To be totally truthful, I am embarrassed to even be posting this and confess that I do not understand the intent of the City in its proposal to tax everyone the same. I have read it and have asked questions but still am confused.
It is Susan Stanton's desire to have our own Lake Worth Fire Department if the County does not eliminate the Supplement payment due to them. She has suggested levying a fixed assessment charge per-building on homes and businesses to pay for most of the cost of providing fire rescue service minus the cost of EMS that cannot be tacked on to our tax bill. She says, "Boynton Beach and West Palm Beach levy fire assessments." I have a call into Commissioner Ross in Boynton Beach regarding how they charge for their special fire assessment and what it covers. It is definitely not for the entire cost of implementing and running their fire department. She will try and get back to me today. If so, I will post.
Not considering any extra costs for starting up our own fire department, we will use the figures provided by the Willdan Feasibility Study:
There are 12,980 residences within the city of Lake Worth according to Willdan. No where in the report do I find the number of buildings for businesses housed in separate buildings but let's average that at 1,000. Rounding up we would therefore have
14,000 units.
Cost in year one: $5,659,084 divided by 14,000 = $404.27 per property owner
Cost in year two: $5,721,581 = $408.69
Cost in year three: $5,949,257 = $424.95
Today's PB Post says that we all will be paying between $230 and $280. Perhaps we have twice the number of buildings.
Tack on an additional $2 mil a year, the cost would be another $150 a year higher.
Other City Budget Impact Year One, Year Two, Year Three
Plans Reviewer, 1 FTE $ 85,000, $ 86,700, $ 88,434
Finance Technician $ 72,839, $ 74,296, $ 75,782
HR Technician, 0.5 FTE $ 45,000, $ 45,900 ,$ 46,818
Legacy Pension Contribution $ 1,800,000, $ 1,800,000, $ 1,800,000
TOTAL $ 2,002,839, $ 2,006,896, $ 2,011,034
GRAND TOTAL $ 7,633,174, $ 7,728,577, $ 7,960,291
When asking the city manager about throwing costs of fire/rescue onto the non-advalorem portion of our tax bill, this is her answer:
Lynn ….. the proposal is to include both the cost of fire suppression and fire pension plan……minus the cost of EMS which can not be assessed to property. So, total assessment is based on about $6.5 million dollars. The proposed property tax this year will also include the EMS cost (about $1.4 million) plus $300,000 for an internal auditor (and staff support accountant …plus the Inspector General cost of $78,000).
Susan A. Stanton
For Fiscal Year 2011-2012, and future years, the City Administration has proposed the establishment of a Special Assessment for Fire Services irrespective of whether the County is providing this service or whether the City reconstructs a Fire Department. The actual assessment would depend on the total costs included in the assessment such as fire fighter pension costs.
Directly from the report: "Because the City has so many properties which pay little or no property taxes (due to the homestead exemption and current low value of the homes and commercial property) this assessment will allow the City to more fairly and equitably recover the cost for providing this critical public safety service."
Lake Worth Towers will cost the city $1 mil more for an aerial platform apparatus because the building does not have sprinklers.
So, if I am understanding everything correctly, the entire cost of fire/rescue minus the cost of emergency medical services will be transferred to the non-advalorem portion of our tax bill with every property paying the same tax. Today's PB Post agrees with Stanton on what's "fair." Obviously I am not understanding this at all and hope by the time I leave the meeting tonight it will be clear. Surely this can not be right. When fire/rescue has always been based on the value of our property, how then can this be fair?
10 comments:
Why wouldn't the Lake Worth Towers have a higher assessment due to their lack of fire sprinklers requiring the rest of us to pay for a depreciating asset of $1 million to cover that one building?
The $300K for an internal auditor is ludicrous! How is that going unchallenged?
Square footage doesn't account for sprinklered vs non-sprinklered buildings. Where is an incentive to build safety into buildings or retrofit?
Today's code would require sprinklers in that building. The apparatus to cover it if it had sprinklers would be substantially less.
Lynn, you were adamantly against keeping the PBSO solely on a dollar saving reason. I disagreed vehemently with you and am satisfied at the outcome. The Fire Department is not in the same realm.
The Level of Service that became required some years back and our CRUSHING pension liability are two things we can't get our arms around. Water under the bridge? Closing the barn doors after the horse has left?
We better think of SOMETHING, and fast!
I disagreed vehemently with you and am satisfied at the outcome. The Fire Department is not in the same realm
I am all for having our own fire department in order to have control on costs. I just would like to see equitability when it comes down to payment of those costs.
The Lake Worth Towers is a good example where all of us will be paying for that $1 million aerial platform. I have said that every building is different--some are wood structures, some are cement block; some have sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, etc. Every building has a different exposure to cost.
But the City says we all should pay the same.
The meaning of "fair" is not being considered.
I guess the city does not know what fair or equitable means nor does the Palm Beach Post editor. What they are trying to say is that everyone gets the service and therefore they should pay something towards it. I agree with Commissioner Maxwell in this regard.
We always did pay something before until property values dropped so drastically. I, too, agree that we all should pay something but granny living on $600 a month social security (and I know someone in that category) versus someone making $100,000 a year is not fair nor is it equitable.
NOW you like socialism.
Lynn, after talking with you the other morning, and reading your blogs about the rates, my infertile mind remembered something from the past.
I never thought I'd be quoting Karl Marx but since Lake Worth is becoming a socialist state, can your work this into either a comment for
tonight's meeting or into a future blog:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
If they assess at the same rate per person/unit, it becomes an inequitable burden on the lower economic class, we'd be supporting the haves.
Just look at it.
Thanks, Joe
Everyone paying the same IS Socialism.
This opens up a can of worms for the City to continue to throw the tax on our non-advalorem whenever they need to free up millage for something else.
B I N G O !! Give the lady a prize.
We are already...
Taxed
Enough
Already
Join the TEA Party
9 times out of 10 what Susan wants Susan gets... Get ready for that special assesment
Post a Comment