After years of talk and months of debate, the Safety Harbor street light fee became a reality on Monday night after the City Commission voted to approve Ordinance 2012-28.
Despite opposition expressed by residents and doubts raised by a couple of commissioners, the ordinance passed by a 3-2 vote.
Commissioner Nancy Besore and Commissioner Nina Bandoni registered the two nay votes.
“It’s never easy looking the citizens of Safety Harbor in the eye and saying unfortunately we either have to raise a rate or create a fee,” Mayor Andy Steingold said.
“I don’t think it gives anybody any pleasure to sit up here and make a decision as to what a rate may be, or adding an additional ad valorem rate to cover the cost.”
The issue of collecting an assessment designated solely for streetlights recently came to the forefront as a special fund began to dry up, forcing the commission to look for alternate means of covering costs.
Responding to public input regarding the issue, the commission rejected the idea of raising the ad valorem tax to cover the shortage.
“I didn’t feel that it was prudent at this point to begin raise the ad valorem rate to cover that,” Steingold said. “I felt it was better left in a bill so people can see this is what they’re paying for and this is where it’s going.”
Let Patch save you time. Get great local stories like this delivered right to your inbox or smartphone everyday with our free newsletter. Simple, fast sign-up here.
According to the city, the fee will apply to sixty-six percent of the 7,657 applicable parcels in Safety Harbor.
Of those parcels, 81 are currently unoccupied and would be subject to the fee when they gained occupancy. Thirty-three percent are not subject to the fee, because they are either already paying for lights through private funding or there are no lights on the street.
“I am against this ordinance,” Stephen Collins of Swan Lane said. “I believe this is written as a very hardcore and regressive tax disguised as a user fee.”
“I’m willing to pay my fair share of the street lights when I drive down Main Street, when I drive down Enterprise, Bayshore” said Dale Tindall. “That’s my responsibility as a citizen.”
“When you go down to 12th Avenue North, there’s a mobile home. They’re paying for streetlights. I’m not going to.”
The two commissioners who voted against the assessment reiterated their positions Monday night.
“To me, at this point, we have to move forward,” Commissioner Bandoni said. “Do I like this? No, I don’t. I really believe at this point in time, the dye is cast.”
“We’re stuck. We’re between the proverbial rock and a hard place,” Commissioner Besore added. “This thing stinks, and I can’t vote yes.”
The $50.97 fee will be prorated for 2013, meaning those who are subject to the assessment will pay a total of $5.66 per month for nine months beginning in January.
Safety Harbor residents, what do you think of the streetlight fee? Let us know in the comments below.
I love this city, and generally speaking the council does a good job, but this one they got wrong. Some gated communities have playgrounds and green spaces that are only open to home owners and their guests. Should we subtract their portion of parks monies from their taxes? No, that is ridiculous. Their choice to close off part of the incorporated city to the rest of us does not obligate us to lessen their tax load. We sent our son to private school up in NC, did we get a tax break, no. Nor should we have. Those who can afford extras should have them, but not at the expense of the rest of the city. This issue will come up again and any council person who voted in favor of this plan should best be prepared to loose.
If we're assessed a street light fee, what's next? A sidewalk fee for those who have a sidewalk in front of their property? A road maintenance fee for those with a city (rather than private or county) street in front of their property?
At a time when many charities are facing budget challenges because of the economy, is this how we want to "support" these organizations that do so much for our community?
But now that it's split out as an assessment, the city has to waste time arguing with private communities, which by the way, should not be able to opt-out. The cost to administrate, assess, collect all makes this an inefficient choice. Also, basing the assessment on square footage proves that it is a tax, and not a fee meant to pay for a fixed price service. I guess the guy in a 5000 sq ft house "enjoys" the light more than a person in a 1200 sq ft house and therefore should pay more.
A guy with his car driving down Main Street who lives in a big house gets exactly the same benefit as the guy with his car who lives in a small house. Why shouldn't they pay the same? A fee is the better way to go. It's also not an enormous amount of money. I'm sure that everyone can find $6 a month to have a well lit, safer community. Don't sweat the small things, folks. Life's too short.