GROWTH Who's paying the bill ?

OK ladies and gentlemen, let me show my lack of knowledge about Clay County. I have no clue of 'Uncle Jack's' past record so I'll just forge ahead with my thoughts.

I've read all the comments on the last BCC meeting and I have a couple of questions. One, I'd like to know if I have the correct numbers in the 'Uncle Jack' donation issue. If anyone could verify them it would be nice. Two, am I reading this correctly that he's going to be able to claim a $77K value per acre for land that is worth $20K?

The way I read it was that the land was 'worth' $20K per acre and there were 20K acres. Now, DOT says it would cost $77K per acre to get this land by eminent domain so they have to let him assume that is the value per acre if he donates it. The $77K number is based on legal costs etc. He wants credits toward impact fees for this donation if he decides to do so.

Now I'm no rocket scientist but I do have a degree in economics and I understand math. I'm wondering if anyone has sat down and punched a few numbers into their $1.99 calculators.

Not knowing for sure that the numbers I read are correct, I will assume that they are. If they are incorrect any updates can be calculated to reflect the correct numbers.

If we did the work to get the land by eminent domain he would get paid $400M. Yes, $400,000,000. I'm assuming that he would have to pay some kind of tax on that sale.

If we let him 'donate' the land, he gets to write off a $1.54B (yes, billion with a B) donation. A pretty good deal from where I sit. I think he might save a lot of money in taxes with that.

So, let's say that we let him take impact fee credits for his 'donation'. Let's assume a $15K fee for each house. If I understand it correctly that is actually higher than the fee really is, but that's OK.

$400M (based on a $20K value per acre) divided by $15K equals, 26,667 homes. If we have to give him credits based on the $77K per acre he would have to build 102,667 homes. These represent the number of homes he could build without ever paying an impact fee.

Are you still with me, or did I bore you to tears? How much 'credit' is he asking for? I'm sure it is going to be a good deal for him. If we gave him a dollar for every $1K ‘donated’, he would get $400K in credits even based on the lower $20K value per acre.

At $400K he would have only have to build 26 homes before he had to start paying a fee. I doubt if that his going to be too satisfactory to him. I hope if the task force is formed, that someone from the staff brings a calculator with them. I’m with Durwood on this one. If it comes with a price tag, it isn’t a donation.

He gets a tax write off for donating the land, he gets a credit for impact fees and we the tax payers get to pay for the roads and schools. Is this a great country or what?

Finder

Finder, you have found the secret of government.  It doesn't protect and serve its regular citizens, it just moves massive amounts of money from them into the pockets of a few select people.

The methods used to accomplish that tax and reward system are often incredibly convoluted by design.  It's harder to follow the money that way.

I haven't checked your math or even know if your equation makes sense, because it usually takes at least a half-dozen reads when following a tax dollar's route into some wealthy person's account.  But it certainly sounds like you're in the neighborhood.

Wouldn't it be nice if Clay County's tax dollars were spent providing police and fire protection, schools and roads, instead of using our money to help wealthy people get wealthier by building things that require even more of our money?

Michael S. Mann

I want to put the following link on a recent blog and figured 'growth' is an appropriate one to put the water issue back on our blog "table".

I was just sent this link - it's to an article in the Orlando Sentinel and is a good example of the St. Johns River Water Management District's 'mismanagement'. Approving a water bottling plant in an area where they need the St. Johns River diverted because they won't have enough by 2013? This is shameful!!

http://www.sjrwmd.com/newsclips/archive/2007/111207/Orlando%20Sentinel%20-%20Bottler

%20controversy%20gives%20foretaste%20of%20Lake%20County%20water%20wars.pdf

Also, Mr. Kirby Green, Chairman of the Board of the SJRWMD will make a presentation before the Board of County Commissioners at 2:00 pm on Nov 20. It should be an interesting meeting.

I have been a watcher of this blog, with an occasional comment for a few weeks now; the habit can only be blamed on a rainy week-end.Looks like Clay County has its own “non group”. If I have observed the post correctly, the people who contribute to political campaigns are beneficiaries of the decisions made by elected officials. How to get the information you have gathered into the hands of the electors is the challenge?  Most people are busy earning a living and raising their family with no knowledge that a few people gain extraordinary wealth at our expense. JonBoy

Sunflower; 

All I can say is UGLY!!!!!

It seems fairly obvious that SJRWMD is on the side of developers. From what I can see, if they had the choice, the building of the pumping station and pipeline would begin tomorrow morning.

Depends on how you read things as to whether it is 155M or over 200M gallons per day that they want to suck out of the river. I guess 155M will come directly from the SJR and the rest will be out of the other river. Of course the other river flows into the SJR, but I guess that doesn't count.

As to the Niagra Bottling Co. proposal, I've heard a lot of crazy stuff but this one is truly over the top. In addition to letting them pump water from an insufficient supply so they can sell back to us in plastic bottles, the city wants to give them tax credits so they'll build the plant.

As I said in my other reply; ain't this a great country?

Finder

finder,

My recollection was that the agreed-upon mitigation price was $77K per acre and there were 66 acres involved with the state right-of-way. The value of the mitigation would be $5,082,000.

The uppermost eminent domain price was $90k per acre for a total of $5,940,000 on 66 acres.

How do you come up with $400m and $1.54 billion, respectively?

If the impact fee is $15k then he offsets impacts against 338 houses.

If FDOT had taken the land at the higher $90k per acre, I calculate the impact on 396 houses.

That's much different than your picture. Can you walk us through your formula?

Finder, I think you misheard the numbers provided. You're right about the twenty thousand dollar an acre land being purchased by FDOT for sevety seven thousand dollars an acre. But as I listened, this was for a package of sixty six acres not twenty thousand acres. Of course, it's still outrageous. Whoever signed off on this deal has a bright future working for the governemnt as a buyer for toilet seats priced at 600 dollars a pop. It's also another reason government is never to be trusted. To even admit they were doing this because they are too lazy to do anything in an ethical manner is plain disgusting.  The point in this match goes to Key who picked up on the error.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

The land developer has land that is inside LAMPA (Lake Asbury Master Plan) which he is asking for credits/perks for. He has the other land outside LAMPA that he is requesting perks for too. This is land inside of his DRI (development of regional impact) called Saratoga Springs.

FDOT is requesting 5 miles of the developers land of an almost 50 mile road for ROW donations.

LAMPA has provisions for credits but the land outside of LAMPA which the developer stated was about 66 acres has no plan for credits to be established.

Funny how the developer just recently sold the taxpayers some of his land for 30K and now he wants credit for some other land in the same area but the value just jumped up to 77K per acre for credits. The slow down in the market only effect regular folks but large land developers it increases daily are so it seems.

When calculating the total impact to the taxpayers you have to include the perks for the land inside of LAMPA as well as the land outside of LAMPA. Because he is requesting perks for both. As well as the perks he is getting from FDOT because State dollars are tax dollars too.

It's business.

If the Government expected to pay $90,000 per acre and negotiated with a landowner for $77,000 per acre. That's a good deal.

On top of that, the County Manager preserved the County's mitigation against county impacts.

FDOT got a good deal. It was less than they expected to pay for the right-of-way and Clay County preserved it's right to mitigate road impacts on the same value of land.

Good then let FDOT give him the perks not the county. That is not a county road that is not a county project. Why should the taxpayers of the county pay the land developer anything. This should be a deal between FDOT and the land owner not the taxpayers of the county.

The developer is getting perks from FDOT and the county for the same land.

Business, I have never seen in business anywhere that it would be legal to sell/perks for the same piece of property to 2 different people.

Well except for Clay County.

Angela,

Unfortunately, FDOT drew Clay County into this drama by virtue of asking the County to help negotiate the road impacts. Period.

If you're unhappy with this result, please direct your complaints to FDOT. Not Clay County.

And no, Clay County is not receiving ANY perks from the same parcel of land.

You mislead the public, Angela.

FDOT required the land developer to donate the land he is mitigating now when the developer wanted the Commissioner to pass his request for a DRI called Saratoga Springs. This developement was passed by the Commissioners.

Evidently the land developer reneged on the deal.

Now the developer is holding out because all the other land in the other counties has been secured.

The letter submitted states the land developer has approached the county wanting perks for the land from the county.

Mr. Iley stated the county would not give the land developer anything until he completed the agreement for the ROW with FDOT.

Well with the sweet deal the taxpayers of Clay County just gave him and if the total is what FDOT came up with of 77K per acre. Then the land developer get 154K per acre in perks, 77k from the county taxpayers and 77K for FDOT which is taxpayers money too. For the grand total-- drum roll please 154K per acre now that's a sweet deal at the expense of the taxpayers. 

... it's down the rabbit hole to converse with you Key. Seventy thousand dollars for a twenty thousand dollar value is by no stretch of the imagination just "business" It is incompetence squared. The fact is no one in government charged with being fiscally accountable ever seems to live up to the job. (Take a look at the front page the other day regarding FEMA and the seaquarium.) If it were me I would make the offer of twenty thousand. If it is refused, so be it. Let them try to get the money from some other schnook. The Outer Beltway is an unnecessary project.  For these FDOT clowns to simply cave in a like a two dollar suitcase just magnifies the contempt that all government workers have for taxpayers. Get the taser out. I have some "fish" to fry.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Lily

At least we know why Uncle Jack was smiling so much at Tuesday's BCC meeting!

lilyslore,

The $20k per acre was a number George threw out there. Who knows what the real value of the property is. I get what you're saying. Money is being made in terms of establishing future development credits against impacts.

angela,

I would question doubling the $77k. The county is not building a road on that right of way, the state is. Any future county impacts on roads would be negotiated later and I suspect at a much reduced rate.

I guess I should have turned up my hearing aid. For some reason I thought I heard the number of acres involved was 20K. That is a long way off from the 66 that it sounds like is really involved.

Having said that, I still am of the opinion that it is a really good deal for the owner. Get a tax credit for 'donating' that land and then get impact fee credit for the value of the land 'donated'. $20K, $77K or $90K makes no difference. It's all numbers on a piece af paper. The only real money that is going to go anyplace, or not go as the case may be, is the money the county would not get in impact fees if this deal goes down the way he wants it to.

Finder

Quote from Iley;

Value of the Fair Share ROW credit as a result of the Reinhold Beltway ROW contribution shall be, the fair maket value of the Reinhold Beltway ROW Contirbution to be established as of the date of conveyance and escalated at the rate applied by Clay County to fair share payment under Article 10A of the LDR, said escalation being applicable to the time (years) between conveyance and use of the Fair Share ROW credit resulting from the Reinhold Beltway ROW contribution by a specific development.

Since Reinhold has no application for a specific development to apply these credits too when he does it will be escalated to the years between the conveyance and the use of the credits.

Thus no one could tell you what the actual cost to the taxpayers will be until after he applies for the credits on a development.

Mr Iley quote, This understanding would lock in the credit methods contained in the letter for an undetermined amount of time. It is a policy decision by the BCC as to whether that is the correct course of action in regard to the matter.

Well our Commissioners did it too us again.

Key2life see if you can find out the actual final cost to the taxpayers for the perks we just gave Reinhold.

Angela,

I stand corrected. I missed that part. Thanks for the information.

It's hard enough keeping up with my third grader's math much less calculate the "actual final cost" because in my mind, it's offset by the benefit the county will receive one the Outer Beltway  is built (which, of course I support).

Well I don't support the "no matter the cost, no matter the loss" for the building of a roadway that benefits developers, as Commissioner Bush stated.

I don't support the destruction of the Shands Bridge at a cost to the citizens on top of the perks we will give the developer. Much less the way it was handled with the endorsement fiasco that got us here.

I don't support the continued neglect of the current citizens who are already here and the road problems that we are plaugued with daily and no help, while we support a developer in future and continued population growth and the destruction of the enviornment and the depeletion of the water system we have presently to satisfy a developer.

I don't support making a developer wealthier at the expense of the taxpayers. I don't care how you mitigate that little deal.

I think like Lily, I would tell the developer, "Cheez-It" get your own box. But I guess the developer wouldn't be so wealthy if he didn't have the taxpayers to abuse.