Could you give us an idea of what this 60% collection rate will mean in practical terms? By that I mean address Upper Manatee River Road and Fort Hamer Road or any other projects in the County. The source of funding for Fort Hamer had not been determined yet according to the "public deception meeting" held by Kimley Horn. Any day of the week traffic on these two roads is bumper to bumper. It is clear that the crowding is due to the development along Fort Hamer and Golf Road because as soon as you get to Rt. 64 the traffic along Lakewood Ranch is relieved because most vehicles turn right to go west toward I-75. Were impact fees or at least some impact fees collected for for Upper Manatee and Fort Hamer? Will there need to be an additional Infrastructure sales tax or real property tax increase to pay for these two roads and others due to the failure to increase impact fees? If you are unable to address specific projects, would you explain in general terms how the taxpayers and utility rate payers be "impacted" by the decisions of the supermajority?
my wish is that you would have voted no on principal - with an explanation of how it was still possible, with the board's support, to act swiftly and collect a fee more accurately close to the cost of services - pointing out the history of voting for delays and the board's vote to flush $485K down the toilet for a study that was completed but not used. A "no" vote from you would not have prevented the modest gain from going through. It must be noted that in VanOstenbridge's District 3 "newsletter" that went out today, he takes credit for leading "this effort to get the maximum...to ensure developers pay their fair share." And he points out the vote was unanimous.
Thank you for a very thorough explanation of both how we got here and what just happened.
Kruse 2024
Could you give us an idea of what this 60% collection rate will mean in practical terms? By that I mean address Upper Manatee River Road and Fort Hamer Road or any other projects in the County. The source of funding for Fort Hamer had not been determined yet according to the "public deception meeting" held by Kimley Horn. Any day of the week traffic on these two roads is bumper to bumper. It is clear that the crowding is due to the development along Fort Hamer and Golf Road because as soon as you get to Rt. 64 the traffic along Lakewood Ranch is relieved because most vehicles turn right to go west toward I-75. Were impact fees or at least some impact fees collected for for Upper Manatee and Fort Hamer? Will there need to be an additional Infrastructure sales tax or real property tax increase to pay for these two roads and others due to the failure to increase impact fees? If you are unable to address specific projects, would you explain in general terms how the taxpayers and utility rate payers be "impacted" by the decisions of the supermajority?
my wish is that you would have voted no on principal - with an explanation of how it was still possible, with the board's support, to act swiftly and collect a fee more accurately close to the cost of services - pointing out the history of voting for delays and the board's vote to flush $485K down the toilet for a study that was completed but not used. A "no" vote from you would not have prevented the modest gain from going through. It must be noted that in VanOstenbridge's District 3 "newsletter" that went out today, he takes credit for leading "this effort to get the maximum...to ensure developers pay their fair share." And he points out the vote was unanimous.