GULFPORT CUTS TAX CUT
Prudence prevailed at the Special City Council Meeting on September 3. Rather than trying to hold to the current real estate tax rate in the face of falling property values and mandated increases in the Homestead Deduction, our City Council by a 3-2 vote decided to spread the pain of our revenue losses over the next 2 to 3 years rather than pacify voters now and let us all face the music next year.
They did it by voting to increase the millage rate from this year’s rate of 3.4742 mills, ($3.4742 per $1,000 in available assessed valuation), to 3.855 mills which was the maximum, “roll back rate, ‘ set by the Council back in July. This rate must be set under state law and cannot be exceeded by the Council in setting the final tax rate. It is the rate used to calculate the “Municipal or MSTU:Gulfport” tax as shown in the yellow COLUMN 2 of your recently received TRIM Notice from the County.
According to Dan Carpenter, Director of Administration, the additional money raised will be $304,363. By law, only 96% of that or $292,188 can be used for budgeting purposes. He further states that total operating revenues for 2009/2010 will be about $7500 less that for 2008/2009. While this is true, it is somewhat misleading since about $1,100,000 that was carried over from the prior year is shown as “revenue” for 2009/2010. This is money taxpayers paid in prior years and wont have to pay in the coming year. It explains why your municipal tax estimate in Column 2 is less than your tax for this year in column 1 of your TRIM Notice.
The net result of the vote of three Council Members is to slightly reduce your tax savings next year so that the tax increase forecast for the following year will be less. It is anticipated that the surplus of $1,100,000 available this year will not be available next year. It is also estimated that assessed values will continue to decline next year since they are based on sales taking place in this year’s depressed market.
By any measure, the vote of the Council will not raise taxes for the coming fiscal year as was indicated by the headline in the Sept. 10-16 Gabber. Kudos to Mayor Yakes, Vice Mayor Worthington and Council Member Henderson for doing the right, if not the politically expedient, thing.
I congratulate the City for their strategic approach in keeping a surplus fund for emergency purposes.
I’m sure there are some who will rejoice in the fact that taxes will be raised to suit there financial scheme, but then there are those who, look at folks who revel in announcing that taxes will be raised and wish that they didn’t start a business, take a chance on Gulfport, or trust a candidate who might have said that they would not raise taxes. If a Councilman voted to raise or not raise taxes in the worst economic climate in 60 years, I’m sure that it was not an easy choice.
If you represent a electorate that has an abundance of money (Stetson) that they can spend on taxes, then the impact, political and otherwise would be slight, but if you represent those who are not financial lucrative, (fixed income or new businesses) who are bailing water from their boat with a number 10 can, then it is your duty as their representative to prevent more water being poured into their boat.
The numbers may mean everything to some, but the real impact of this tax increase will be felt on the ground, and could mean the difference between keeping your business or not. It could mean the difference between keeping your home or not. It could mean the difference between eating a proper diet, and taking your medication.
Balanced number in and of themselves are great, and a cause for celebration for those bean counters around the world, but when they look at a store front closing, or a house in foreclosure, I wonder if they ask themselves, could I have made a difference? Keep in mind that it was Global bean counters who either used the wrong economic forcasts or didn’t regulate the flow properly that facilitated this economic atrophy.
So let’s put away the party balloons while those who are stricken by this economic nightmare are closing their doors or worse, digging through the trash cans, and try to add just a bit of humanity to the art of taxation.
I’m sure there’s an argument to be made in spreading the pain out over many years, there is also and argument to be made in trimming the fat off the illusion of a Full Service City and placing the burden of this economic calamity on those who are more able to afford it. $ 304,363.00 dollars represents a few high paying positions in Gulfport’s employment roster, and one could argue that since the City doesn’t have any money to develop anything, that they don’t need a department of Community Development, for example. Or since we outsource the plans for our development that we shouldn’t need a City Planning department. Or, that we could incorporate the Code enforcement department into the Police department and eliminate roughly $100,000.00 per year in salary, benefits and vehicles. Let’s say that the total reduction is $500,000.00 and the cost of outsourcing and combining the departments into an efficient operation was $200,000.00 per year. That would leave $300,000.00 in additional monies and accomplish what could be found in the tax increase. I do realize that this tactic has already been incorporated into the strategy, but one has to wonder has it gone far enough?
It would be an interesting study to see how many condos are left empty at Town Shores, for example, because some other bean counter thinks that living in Gulfport is just too high and maybe it would be more practical to move to a City with a lower tax rate and more efficient government? One could extend the results to the rest of the property to extrapolate the impact citywide.
The fact of the matter is that we will not know what the true impact of this decision is, that’s where the bean counters fail. Their scope is limited, sterile and calculative, but you could hardly see the pulse of a community though their eyes.
2iview…
I think before we get all crazy about this, we should put it in perspective. The city raised taxes approximately 40 cents per $1000 dollars in assessed value. So, if your home’s assessed value is $100,000, then your tax bill has increased by $40. $200,000 in assessed value has increased $80. (Someone correct e if my math is fuzzy, I am a cop afterall).
I can’t help but realize that these amount are small. If this increase bankrupts a family or closes a business, then I think they had far worse economic problems than worrying about the tax increase. I’m not trying to be insensitive here, but instead of over reacting, people reading this board need to hear objective reasonableness and not doom and gloom.
I do not agree in some of the decisions being made by Gulfport’s government. But raising the mil rate was the responsible decision. I have always thought that the city would not be able to meet their goal without raising the mil.
2iview, I respect the right to your opinion, but come on…
You said, “So let’s put away the party balloons while those who are stricken by this economic nightmare are closing their doors or worse,”.
Doors have been closing since October 08 and before. There are others to blame for this and none of them live in Gulfport. Unless there is a wall street here I don’t know about.
You made reference to the “illusion of a full service city”.
Sir, if this is an illusion then it’s one hell of a magic trick.
I don’t mean to be cold – hearted, but let’s save the drama for your mama……..
1. The council members are elected at large and charged with representing the ENTIRE city and doing what is best for the ENTIRE city.
2. The millage rate was increased to a level that results in the city realizing just shy of the same revenue $$ as last year.
3. It is a known fact that property values have decreased.
4. In light of #’s 2 and 3 it would stand to reason that the majority of G’port taxpayers will realize a minimal if any increase. I’d be happy to pay a little more now then potentially pay a boatload more next year when property values are expected to decrease again and revenue to the City will be even less.
5. All taxpayers had the opportunity to attend with the Budget Hearing. They did not.
6. As an aside, if we don’t do something soon to clean up the city and the many derelict properties, our property values will continue to to drop.
7. As the mayor of Bellaire Bluffs sd. recently, “elected officials need to be leaders, not politicians”.I for one would like to see more of such in G’port.
Watchman, not to worry I suspect they thought you how to count your bullets.
True, it is drama, but that’s what we do here now. It’s a national trend. We have chosen the no rule rule and they have to be run over by a golfcart.
Seriously, I untended to make a point because addressing the issue directly had someone thinking that it was a matter of integrity when it was a matter of intent and motive. My comments here, taken in isolation are a stretch of imagination, but in a broader context they ring true. The most significant thing that happen in the room that night was that the City join the rest of the takers. Gulfport, Pinellas, Florida, energy, water, food, insurance….on and on.
It was an increase and yes some are already in the bucket without a list. Your not giving them a raise, or a night out on the town or making their day and your not actually solving the problem either. Optimum rate according to a very reliable source has told me in a secure communiqué, late into the twilight hours, under dim lights that the rate should have been 4.2 %. So they split the baby and took a bath.
The article infers that 3 people were right and two were wrong, but from my perspective, they were all wrong financial, if the optimum number is 4.2%.
And the article doesn’t say if the two councilmen that voted NO weren’t holding out for a higher rate. I’m sure the Council knows what that optimum rate is.
Now, it really doesn’t matter what the number is when the news broadcasts the tax increase. The headline says “TAX INCREASE” so 99% of the population that do not want to pay higher taxes already think that they’re feeding a bloated government. Did the Council really think that the slight increase wouldn’t matter?
Does anyone really think that the City will continue to cut the waste from the government if they have the money that’s needed to sustain it? Maybe the two councilors were correct, and by not taking more from the public the City would cut more waste. That would make three councilmen wrong, if my math is correct.
So what did we actually accomplish besides the Headline, joining THEM, and stirring up the “Don’t Raise My Taxes crowd”? If your going to take a hit for increasing taxes you really should have something to show for it. With 4.2% they could buy more party balloons and fill them with laughing gas.
You made reference to the “illusion of a full service city”.
Sir, if this is an illusion then it’s one hell of a magic trick.
and you were doing so well…
We’ll produce evidence to make our case…OK?
I claim, that I can prove that, the City of Gulfport Florida does not provide full service to it citizens, and furthermore, it receives money for services it does not provide.
The claim made that Full Service is provided by the City of Gulfport Florida cannot compartmentalize the results. Either they provide Full Service and fulfill their commitments or they do not.
1st parameters would need to be established so let’s define Full Service.
A= example #1 = 1431 49th street s Gulfport Florida 33707
B= Would this view fall under a full service contract?
C= would you pay for this service?
D= if you cannot satisfy your customer can you be a full service?
E= from this perspective are you proud of the service your organization provides?
F= is your organization providing the service that it is being paid for?
Watchman– I would encourage you and your associates to come to the budget hearing on Thursday and encourage the re-establishment of the Lieutenant’s position.
BTW mine above was not in response to yours it just flowed that way.
Watchman..one more thing….your numbers above assume a static property value. Most people will likely not see an incrase as property values have decreased.
mtober said:
I don’t mean to be cold – hearted, but let’s save the drama for your mama……..
Stop it, I like it.
I agree with you, taxes are paid for a civil society, but we should get what we pay for. I do think that there’s money on the table that’s straining to be a full service city, not sharing with adjoining governments has created redundancy and service holes.
How long did it take to stop the double ambulances from arriving on the scene? It was a joke for years. the public knew it was a waste no matter what justification was made. I think that some of the service that the City holds dear could be outsourced. I certainly think we could use a responsible Code Enforcement department and I can only speculate that there are efficient ways of providing better service for less. I would hope that at some point in time the value of electronic surveillance is understood and incorporated into the service the city provides. If you are an observer of TV News it is clearly demonstrated daily that this service has the potential to produce results, and results is what the citizens are paying for.
Esthetics are essential in any community and there is no excuse for not maintaining your property, with a few exceptions and with those exception I’ve hauled my lawn mower and brush cutters to many houses through the years. Neglect is another matter entirely. The standard here are not that stringent, I’ve lived in areas where 6-inch grass or un-edged walkways were rare. And anything growing across a sidewalk that would impede foot traffic was just as expensive as a traffic violation. An authentic Code Enforcement Division can be one of the most valuable assets a City has. It’s the Welcome Mat.
If I were to offer any advice to someone considering a move to this area the first point I would make is to be sure not to acquire property next to an absentee landlord. For some unknown reason they have special privileges that gives residents nightmares.
Noise pollution, whether self generated or imposed is an issue that has kept buildings empty along the 49th street corridor. If the law is clear and enforcement serious, the issue could be addressed and solved with little expense. Noise pollution laws are written in State, County and City Books so the only thing that is needed to solve one of the most unattractive issues, is to take down the invisible walls of law enforcement and allow the corridor the environment it needs to become an attractive area of the community. Either we have a Law Enforcement Department or a Special Interest Agency. It’s not a matter of Law, it’s a matter of will, and its not expensive compared to the wasted resources we expend allowing this Department to do thing their way and getting no results. We default to their authority, like good little citizens and get nowhere. This is a management issue and why I suspect that the city needs to acquire a new Chief from outside the organization. If we allow them, with our tax dollars and complacency to do what they have done for decades, we will continue to get the same results and a mountain of justifications. No new laws are required, no special privileges are being requested and the facts speak for themselves.
.
.
I think virtual social networking is a useful tool when accuracy and service to the public is the end game. When the news is written with a hidden agenda and all points on the compass are north the medium loses its direction and value to a broader audience. I’m sure there are some readers who will not sense the nuance that a writer carries from article to article, or that there are viewers that will use this service because they wish to see the bias to reinforce their opinions, but what happens as a result of this style of communication is that in time, the broader audience shrinks to those who share the writers view. The site becomes either US or Them, a partisan thoughtless tank with viewers talking to themselves in the mirror. Once a news service acquires a stigma it’s very difficult to change, and why I objected so strongly to some of the articles that I have most recently viewed.
If there is a valid point to be made, evidence is crucial. If you’re quoting someone, have a recording, (not minutes) or at least access to the evidence. Use visual aids whenever possible, they can save mountains of virtual pages of unnecessary misunderstandings and arguments.
Define the article from the beginning. If its news, classify it as news and try to keep it real. If its opinion, make it visually apparent so you can point to the category when the conversation gets out of hand. If you have an opinion write it in a distinct article from the news. Try to use an editor when writing the news; a brief view from a different perspective is very helpful.
I’m not trying to be critical or cynical, I’ve been in and around these boards since CompuServe and The Well were the only access points, and you had to pay a timeshare fee at a University to use their loud, room size Cray computers. I can remember waiting in line for hours to view a simple text screen, or seeing students sleeping on the floor until their names were called. I’m sure there are many in this city that can remember those days.
Be Well!
tmober…
I understood where your post fell and I agree with your assessment on the tax increase. It’s either take a small hit now or a big one next year and the year after maybe. When making an informed decision, I think the council chose the lesser of evils here.
Ref the tax figures…yeah I am not so good with the whole math thing. I knew how to explain it generally, but I wansn’t sure now it would exactly be given properties have lost value. I just wanted to show a generalization since 2iview made such a dramatic post regarding the increase.
2iview…
I think one thing many need to realize is that sometimes, a full service entitey cannot please everyone. I have no doubt that these things are frustrating, but sometimes that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
Sometimes, citizens must take steps in ensuring that their needs are being met. The city in no way can do it all, reglardless if they are full service. It takes a partnership between government and citizens to handle problems. I think it’s unrealistic to think code enforcement, law enforcement or any other arm of government can do anything without the support or help of the public. And, when things don’t go the way some citizens want, I think it not right for some to point fingers saying the entity failed, when citizens do not try and attempt to correct the problem, other than saying, “here is the problem, fix it”. I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I just want to illustrate that the solving of problems it a team effort. A supervisor of mine once told me, “if your going to bring me a problem, then also bring me an idea for it’s resolution”.
In some of your posts, you seem to elude that there should be more accountability on behalf of code enforcement and others who enforce nuisance type of ordinances. Hmmm.
Therefore….. In my personal opinion, I think the citizens of gulfport should approach the council and bring up the creation of a nuisance abatement board or committee made up of CITIZENS. This board could review nuisance complaints regarding high grass, abandoned or unregistered vehicles and levy fines and or liens against property if the owners fail to come into complaince. This would give the citizens an opportunity to be represented when it comes to controling and dealing with nuisances. The code enforcement officer should be made to attend to speak on progress of current nuisances that are currently being looked at and the board could ask about the status of his progress. This could include certain members of law enforcement as well, since we also look for violations and issue citations or warnings to get owner’s into compliance. Property owners who are in violation would also have an opportunity to be heard at these meetings.
Residents would also be able to attend these meetings to bring up issues or ask for reports on what is being done about certain problems. I think this would be a fantastic way to get citizens involved in the abatement process. It would also be a mechanism for accountability for those involve in enforcing these laws.
The city of St. Petersburg and other cities have such boards.
NOTE: I MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION AS A PERSON WHOM HAS EXPERIENCE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT IN NO WAY AM I SPEAKING ON THE BEHALF OF THE GULFPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT GPD POLICY, PROCEEDURE OR QUESTIONS ON HOW NUISANCES ARE HANDLED SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE PROPER GPD AUTHORITY.
Below is a letter that is published in the most recent edition of The Gabber. I take issue with the letter and my response follows.
========================================================
Re: Yours to the Gabber
1. I don’t know if you are referring to the email I sent last week, but you’ll recall that I asked people to attend regardless if their position was the same as mine. My email is below with addresses deleted. I sent it to anyone in Gulfport for whom I had an email address. You only saw one e-mail. I sent more than one email to multiple parties.
2. Since only a few of us spoke at the Budget Hearing, I can only presume that you are considering me to be part of Water Watch. I AM NOT! I don’t know who is, what they do nor when they meet. I have read in the paper that it is headed by Al & Cindy Davis, other than that I don’t have a clue about them.
3. I take umbrage with you inferring I had intentions other than I stated. “We did not do that in the past and gave the city carte blanche to launch boondoggles like the proposed mooring field and Clam Bayou dredging. Fortunately, those projects were scaled back or are off the books. Hmm. Perhaps that is why this small group pushed to increase our taxes.” I have no opinon on Clam Bayou or the Mooring Field other than I want the waters to be clean. Regrettably, I am truly ignorant on both issues and don’t really care about either one of them. Admittedly, it is not my thing.
4. My recommendation to maintain the same tax revenues is from a strategic perspective with thoughts of the future. I personally don’t want a huge increase in taxes next year and perhaps the next as property values continue to go down–as is predicted. It is time the leaders start leading and think longterm, not just a year at a time.
To make a blanket statement, as a Council member did, saying taxes are going up is, in my opinion, mis-leading. The revenue that will be available to the City will net less than last year. The below reflects taxes assessed on properties of $50K and $100K with and without the average known property value decreases.
To make a blanket statement, as a Council member did, saying taxes are going up is, in my opinion, mis-leading. The revenue that will be available to the City will net less than last year. The below reflects taxes assessed on properties of $50K and $100K with and without the average known property value decreases.
5. The new budget reduces staff in the police department by 2 sworn officers and 1 lieutenant. How is that not a reduction in services? How is that justifed when crime is increasing? What was the basis for that reduction? I have communicated with people in the police department and they don’t agree with the reduction. Also, it is importantant to note that our police coverage per 1000 residents is less than the average throughout Florida and also for Pinellas County. I would like to see the extra money used to retain the police positions. The rest should be used to upgrade the infrastructure, add back the employee tuition reimbursement program and for reserves. Perhaps I’m stupid and /or naive, but I thought the perspective of the others that spoke was also strategic. If it wasn’t, shame on them!
6. The purported savings of $1 million has never been detailed publically and has been declared unsustainable into next year by both Jim O’Reilly and Dan Carpenter. From my perspective, the below that I received from Dan Carpenter, is in flux by at least 25%. Staff did a good job in coming up with the budget numbers some on Council wanted. They are not strategic nor sustainable and we will all pay the price in the future.
It saddens me to know that there is so much distrust and viciousness, among the residents, in this city. When will it stop? Who will make the effort to stop it? It needs to start with the leaders of the City. There is much good in this city, but there is also alot to be done and it will not get done when citizens are accusing each other of having ulterior motives. Accuse me of being blunt and having a big mouth and being candid in my thoughts, but don’t accuse me of having ulterior motives when there is no proof of such.
========================================================================================================
Fiscal Restraint is Fleeting
Dear Editor: I received an email last week encouraging mostly members of Gulfport Water Watch to attend the City Council Budget meeting and thought something must be up. So, I reviewed the budget and planned for millage, and was impressed that Council had asked the staff to maintain service and tax levels, and the staff rose to the challenge. I had no complaints so I opted to go to my son’s school’s open house. I was surprised to learn that a handful of citizens from the aforementioned group lobbied for and got a millage increase even when the budget had already met the Council’s goals.
There are times when property values go down, that the millage may need to increase to maintain needed service levels. But this was not that year. And there are times when property values go up, that the millage rate should go down. We did not do that in the past and gave the city carte blanche to launch boondoggles like the proposed mooring field and Clam Bayou dredging. Fortunately, those projects were scaled back or are off the books. Hmm. Perhaps that is why this small group pushed to increase our taxes. Whatever the reason, I and others should have been there to applaud the fiscal restraint shown by the staff and the council. We were not there, and now our tax rates will go up. We need to remember to praise success. It may be fleeting.
Jennifer R. Salmon
but sometimes that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
and pointing out the crumbled cookie that claims to be whole is what I’m doing
Sometimes, citizens must take steps in ensuring that their needs are being met.
and in our situation there are 17 years of records to prove the steps we’ve taken.
I think it’s unrealistic to think code enforcement, law enforcement or any other arm of government can do anything without the support or help of the public.
Mr. AKA Watchman Private Citizen. Let’s examine this point.
It generalizes the infraction by claiming that the citizen who is dissatisfied with the poor service has unrealistic expectation, shifting the responsibility to the injured party. The law is clearly written and not followed, period. I have 17 years of both private and city records kept in evidence and Citizens Participation that proves my position. The city (three City managers) admits that there is an infraction, what is missing in the formula is enforcement. We cannot be appeased nor accept this justification by the city or a Private Citizen AKA Watchman.
Secondly, to assume that a Code Enforcement officer needs a citizens help to site an infraction is tantamount to claiming that a Police Officer needs the assistance of a citizen who is driving down the road under the speed limit to write a ticket for the car that he just stopped speeding. The infraction is obvious, the department has the authority and does not in anyway need a citizen the assist them in performing their duty. We do not expect the Police department (since you brought them into this argument) to stop speeders on a road in Gulfport when they themselves are not on the road to view the crime, that would be an Unrealistic Expectation, but if they are on the road and can see the crime a citizen should expect that the officer will do their job.
Code enforcement is not complicated, the property doesn’t move or run away. It has set boundaries and laws that govern the limits of its use. If a code is being violated you see it, you site it and move on. If the owner is a habitual offender then it is within the authority of the office to force compliance through fines, and further legal action. (All within the purviews of a Full Service City.)
I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I just want to illustrate that the solving of problems it a team effort.
Obviously, some will have trouble separating facts from allegiance.
The team of citizens have been there; the City is the entity that has failed. Blind allegiance to the City will make rational arguments difficult. It’s been said that: A belief is not an idea held by the mind, it is an idea that holds the mind, and in this instance, to deny the physical evidence and history of citizen participation, City ordinances, and written declarations of redevelopment and beautification, in order to defend the un-defendable is telling and disappointing. I’m not trying to be disrespectful either but in oder to resolve a problem one needs to address the problem with facts.
“if your going to bring me a problem, then also bring me an idea for it’s resolution”.
Sound Advice
Therefore….. In my personal opinion, I think the citizens of gulfport should approach the council and bring up the creation of a nuisance abatement board or committee made up of CITIZENS.
The suggestion of a board was brought up by Courtland Yarborough during the campaign. The specific neglect that I have addresses would not be acceptable under any circumstance in any part or parcel of this city. While I’m delighted to see that you are exercising the lessons that your supervisor has taught you, by bringing a solution with the problem, I suspect it is another unnecessary level of government that usually is placated by higher levels of government, and would hardly address the simple application of the laws already written and quite clear.
If we need to have a "nuisance abatement board or committee" to convincethe Code Division to do their job or convince someone to mow their lawn and pickup trash then we don’t need a Code Enforcement department at all. Often times these Board are implemented to be no more than a delay tactic and appeasement. They have no authority, they have no legal remedy, they are little more than a shell for the city’s shill. IMO
Be Well!
Watchman — I did my best to save the police jobs. Unfortunately, the council decided that they know better how to run the police dept than the police professionals and opted to go with the original budget with 3.4 millage. Sorry.
mtober…
I honestly can’t thank you enough. You are a champion of this city, seriously. It takes so much courage to do what you and bid dog did, standing up to a crowd who for many, was their first council meeting this year, or ever even.
I wanted to come. I wanted a voice. I wanted to shout my disagreement and disappointment But I think it would have been inappropriate for me, an employee, to discuss the budget. People would have thought that I was in it for personal gain. There is also the issue of possible reprecussions of what I said. Not that I would ever speak ill or be disrespectful in a public setting, I am just not sure how it would have been taken.
I hope you know that I have a great deal of respect for you sticking to your guns on the mil and standing up for the law enforcement officers of this community. Big dog too.
If I ever see you at starbucks again, coffee is on me
And now the Headline will read:
The City Council of Gulfport Florida has decided to remain in the boat with its citizens. We will float or sink together…..for now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no question that the numbers that Mtober has posted are the most efficient way for the City Government to reach their financial goals. I thank her for her efforts and expertise… no doubt it is extensive.
I keep going back to the ideal millage of 4.2% to try to gain some perspective, cognizant that idealism and realism are two separated views.
Realism has to account for the variety of situations that our citizens find themselves in. The job of tax planning needs to account for every contingency as Mtober has emphasized, while accounting for the environment that we live in.
Ideally, our environment would be smothered with abundance for everyone, and the future would be our only concern, but some citizens are focused on the present and an increased tax today, no matter how trivial, would impact the present and possibly eliminate them from the future of Gulfport. It will also change lives and plans across a broader spectrum.
If for example your selling your house and you have it advertised on the market with the tax rate published, to change the tax rate would make the ad obsolete. A small insignificant issue I’ll concede, but when added to the small alterations in everyone lives it is a movement of large proportions.
If one applies the economy of scale, one could argue that a lower tax would attract more interest to the City and the interest would generate more revenue. It is a positive assumption that lowers taxes and hopefully with efficient government (codes enforced and getting what we pay for) will increase volume and therefore revenue. If it is wrong then the rates will adjust upwards in the future to account for past reductions in revenue and as we play catch up our attractiveness diminishes and we spiral out of control.
On the other side you have higher costs per unit that would achieve the revenue point now, and lesson the impact in the future if everything is equal.
But if the unpopularity of tax increases adversely reduce the volume and lesson the revenue in the future, now, as a less attractive investment, the rate would need to increase to support the decrease in volume. Then taxes would increase every year to substitute for the diminishing attractiveness as we spiral out of control.
There are two schools of thought here and neither are wrong, they are adjustable to the financial climate that we may find ourselves in.
For the moment, the economy of scale will rule the tax assessment risking that the lower cost will attract a higher volume. If they are wrong, then as Mtober has so eloquently stated, the need for a higher rate will be called for.
If history is any indicator of what the future holds, putting our taxes on a credit card, sort of speak, to be paid next year is a bad idea.
One thing I did not notice in these calculations were the stimulus monies that the Mayor Claims will be collected in the coming years.
This has been a good exercise and has brought to light what our leaders and citizen think and who is in what school of thought.
Be Well!
Watchman– I thought that was you at Starbucks, but I didn’t want to put you on the spot! LOL!!
This process has been very tiring and more recently painful, but ahead we shall forge.
2iview…..Stimulus Money?? Has the city applied for any of this?
mtoberNoUlteriorMotives said:
“”"2iview…..Stimulus Money?? Has the city applied for any of this?”"”
I believe I’ve written on this issue…somewhere.
The Mayor took a trip with the potential city manager to Washington D.C. to party with Rep. Young, on his 20,000th vote. He said he was going there to get some stimulus money. The focus was on moving the police department we were told. They were too late for the 2010 allocation, so he applied for some stimulus in 2011 and was confident in his public statement that we would be seriously considered, hint, hint.
Behind the curve, you bet. Stetson had made three applications for millions, and they made them on time.
Ohhhh, that stimulus money. Yes you did write aboutit. I’m taking my niece to DC next week. Maybe I’ll stop by Bill’s office and see how that is coming along. LOL!!