[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Pmarlow

You really need to understand that businesses never pay taxes, they just collect them. These impact fees will be taxes that all users of the business services will pay. So if you expect to by services from local businesses these fees will be included in the cost of the products or services you purchase. Unfortunately though what will also happen is those businesses will not even locate in Sumter county which will mean you won’t be able to get those services or products locally. This is how the real world works. These fees will result in higher cost for all of us and a reduction in the number of providers for us to choose from and is in fact anti business.

Oversimplification.

The impact fees are one-time fees. The property taxes levied in lieu of increasing the impact fees are recurring taxes.

A business might pass the impact fees along to its customers as a higher price but if I am not a customer then I don't help pay that fee. If property taxes are increased to keep the impact fees low then they will affect me and everyone else even if I never enter the business.

The impact fees apply to homes as well and will be paid by the purchaser of the home. Property taxes in lieu of impact fees will be paid by everyone EXCEPT the purchaser of the home.

If paying a portion of the impact a business has on the community is anti-business then forcing homeowners to subsidize a business by paying for that impact in the form of property taxes is anti-homeowner.

Businesses will open wherever they feel they can make money. They certainly will come to places with tens of thousands of existing customers and tens of thousands more customers planned for the future. If taxes are increased and home sales slow or homeowners don't have as much discretionary income then businesses will begin to see a decrease in sales. Fewer sales means less profit means fewer businesses.

So which is more anti-business, a one-time, targeted impact fee that will be passed along to customers or a recurring property tax that will take money out of customer's pockets?

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Oversimplification.
The impact fees apply to homes as well and will be paid by the purchaser of the home. Property taxes in lieu of impact fees will be paid by everyone EXCEPT the purchaser of the home.

Oversimp...............that's me.

Why doesn't the purchaser pay property taxes??????????????????????????????

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Oversimp...............that's me.

Why doesn't the purchaser pay property taxes??????????????????????????????

--- Sorry about that. I should have used a different word.

Once the purchase is complete he will. Hopefully, the infrastructure will have been built before he moves in and therefore paid for by the existing homeowners. Yes, it could be argued that his property taxes will help pay some of the back bills or will pay for some of the improvements that were not yet completed. Certainly, he will be paying for the next neighborhood that gets built.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Oversimplification.

The impact fees are one-time fees. The property taxes levied in lieu of increasing the impact fees are recurring taxes.

A business might pass the impact fees along to its customers as a higher price but if I am not a customer then I don't help pay that fee. If property taxes are increased to keep the impact fees low then they will affect me and everyone else even if I never enter the business.

The impact fees apply to homes as well and will be paid by the purchaser of the home. Property taxes in lieu of impact fees will be paid by everyone EXCEPT the purchaser of the home.

If paying a portion of the impact a business has on the community is anti-business then forcing homeowners to subsidize a business by paying for that impact in the form of property taxes is anti-homeowner.

Businesses will open wherever they feel they can make money. They certainly will come to places with tens of thousands of existing customers and tens of thousands more customers planned for the future. If taxes are increased and home sales slow or homeowners don't have as much discretionary income then businesses will begin to see a decrease in sales. Fewer sales means less profit means fewer businesses.

So which is more anti-business, a one-time, targeted impact fee that will be passed along to customers or a recurring property tax that will take money out of customer's pockets?

Yes but existing homeowners also benefit from increased rate of appreciation in their homes and additional tax base resulting from the development.

[JoMar]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Oversimplification.

The impact fees are one-time fees. The property taxes levied in lieu of increasing the impact fees are recurring taxes.

A business might pass the impact fees along to its customers as a higher price but if I am not a customer then I don't help pay that fee. If property taxes are increased to keep the impact fees low then they will affect me and everyone else even if I never enter the business.

The impact fees apply to homes as well and will be paid by the purchaser of the home. Property taxes in lieu of impact fees will be paid by everyone EXCEPT the purchaser of the home.

If paying a portion of the impact a business has on the community is anti-business then forcing homeowners to subsidize a business by paying for that impact in the form of property taxes is anti-homeowner.

Businesses will open wherever they feel they can make money. They certainly will come to places with tens of thousands of existing customers and tens of thousands more customers planned for the future. If taxes are increased and home sales slow or homeowners don't have as much discretionary income then businesses will begin to see a decrease in sales. Fewer sales means less profit means fewer businesses.

So which is more anti-business, a one-time, targeted impact fee that will be passed along to customers or a recurring property tax that will take money out of customer's pockets?

In this case, business's can get our business and avoid the impact fee by locating in Marion and Lake Counties. The Marion Commissioners were hopeful that the impact tax would occur so they can attract businesses that will pay their lower taxes to their County knowing the Villages will show up if it's the right business. Hopefully the legislature will stop the insanity and pass the bill.

[Pmarlow]

My point is either way you are going to pay and I believe we would be better off if businesses were not taxed for the privilege to provide goods and services to us . As another poster said these businesses will also add a markup to the tax meaning it will ultimately cost us even more than we would have to pay ourselves.

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Oversimplification.

The impact fees are one-time fees. The property taxes levied in lieu of increasing the impact fees are recurring taxes.

A business might pass the impact fees along to its customers as a higher price but if I am not a customer then I don't help pay that fee. If property taxes are increased to keep the impact fees low then they will affect me and everyone else even if I never enter the business.

The impact fees apply to homes as well and will be paid by the purchaser of the home. Property taxes in lieu of impact fees will be paid by everyone EXCEPT the purchaser of the home.

If paying a portion of the impact a business has on the community is anti-business then forcing homeowners to subsidize a business by paying for that impact in the form of property taxes is anti-homeowner.

Businesses will open wherever they feel they can make money. They certainly will come to places with tens of thousands of existing customers and tens of thousands more customers planned for the future. If taxes are increased and home sales slow or homeowners don't have as much discretionary income then businesses will begin to see a decrease in sales. Fewer sales means less profit means fewer businesses.

So which is more anti-business, a one-time, targeted impact fee that will be passed along to customers or a recurring property tax that will take money out of customer's pockets?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Pmarlow

My point is either way you are going to pay and I believe we would be better off if businesses were not taxed for the privilege to provide goods and services to us . As another poster said these businesses will also add a markup to the tax meaning it will ultimately cost us even more than we would have to pay ourselves.

You can keep calling it a tax but it doesn't make it so.

Businesses coming into an area have to pay for the pipes that carry their water, the wires that carry their electricity, the asphalt that covers their parking lots, and the shingles on their roof. All of these are costs for adding a building and a business in that location. Which of these should also be considered a "tax" and funded by the homeowners?

The markup would be paid by those who use the business; the property tax increase is paid by all even if they never go into the business. Why is it better for the Govt to take the money out of your pocket rather than the business taking the money? And that only applies to businesses - why should the Govt to take money out of *your* pocket to pay for the impact of the new neighborhood rather than taking it from the purchasers?

There is a balance to be had with these fees. There is an amount that new development (business and homes) should be charged but there is also a discount to be given to encourage the new development. The entire cost should not be put on the shoulders of the existing homeowners but perhaps the entire cost should not be put on the new development either.

Currently, the developers are paying only 40% of the cost and the existing homeowners are paying 60% of the cost. Is that a fair number to charge homeowners in order to be competitive and attract new business? Is a 30% discount more appropriate? I don't know the answer, that's why I/we hire/elect Commissioners to look into the situation and determine where the balance point is. The first step in that is reviewing impact fees and making recommendations.

[Bill14564]

Here is an article from the Leesburg Daily Commercial about the impact fee bill. Unfortunately, I believe you need to be a subscriber to read it.

The article seems to give arguments from both sides with some numbers from both sides to back up their positions. One thing I found interesting was there was no mention of Sumter County or The Villages. We may see the impact fee issue and this bill as a local concern but several other counties are unhappy about it as well.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Currently, the developers are paying only 40% of the cost and the existing homeowners are paying 60% of the cost. Is that a fair number to charge homeowners in order to be competitive and attract new business? Is a 30% discount more appropriate? I don't know the answer, that's why I/we hire/elect Commissioners to look into the situation and determine where the balance point is. The first step in that is reviewing impact fees and making recommendations.

Bill, there's a problem with the numbers you're giving that changes the picture a bit. One must go back to the impact fee study that was done to flesh out additional information.

First off, the 100% number is not the cost, it is the "maximum defensible" value that was determined by calculations in the impact fee study, it is not the actual costs incurred by the county, that number is substantially less and varies year to year and is running between 75% and 85% of the "maximum defensible" amount. The study takes this into account when it recommended a 43% value for impact fee.

Second, there are "credits" that are taken into account for the impact fee assessment. These credits come from fuel taxes levied by the state and county for impact assessment, right not in Sumter County that amounts to about $0.19/gallon of fuel and totals between 30% and 40% of the impact fees. About 80% of these fees are collected at the I75 exists in Sumter County and the Oakahumpka service plaza from people passing through Sumter County and having almost no impact on our roads, and we thank them for their contributions to our community.

There are a few other calculations, assumptions, and adjustments to the total impact fee picture, but in the end the study came up with 43% of the "maximum defensible" remaining that needed to be paid for by ALL the developers in Sumter County. The County Commissioners decided on 40% across the board for all property types (not just The Villages). The other 3% comes from the general tax rolls and could be considered an investment in the county. That investment pays huge dividends in additional property and sales taxes that are raised by the new developments.

One last thing to consider, Florida law requires that with no other changes, if the impact fee collected from one source is increased then relief in kind must be given to the other sources. So, if the impact fee charged to builders is raised then the fees collected (credits) must be reduced, we would be giving up the gas taxes collected locally, and in essence paying people to pass through Sumter County.

Continuing to portray the 40% number as a "sweetheart deal" that somehow only The Villages developer is getting is both dishonest and neglects the rest of the facts of the situation.

As far as the road costs that were a part of the 2019 25% tax increase, the majority of that was for resurfacing of Morse and Buena Vista Blvds and the result of poor planning by the county, a failure to put money away for repair costs they knew were coming. They were too busy touting "no tax increase for 14 years" to take care of business. The real question one has to ask but nobody is (except me) is what happened the next year. The road resurfacing was a one-time cost and represented about 50% of the tax increase, we should have seen a 10-12% decrease in 2020 but didn't. Why you may ask. Because for 2020 every department in the county fattened up their budgets with 10 to 20% increases. Of course, you can't see these increase in the 2020 budgets because they only forward when they present the budgets, they don't show how much it increased from the previous year. To see this, you have to pull the 2019 budget proposals and painstakingly compare it line item by line item to the 2020 budget, only then does the truth of the mismanagement of the county come to light.

[Bill14564]

I will read the study more closely to find and understand the credits and additional calculations. My impression from the study was that the 40% number was determined by dividing the existing fees by the "maximum defensible" fee: essentially, what number was necessary to keep the fees the same.

I'll also need to look at what "maximum defensible" means. I'm surprised that 110% to 130% of actual cost was considered to be defensible. But again, I need to look at the study more closely.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I will read the study more closely to find and understand the credits and additional calculations. My impression from the study was that the 40% number was determined by dividing the existing fees by the "maximum defensible" fee: essentially, what number was necessary to keep the fees the same.

I'll also need to look at what "maximum defensible" means. I'm surprised that 110% to 130% of actual cost was considered to be defensible. But again, I need to look at the study more closely.

Be sure to have a fresh pot of coffee available, it's a challenging read.

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

...

Continuing to portray the 40% number as a "sweetheart deal" that somehow only The Villages developer is getting is both dishonest and neglects the rest of the facts of the situation.

...

Thanks for the continued education Don, very much appreciated.

[Advogado]

Anyone interested in understanding how the Developer is milking us via his sweetheart impact fee and our massive property-tax hike should read this article:

FL legislators bigfoot local government to benefit big-money developers | Florida Phoenix

[Joe V.]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Anyone interested in understanding how the Developer is milking us via his sweetheart impact fee and our massive property-tax hike should read this article:

FL legislators bigfoot local government to benefit big-money developers | Florida Phoenix

Your source is a joke!

influence watch .org

"Florida Phoenix was established in 2018 as a left-leaning news and opinion outlet focused on government and political news coverage within the state of Florida. [1] It is part of the left-of-center media organization States Newsroom (formerly the Newsroom Network), [2] which was until 2019 a project of the Hopewell Fund, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit managed by the for-profit consulting firm Arabella Advisors. [3]

Florida Phoenix is also supported by the Washington DC-based New Venture Fund, another grant making and project sponsorship nonprofit managed by Arabella Advisors. New Venture Fund is underwritten by organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. [4]

New Venture Fund, Hopewell Fund, and Arabella Advisors have faced criticism for creating a “dark money” network of left-of-center advocacy organizations. [5]"

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Joe V.

Your source is a joke!

influence watch .org

"Florida Phoenix was established in 2018 as a left-leaning news and opinion outlet focused on government and political news coverage within the state of Florida. [1] It is part of the left-of-center media organization States Newsroom (formerly the Newsroom Network), [2] which was until 2019 a project of the Hopewell Fund, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit managed by the for-profit consulting firm Arabella Advisors. [3]

Florida Phoenix is also supported by the Washington DC-based New Venture Fund, another grant making and project sponsorship nonprofit managed by Arabella Advisors. New Venture Fund is underwritten by organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. [4]

New Venture Fund, Hopewell Fund, and Arabella Advisors have faced criticism for creating a “dark money” network of left-of-center advocacy organizations. [5]"

So, please point out the errors in the article.