There are some in our city who believe that all of the roads will be fixed (It certainly looks that way when you see the maps) under the $40 million bond, a bond for which we have no financial details-- an estimated final cost over thirty years. We know that the finance department can give a close estimate but so far they are keeping that information under wraps.
It's not any different than the last bond that failed other than it will not cover the cost of fire hydrants, sidewalks, street lighting, Park of Commerce or the slush fund of $3.2 million for district commissioners' use. At least we don't think so.
Here is a little bit of trivia on the roads:
- We have 119 miles of roads.
- Out of that, 34.47 miles will be addressed under the bond.
- The bond money would be dealing with the worst roads in the city.
- The percentage calculates to 29.72% of our total roads that will be repaired.
20 comments:
The city is asking us to put ourselves under 30 years of debt for a very small portion of our roads.And will the city MAINTAIN our roads? Under this administration our roads budget has been critically reduced.
I can't vote for this.We need another way.
How about the city taking over the CRA? That would give us millions of dollars more per year. As it stands ,the city gets NO tax dollars from our downtown. But they can ask us to say OK to a 30 year tax burden??
Also,the city is sitting on millions of dollars in unsold properties. The city could sell off these properties to get MORE millions.
Finally, a suggestion for making this better. But is it too late to put more text into the bond language? Of that 199 miles, how many miles are county, State or Interstate? So 30% of all roads are being addressed. That is almost 36 miles. Roughly $1.1 Million per mile.
Trying to find out if that figure is relevant when taking into consideration costs of floating the bond, administration and all associated costs is difficult due to lots of variables.
In the grand scheme of things, it appears $1.1 million per mile is not extravagant.
And you can see they are bumping up the road maintenance budget. Yes, it's not where it needs to be yet, but as property values rise, more resources magically appear to get it back to where it needs to be.
Anon at 9:01 You don't know what you are talking about. The city DOES get tax dollars from our downtown. Taking over the CRA would still mean that money from the CRA district would only be able to be spent in the CRA District and we would lose all the tax dollars from the district that would go back to the county. So it would be a net loss for the city.
30% of all our roads being ripped up and replaced with sidewalks and storm sewers is not a small portion.Many of the roads are over 50 years old and deteriorating rapidly. Of course that's obvious.
Yeah,but it's ONLY 29% of our roads no matter how much they charge ! They need to exhaust some other options. I'm so disappointed in the small amount of our roads to be done! Looking at the pictures it looked like a lot more was supposed to be done!
I didn't know we had property the city could sell.And why don't we get taxes from all of our businesses down town?
@9:32
Please consider the fact that we don't know the entire cost of this bond. It conceivably could be double the principal.
Sunset the CRA. All tax revenue from these areas (and it's considerable) will then go to the general fund, giving us enough cash to repair the roads without putting the citizens into debt for 30 years for 30% of the roads to be repaired. This repair would last 15 years if we are lucky and the City maintains the repaired surfaces.
Vote AGAINST the 30 year bond (another cash grab by this inept, careless Commission)
NO NEW TAXES!
@9:32 again-
We are ONLY talking about city owned roads here, not county, state or federal.
Rebuilding 36 miles of our city roads? Sounds like a plan.
Scary that people would come to this blog expecting to find any correct information. Vote no like you clowns always do and that way you can continue to complain and blame the trio commissioners.
The blogger that doesn't pay any taxes anyway needs to explain why she cares how tax money is spent. She doesn't contribute A SINGLE PENNY. Ms. Obtuse 2016 and 2015 and 2014 and 2013 and 2012 and 2011 and 2010 and 2009 and 2008 and 2007 and 2006 should just be happy she's getting free roads. But since she lives a life of misery there's nothing she can find happiness or joy in. So vote no and continue to complain about everything.
LOL above.
Actually the information was given to me by Jamie Brown.
I verify everything before I blog about it.
Now let's talk about who is REALLY the miserable one here. I find plenty of happiness telling the truth and making you people pissed off about it as you wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the azz.
1:59, go away. People paying or not paying taxes does not alter the FACTS,what few facts we do have about this new bond. Thank you Lynn for publishing them.And Bill,you are 100% right about the CRA. Abolish it,sunset it whatever. We would get the millions that are now controlled by this quasi -secret organization. Legally,we can't even look at the CRA's books. The whole reason we had the CRA,revitalizing our down town, is no longer valid.Let's say that we get 6 million in taxes from our downtown. Without the CRA we would have to pay 2 million to the county and the other 4 million would go to the city. WITH the CRA the CRA keeps all 6 million,but we have no control over how the money is spent,and it has to go only in a limited area of the city. I would rather we the people had control of 4 million rather than 6 million we have no say in.
So it's easy to do. By a vote of the Commission,it can be very simply done. It's been done in the past.As a matter of fact Scott Maxwell voted to abolish the CRA when he was on the Commission in years past.
Also, WHY is the city sitting on so many properties??? SELL THEM !
More than half our residents are renters who don't pay taxes so give it up anonymous. I believe Ms. Anderson pays what she's billed and is a retired citizen. The trio commission you mention has a lot to explain and should be rightly blamed for a lot of things.
Well I'm not a renter and happen to agree with 1:59. All you read here is how bad Lake Worth is, how bad the trio are and how everything looks so shabby and how much crime is here.... oh and look at the pretty sunset.
This commission has taken the bull by the horns and tried to get things done. They are still cleaning up messes started by previous administrations, repairing brand new "restoration" of our historic casino building and rebuilding relationships with neighboring communities. We are no longer the laughing stock of the county.
The roads need to be fixed and they have devised a comprehensive plan to totally rebuild 36 miles of them starting with the worst first. They have allocated more funds, because we now have more funds (thanks partly to the CRA), to road maintenance.
Maier and McVoy have poisoned the well and therefore don't get to offer their plan (if they have one). If Jamie Brown says there are 36 miles included in this plan, that's like from here to Ft Lauderdale. It ain't gonna be cheap. It has been neglected by many commissions before including the BCE. Let them do what we elected them to do. Fix the damn roads.
The damn roads will probably be fixed and the bond will pass this time. It's ok with you not to get any details on the cost? Amazing.
And you even have to attack my sunset photos. Anything else you want to get off your chest today?
There is nothing wrong with giving the facts. Why do you seem to have a problem with that? Calling us "clowns," etc.
Anony at 4:22 sounds like the mayor. She loves to blame everything on former commissions. They have been in office now for nearly 5 years and believe that they are finally doing something by taxing the property owners to death. Mcvoy and maier have only brought up points that need discussion. I don't recall maier voting against this going on the ballot. Did he? Bringing them up, the only two who are looking out for the people, is nothing more than nasty politics by crap politicians and the Lake Worth herald.
You're confusing posters. I didn't call you clowns. I did mention the sunsets to acknowledge that not EVERYTHING you post is negative. I actually enjoy the sunsets. More sunsets, less "everything Lake Worth = BAD"
I am looking forward to the cost details like many others. But when they come out, they can't be much different that what we are hearing now. Somewhere between $150 and $200 per year for each $100K of taxable value for those of us paying. Yes, that's a hefty sum and I won't like paying, but it has to be done to raise property values so that in turn, more people pay into the project.
Someone else used the word "clowns."
The city has promised to have a bond calculator up on the web site. Soon property owners will be able to calculate, each year, what they will pay.
And P.S., not everything I write about equals "bad." I do point out facts that should not be hidden.
Sure would be nice if the City gave us information on how much its going to cost, who is going to pay and how much it might fluctuate from year to year (no cap). Really hard to assess a bond proposal that I will be voting on in less than 8 weeks without this information. As a result, the vote is no presently.
I think its great that someone who pays no city taxes, and therefore has (at present) no obligation to pay the bond debt is speaking out on the issue. I would think that a lot of property owners that don't pay city taxes would just vote yes, thinking I'm not on the hook.
Renters do pay taxes. Do you think the rental properties in this City don't have to pay property taxes?? In fact, renters often pay more in taxes/higher taxes b/c the properties are not homesteaded (assuming the landlord is not engaged in homestead fraud and I readily acknowledge that there are slumlords who are defrauding the City and all of us by doing so). I own two rental properties in the City and I can affirm that my tenants do pay taxes and DO PAY CITY TAXES b/c the properties are not homesteaded. They pay the taxes each time they pay rent.
The City has admitted that a $100 a year is not the number and that was a serious mis-statement by the Mayor. The number will be much, much higher and the calculator won't tell you want happens when the next real estate bubble pops. What happens if we have a hurricane or a major recession in the next 15 years (this is a 30 year bond), the amount those that pay city taxes will have to pay is not capped by 3% or any other number. So if you have a situation like the 2008 recession or a year with back to back storms, if the tax base shrinks which could happen the amount those that have to pay goes way, way, way up. Maybe you could afford a tax bill that goes up by 50% or more, but I cannot. I certainly hope none of the above happens, but with an uncapped bond I DO know that nothing caps how much the debt obligation can go up so I have to think about these issues, I wish the City did as well.
Most of the properties in our city are still valued low. My condo took a beating just like everyone else's here during the recession/depression. So, to state it again, I don't write about an issue on how it will affect me personally...never have and never will.
I also understand that property owners who are investors pay tax and would normally build taxes into their rental amount. This isn't always true or cut in stone. I know a few personally where tax increases were not added to their rent.
I think some will be paying a lot more than they think they will and barring another recession, values will go up right along with the tax.
Post a Comment