 and then multiplying the result by the millage rate. But the county commissioners and their proposed 25% increase have nothing to do with establishing the taxable value of your property.

[AzAuSenior]

For both of the tax items (10% sales / 25% property tax increase), there is a permanent answer. We must take citizen self-action. The sooner the better. The solution takes a long time and there no other approaches to a permanent solutions.
We are a retirement state and our senior citizens are especially vulnerable to tax increases. Many are on fixed incomes or even worse have finite financial resources and can’t cope with double digit percentage cost increases. We can stop this process now to protect our future tax costs.
The state of Florida allows for referendum (Google: “Florida Referendum” for information on Florida State Referendum). We must take citizen action to make laws to protect ourselves as was done in California in 1978 with Proposition 13 (the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation). The 1978 Proposition 13 (Google: "1978 California Propostion-13" for information about Limit Property Taxation Referendum) is referred to as a “taxpayer revolt”. It was brought about by hefty tax increases as are proposed for Sumter County.
We must protect ourselves, as was done in California, by using the Florida process for referendum to make legislation that protects the taxpayers from exorbitant tax increases as was done with the 1978 Proposition 13. We must modify Proposition 13 to suit our needs to protect taxpayers from current and future tax increases and pass the modified Proposition by Florida state Referendum.
The pressure is on and the time to get a referendum passed is years. As more and more people relocate to Florida, state and local government will want to jump to the easy solution: raise taxes. A taxpayer referendum will stop this process. No more maneuvers like: raising the tax rate one year followed by raising the assessment the next year and then repeating the cycle to move tax increase passed the taxpayers. A modified form of Proposition 13 passed by Referendum in Florida will not allow a taxpayer’s bottom line taxes to be increased by a fixed amount as specified by the new Referendum.

[eyc234]

While I agree that we should be wary, cognizant and on guard of government as a long time centrist I would have even more concerns with anything the comes from California as being better. Let's see what the powers that be have to say at the upcoming meeting before we make drastic and potentially negative moves.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by AzAuSenior

For both of the tax items (10% sales / 25% property tax increase), there is a permanent answer. We must take citizen self-action. The sooner the better. The solution takes a long time and there no other approaches to a permanent solutions.
We are a retirement state and our senior citizens are especially vulnerable to tax increases. Many are on fixed incomes or even worse have finite financial resources and can’t cope with double digit percentage cost increases. We can stop this process now to protect our future tax costs.
The state of Florida allows for referendum (Google: “Florida Referendum” for information on Florida State Referendum). We must take citizen action to make laws to protect ourselves as was done in California in 1978 with Proposition 13 (the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation). The 1978 Proposition 13 (Google: "1978 California Propostion-13" for information about Limit Property Taxation Referendum) is referred to as a “taxpayer revolt”. It was brought about by hefty tax increases as are proposed for Sumter County.
We must protect ourselves, as was done in California, by using the Florida process for referendum to make legislation that protects the taxpayers from exorbitant tax increases as was done with the 1978 Proposition 13. We must modify Proposition 13 to suit our needs to protect taxpayers from current and future tax increases and pass the modified Proposition by Florida state Referendum.
The pressure is on and the time to get a referendum passed is years. As more and more people relocate to Florida, state and local government will want to jump to the easy solution: raise taxes. A taxpayer referendum will stop this process. No more maneuvers like: raising the tax rate one year followed by raising the assessment the next year and then repeating the cycle to move tax increase passed the taxpayers. A modified form of Proposition 13 passed by Referendum in Florida will not allow a taxpayer’s bottom line taxes to be increased by a fixed amount as specified by the new Referendum.

And what services do you propose cutting? If the revenue doesn't match the expenses either the revenue has to go up or the expenses have to go down. You are apposed to the proposed increases to fund the current spending plan so what austerity measures are proposed?

Don't use the favorite of many in Washington of raising taxes on businesses, businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them and pass the money on to the government. Everything we buy or do with our money goes to a business, when you add an extra layer or two on to the tax/revenue stream it always costs more than without the middleman. The bottom line is we, the consumer/taxpayer, end up paying more.

The current 24% is the maximum and does not reflect all the budgetary numbers to determine the final amount. It will be less.

The budget proposed reflect 14 years of public officials patting themselves on the back for no tax increases, now it comes back to haunt them. It also reflects 14 years of public disinterest, of not getting involved, of citizens not carrying out their own basic civic responsibilities. Doubt my words, check the normally monthly attendance of the county board meetings or CDD meeting. Thousands of residents and hardly a one makes the time to get involved. We are all to blame for the pending tax increase. It's time to make some hard decisions.

[AzAuSenior]

I appreciate your reply, GoldWingNut; and I appreciate your videos. Keep up the good work. The map orientations help considerably for context in the newer videos.
A modified Prop 13 (a.k.a. “Prop 2½”) would take years to push through the Florida state process. It will not do anything to stave off an increase of the type(s) being considered / discussed today. What it will do is eliminate consideration of such unreasonable increases in the future, and I predict that the pressure to increase taxes will only increase. Since there is no limitation on tax increase, we will continue to face the problem again and again in the future. Prop 13 / Prop 2½ has many parts, most of which are valuable protection to the taxpayer. One part is the limit of 2½% per year increase of the total property tax paid by a taxpayer unless ratified by the electorate. Since 1978, a period of 41 years, the Prop 2½ has been in operation in the state of California, and California has continued to thrive. Florida offers no such taxpayer protection to its taxpayers; and, without the protection of a Prop 2½, we will be back in this situation again an unpredictable number of times in the future (Proof: We’re here now or we wouldn’t be having this discussion). It only makes sense to limit the taxation powers of the government with a Prop 2½ type legislation. Legislation which can be only produced by the taxpayers through Referendum, since legislatures will never produce this type of legislation on their own.
But, be advised, the Referendum process since its inception in Florida has been made increasingly difficult by the legislators:
“The state’s elected officials have not always been comfortable with the initiative process, and have repeatedly tried to curtail citizen lawmaking. The legislature placed Amendment 3 on the ballot raising the approval requirements to 60 percent for initiated constitutional amendments. With the passage of Amendment 3, Florida became one of only two states in the nation to require a supermajority for constitutional amendments, and the only initiative state with such a requirement. Since then, three initiatives have received majority support, but failed to reach the 60 percent threshold.”
We are in for a struggle to make an initiative law through referendum. But, even with the odds stacked against us, this initiative it should be possible to produce limitation on taxation.

[AzAuSenior]

I appreciate your reply, GoldWingNut; and I appreciate your videos. Keep up the good work. The map orientations help considerably for context in the newer videos.
A modified Prop 13 (a.k.a. “Prop 2½”) would take years to push through the Florida state process. It will not do anything to stave off an increase of the type(s) being considered / discussed today. What it will do is eliminate consideration of such unreasonable increases in the future, and I predict that the pressure to increase taxes will only increase. Since there is no limitation on tax increase, we will continue to face the problem again and again in the future. Prop 13 / Prop 2½ has many parts, most of which are valuable protection to the taxpayer. One part is the limit of 2½% per year increase of the total property tax paid by a taxpayer unless ratified by the electorate. Since 1978, a period of 41 years, the Prop 2½ has been in operation in the state of California, and California has continued to thrive. Florida offers no such taxpayer protection to its taxpayers; and, without the protection of a Prop 2½, we will be back in this situation again an unpredictable number of times in the future (Proof: We’re here now or we wouldn’t be having this discussion). It only makes sense to limit the taxation powers of the government with a Prop 2½ type legislation. Legislation which can be only produced by the taxpayers through Referendum, since legislatures will never produce this type of legislation on their own.
But, be advised, the Referendum process since its inception in Florida has been made increasingly difficult by the legislators:
“The state’s elected officials have not always been comfortable with the initiative process, and have repeatedly tried to curtail citizen lawmaking. The legislature placed Amendment 3 on the ballot raising the approval requirements to 60 percent for initiated constitutional amendments. With the passage of Amendment 3, Florida became one of only two states in the nation to require a supermajority for constitutional amendments, and the only initiative state with such a requirement. Since then, three initiatives have received majority support, but failed to reach the 60 percent threshold.”
We are in for a struggle to make an initiative law through referendum. But, even with the odds stacked against us, this initiative it should be possible to produce limitation on taxation.

[Velvet]

The snowbirds and snowflakes can’t even get to the meetings physically, they need a clear way of being counted too in any votes - if that process means anything to anyone. Otherwise, it’s just someone steam roading their will and trying to make it look like a democratic process.

Revenue does have to cover expenditure, but the people asked, forced to pay the taxes don’t seem to have much say on what the expenditure is spent on. I think the higher the transparency probably the higher the understanding and cooperation.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

We planed for our expenses to go up based on the CPI, not by 25%. Since a good portion of our income is tied to the CPI, seeing a 25% increase in property taxes takes a bite out of our discretionary spending budget. Is it not unreasonable to expect our government officials to be fiscally responsible, just like seniors on a fixed budget have no choice but to be?

They "fiscally responsibled" themselves into debt. By not spending when they should have, in order to boast about how much they were saving for the constituents, the infrastructure and other services were neglected. Now, instead of maintenance, they need repairs. Someone has to pay for it, since no one paid for the maintenance.

You would've had to pay all along, if they were being TRULY "fiscally responsible." You just would've paid it gradually.

Being "fiscally responsible" doesn't mean cutting corners and not spending money. It means spending it efficiently on things that need spending on, to prevent having to spend even more on those things when something goes wrong.

That ALSO means including into a budget a significant buffer of funds, which apparently they didn't do. My town up north is fiscally responsible. Our taxes are high, but we have top-notch services. Our roads are taken care of; this year every major road in the town is being repaved. We have snow removal services and own all the machinery needed and the crew is all trained. We have our own EMS system. We have our own town police and 911 dispatch and multiple fire department houses. We have some of the best schools in the state, which are some of the best schools in the country.

We have enough funding to handle at least the immediate recovery of disaster mitigation; clearing roads, moving trees, getting live wires off the roadways, redirecting traffic around floods, etc.

Our taxes also cover the cost of weekly trash pickup, bi-weekly recycling pickup, yard waste pickup, and twice yearly bulk pickup. And we have our own town dump, where we have solar panels built on the side of the "hill" and that solar energy from that one location powers every single official town building in the town.

We also have comprehensive senior services, including low-income senior housing partially funded by the state, partially by the fed, and partially funded by the town. We have a senior community center which, while nothing compared to the Villages, is pretty significant for our low-volume senior population. We have a couple of public parks that are maintained in part by the town, with state and federal fund assistance.

THIS is "fiscal responsibility." Making sure the constituents have what they need to live safe, comfortable lives and their kids offered excellent educational backgrounds from which they can thrive in adulthood.

We pay for it. That is OUR responsibility to the town.

I'm not suggesting that you should expect to pay as much as we do for our services in our town.

I'm suggesting, however, that what you thought you would automatically be getting, you haven't been paying for. And now it's time to pay for it, because the town has to play catch-up with costs vs. services.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

They "fiscally responsibled" themselves into debt. By not spending when they should have, in order to boast about how much they were saving for the constituents, the infrastructure and other services were neglected. Now, instead of maintenance, they need repairs. Someone has to pay for it, since no one paid for the maintenance.

You would've had to pay all along, if they were being TRULY "fiscally responsible." You just would've paid it gradually.

Being "fiscally responsible" doesn't mean cutting corners and not spending money. It means spending it efficiently on things that need spending on, to prevent having to spend even more on those things when something goes wrong.

That ALSO means including into a budget a significant buffer of funds, which apparently they didn't do. My town up north is fiscally responsible. Our taxes are high, but we have top-notch services. Our roads are taken care of; this year every major road in the town is being repaved. We have snow removal services and own all the machinery needed and the crew is all trained. We have our own EMS system. We have our own town police and 911 dispatch and multiple fire department houses. We have some of the best schools in the state, which are some of the best schools in the country.

We have enough funding to handle at least the immediate recovery of disaster mitigation; clearing roads, moving trees, getting live wires off the roadways, redirecting traffic around floods, etc.

Our taxes also cover the cost of weekly trash pickup, bi-weekly recycling pickup, yard waste pickup, and twice yearly bulk pickup. And we have our own town dump, where we have solar panels built on the side of the "hill" and that solar energy from that one location powers every single official town building in the town.

We also have comprehensive senior services, including low-income senior housing partially funded by the state, partially by the fed, and partially funded by the town. We have a senior community center which, while nothing compared to the Villages, is pretty significant for our low-volume senior population. We have a couple of public parks that are maintained in part by the town, with state and federal fund assistance.

THIS is "fiscal responsibility." Making sure the constituents have what they need to live safe, comfortable lives and their kids offered excellent educational backgrounds from which they can thrive in adulthood.

We pay for it. That is OUR responsibility to the town.

I'm not suggesting that you should expect to pay as much as we do for our services in our town.

I'm suggesting, however, that what you thought you would automatically be getting, you haven't been paying for. And now it's time to pay for it, because the town has to play catch-up with costs vs. services.

What city are you speaking of so we can fairly compare.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Velvet

The snowbirds and snowflakes can’t even get to the meetings physically, they need a clear way of being counted too in any votes - if that process means anything to anyone. Otherwise, it’s just someone steam roading their will and trying to make it look like a democratic process.

Revenue does have to cover expenditure, but the people asked, forced to pay the taxes don’t seem to have much say on what the expenditure is spent on. I think the higher the transparency probably the higher the understanding and cooperation.

The transparency is there, under Florida Law what is commonly know as the Sunshine Law all public business is open to the public including all meetings and documents. Unfortunately few people take the time to get involved.

As a District Supervisor for the last 5 years I have been involved in the budgets for CDD-10 and the Project Wide Fund for 5 time over now. In that time there are normally 4 meetings/workshops dedicated each year for each budget. This makes about 40 +/- budget meetings that were open to the public that I was in attendance and during that time the number of people interested in the budget that showed up can be counted on one hand and the number of questions, inquiries, and complaints at these meetings by the public was ZERO!

The only meeting I've seen that anyone had anything to say about budgets was when the AAC & PWAC decided to recommend removal of the deferral cap on the Amenity Fee. What was apparent with the vast majority of the comments was that people didn't read their deed restrictions, believed the hype of realtors who will do or say anything to sell a house, didn't bother to read the information that was put out to the public, and/or have forgotten how the real world works since they have retired. The Supervisors and District Staff involved in the process don't have these luxuries and have to do their homework to make a decision that is best for the long term of the community.

The county meetings have been no different. I've been to about a dozen so far and the room is normally vacant of residents and citizens. Unless there is a pet project that someone has an interest in, people simply don't show up and don't bother to find out the agenda of what is happening. This leaves the Commissioners in a vacuum to make the decisions based on their own best judgement.

The first step to transparency is to be looking, otherwise all the transparency in the world is useless. As much a failure of the County Commissioners to plan ahead and prevent this budget crisis, it is also a failure of us as residents and taxpayers to provide them with our oversight, input, and feedback on their conduct of the everyday business of the county.