How to Prioritize Growth...
...without impact fees, you don't
You can't say your focus is on infrastructure if you won't ensure we have the funds to actually provide that infrastructure. Otherwise, it's just a sound bite for a campaign mailer with no intention of delivery. I've been expressing my concerns about our funds for years as I've pushed to make sure growth is paying its fair share and your promised infrastructure is properly funded through impact fees.
You can read multiple recent Substacks here:
We also kicked off my recent podcast interview with The Bradenton Times by discussing these implications. Click the logo below for our discuss on impact fees, the county and the current campaign.
I've told this board, and you the public, that the current proposal to underfund impact fees for at least the next four year would require one of two things: either existing residents would have to pay for this growth out of your own pockets or the board would simply not provide the infrastructure, leaving you on underbuilt roads, endless traffic congestion and unsafe intersections well past their time of need. The board has ignored this and brushed it off as a baseless argument.
Yesterday, at our budget meeting, this "baseless argument" was proven 100% correct by our CFO and Public Works. You can watch it below. Start at the 55 minute mark for the discussion on the situation.
We were told Manatee County has a MASSIVE shortfall in providing your infrastructure due to a lack of revenue. Their only solution was to both make you pay AND cut your infrastructure.
Their proposal was to:
a) bond another $300MM which would saddle you with an additional $15 million of debt service payments out of your taxes each and every year for decades. This will come at the expense of either a 0.25 mil tax cut or $15 million of additional lost services. It will increase our debt payment expense line to $50 million on infrastructure YOU'RE paying for to accommodate growth, making it the second largest line item in the budget. (Starting to sound like the federal government…)
b) hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure projects promised in the next five years would be cut out, delaying them indefinitely. These include many safety projects for intersections but also long-promised, much-needed road projects like segments of Canal, Erie, Lorraine and Lena. (Yes, if you're on 59th, you did get your wish as that was also pushed out, congrats!).
The unfortunate reality to this proposal is that NONE of it has to happen. I ran a financial model of the proposed impact fees we’d collect vs actually collecting what the experts say we should charge for growth. The difference in collections over the next five years between charging what the study said we should collect and what the majority of the board is proposing is $585 million dollars!
That's how much is being left on the table for you to cover, either through your taxes or through your inconvenience. That difference alone would allow Manatee County to provide all your infrastructure without any of your tax dollars.
Just remember, come August 8 the board has the second hearing on the proposal to increase impact fees by only 50% over the current 90% of 2015 costs. There is still a chance to do the right thing and make sure growth is paying for itself and not passing those costs of business onto the taxpayers.
This won’t be a vote on whether to prioritize collecting more impact fees and honoring a promise to provide you needed infrastructure.
This will be a vote on whether to prioritize those who pay impact fees over YOU, the existing residents of Manatee County.
In legalese, a $585M budget shortfall should be prima facie evidence of "extraordinary circumstances" mandating collection of the full amount of fees. And in no law school ever do they teach that you have to wait for case law to emerge to act.
Hillsborough County has a different approach. They have proposed a comp plan amendment That allows developers to extend utilities into the rural service area. The county is out of buildable land in the urban area and current policy does not allow for extension of utilities in the rural area. Developers need to get their hands on that buildable land and the county is happy to create this new rule because they can’t afford infrastructure in the urban area, much less the countryside that is far from public services. Their solution? Allow developers to run the utilities at their own expense and then turn over the maintenance to the county once their giant subdivision is built. This will result in more sprawl, but the county believes the ends justify the means because now they will have a patchwork of utility lines throughout the rural area they didn’t have to pay for while collecting impact and mobility fees. It is shortsighted it is destructive it is madness to even consider.