The Public Budget hearing has just concluded and in a surprising move they set next years millage rate the same as this years rate.
After a PowerPoint presentation detailing the budget proposal Commissioner Larry Jones made a motion to split the difference between last years rate and the rolback rate which would allow for additional decreases that might occur in the total taxable value and allow for a reduction in the rate if possible before the final rate was set, Commissioner Scott Brannon seconded the motion. After discussion lead by Commissioner Comander and Commissioner Cecilia Jones detailing their opposition to raising taxes - Commissioner Commander called for a vote on the motion and the motion was defeated by a 3-2 vote with Comander,Pridgen and Cecilia Jones voting against and Commissioner Larry Jones and Commissioner Brannon voting in favor of the proposed increase.
Commissioner Cecilia Jones then proposed setting the rate the same as last year and the motion passed by a 5-0 vote.
This action sets the maximum millage rate for the 2009-2010 budget. During the two upcoming public Budget hearings the millage rate can be lowered, but cannot be raised.
We will continue to analyze the budget proposal and present a WCTA analysis of the impact on services and programs in the next few days.
Replies
52
Beach LoverAuthor
When it comes to the SWFD, the population increase is not the relevant figure. More relevant would be the increase in the number of dwelling units, the summer occupancy figures, the number of calls they answer annually, the increase in traffic crashes, commercial fire alarm calls, the addition of beach flags and life guards, etc. Figures that reflect the actual increase in level of required services are the figures that should be looked at. Because SoWal is a beach community with a large transient population, the percentage increase of permanent population does not adequately reflect the increased demand for SWFD services.
And isn't that population figure increase countywide? If so, that makes it even more meaningless when considering SWFD's budget needs.
I am in no way suggesting we should give SWFD or any other taxing entity a pass, but if we are going to look at their budgets, let's look with an open mind and get all the facts first.
First the figures shown are not budget figures, they are property tax revenues. The SWFD has other sources of revenue such as a 600,000+ annual payment from the BCC for providing Emergency services, revenues from individuals billed for medical transport and they recovery of cost of medical services and supplies, grants and of course the life guard services are a contract service where the funding is provided by the TDC. They have also charged impact fees for new construction.
During the time span covered by the growth in property tax revenues they added new fire stations and equipment and they improved the compensation and benefits for their employee's.
The WCTA has never advocated a reduction in the quality of services provided, but we have advocated that the rates of revenue growth were not sustainable and that would lead to a "major adjustment" when the next bust cycle occurred.
SoWal Expert
Since part of the past expenditures were for equipment, infrastructure etc. shouldn't we able to reduce future budgets w/o too much trouble? 
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.