Preserve Vote and Impact Fee Cap Could Collide

BRADENTON – At Tuesday’s meeting, Manatee County Commissioners voted 5-2 for a continuance on a resolution that would create a special tax district to fund the cost of a preserve in east county. That pushes the vote to March 20, when the board is also expected to vote in favor of capping developer impact fees at 90 percent.

You can read more about the preserve here, but to make a long story short, developer Pat Neal owns 33 acres on the Braden River that is slated to be developed into a 32-unit gated community. Many residents in the surrounding area are opposed to the development and have sought to prevent it through a $3 million purchase of the property that would be repaid through a tax on residents in the area over 30 years.

Neal has given the parties until the end of this month to decide. The problem is that the residents in the proposed municipal services taxing unit are split 50-50 over whether or not they want to be taxed for the purchase, and they are deeply entrenched in their positions.

The supporters, who are more concentrated in the portion of the MTSU closest to the site, argue that the densely-forested area is a critical habitat to wildlife, including protected species, and that spoiling approximately half of it for development would not only be destructive on an ecological level, but that it would lower their property values. The say that a local preserve would make the neighborhood more attractive, raising home values and quality of life, while also allowing them to avoid the noise and other annoyances of construction.

Opponents, who include a large number of residents further from the site, argue that they should not be arbitrarily taxed for an amenity they will not use or otherwise benefit from. They say that they are unlikely to see any property value increase from the preserve and would be better served on that front by 32 new, expensive, luxury homes in the area, raising the median price.

Both sides showed up to give either ardent support or opposition for nearly four hours on Tuesday. By the time comment was closed, many commissioners seemed eager to put off a vote and were told that the next meeting would be the last chance to vote before the deadline on purchasing the property. They voted 5-2 (commissioners DiSabatino and Trace dissenting) to postpone the item.

What few people may have considered was that March 20 is also the meeting during which commissioners will vote on whether or not to approve a highly-controversial cap on developer impact fees that will cost the county around $2 million annually.

It seems clear that a majority of pro-developer commissioners really want to pass the approval for the preserve. They are largely the same ones who want to cap the fees. That’s going to make it difficult to say in one vote that we don’t need the money from the developers, then turn around and say we can’t find the money to purchase the preserve without creating a new tax.

Add the idea that most of the pro-developer commissioners like to brag that they’ve never raised taxes, and you get a sense of how delicate the posturing becomes. Commissioner Baugh (whose district the site resides in) has been the most vocal proponent of the preserve. She’s received strong support from the two countywide commissioners, Whitmore and Benac. Previously, they made much of the idea that this was the first time a community has ever come to the board asking to be taxed for what they saw as a worthy cause.

The problem was so many members of the public showing up Tuesday to make it clear that they did not want to be taxed, while making it known that voting for the preserve was in fact voting for a tax increase, as well as an unprecedented scheme that hasn’t been done anywhere else in the state. Most argued that every other preserve in the county has been purchased by and for all county residents, and that they have no problem with such a purchase. They just do not want to be saddled with a 30-year commitment that is limited to a somewhat arbitrarily-decided group of taxpayers.

The sudden enthusiasm of pro-developer commissioners for this one particular project leaves little doubt that Neal prefers the quick flip for nearly twice the land’s purchase price to developing the project. It’s also important to remember that the current value of the land only exists because the BOCC made it so. After both staff and the planning commission said that a comp plan amendment would be needed for Neal's development’s site plan to be approved, commissioners fast-tracked one for him, despite both staff and the planning commission advising not to.

Given that Neal, who had not yet purchased the property when he initially put the plan forward and indicated that the deal was likely dead if it would need a comp plan amendment, went ahead and purchased it anyway months before he got one, there’s little doubt as to his confidence that this too will go his way.

On Tuesday, Commissioner Charles Smith indicated that he too was in favor of the plan to purchase the property, telling citizens who opposed it that there are a lot of amenities that taxpayers pay for even if they don’t use or want them. Commissioner Stephen Jonsson was harder to read, but seemed open to it as well.

Commissioner Robin DiSabatino has been against the plan from the start, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent in which anytime half of the citizens surrounding a proposed development didn’t like it, they could lobby the board to do the same thing, putting the board in the position of "picking winners and losers" were they not to do so each time.

Commission chair Priscilla Trace said that she didn’t like to tax anyone if she wasn’t going to tax herself along with them, and didn’t like the idea of imposing a tax on so many people who were against the plan. Whitmore reasoned that the delay might give proponents a chance to find a last-minute donor who could put forth a large enough portion of the sale price to have a meaningful impact on the cost that would be left for residents in the MTSU. Several commissioners noted that was an unlikely scenario given their lack of success with such efforts over many months.

However, the Conservation Foundation of the Gulf Coast, which organized the plan for the preserve and controls 11 more acres adjacent to the site that would be donated to it, says it already has pledges of$700,000 and hopes to bring pledges of $1 million to the meeting. That would likely make commissioners feel as though they have enough cover to push a lower assessment on the opponents of the plan, though it seems unlikely to quell their dissent.

Planning Commissioner Al Horrigan proposed what he saw as an easy solution during public comments at the meeting. Don’t vote to cap the impact fees at 90 percent, and you should be able to use enough of the money from impact fees in that area to pay for the preserve over the same period. "That way everyone’s happy," said Horrigan.

The problem is that Neal likely wants his $3 million and the 90 percent cap. If that’s the case, there’s little reason to suggest he won’t get it, even if a majority of commissioners have to vote aye with blushed cheeks on March 20.

Click here to email commissioners and let them know how you feel.