A Tale of Two Mandates: Palm Bay Council Proposes Exceeding Voter-Approved Palm Bay Tax Cap
A significant debate is heating up in Palm Bay: your City Council is considering overriding a voter-approved 3% property tax cap. A 4-1 majority cites "critical needs" for public safety and infrastructure, despite residents twice rejecting a tax increase at the ballot box. This proposed move could generate $8.3 million in new revenue.
What does this mean for your tax bill and the city's future? Unpack the proposed tax increase and its implications for Palm Bay here.
Apparently, we are transitioning into a socialist society, where residents vote, does not count. I live on the southeast side of Palm Bay. Hundreds of new homes already constructed and more currently being constructed and thousands more projected to be constructed in the near future. First thing we needed is clarification. Is it not true the impact fee is to be utilized where the construction is impacting the neighborhoods and infrastructure? Whatever happened to all the impact fees collected from the southeast side? There are no road repairs, other some patching which makes roads more uneven, rougher surfaces. Didn't the residents of Palm Bay also voted for a road tax a couple of years ago, what happen to those funds? We hear the same song and dance but never see any improvements. We have funds available for installing cameras on the roads to collect more money from the residents already strapped. Homeowners are responsible for all of the Tax Base Burden for Palm Bay, because our city officials refuse to allow businesses to come in and share the tax burden and give owners some relief. So, now let's just dismiss the residents' that voted and override their voter-approved 3% property tax cap and do whatever we want as City Officials.
Thanks Tom. I think now we have a better understanding of why the Governor proposed eliminating property taxes. Local Governments are drunk on the revenue. Palm Bay has had nothing but new resident revenue since before covid. New houses have been built in mass at elevated assessments, (at least initially uncapped) , with a portion of that being non-homesteaded houses that have no cap. Given the constant feedback the Council receives on unrestrained growth, you would think these guys would raise impact fees if they legitimately needed more revenue. $147K for tractor repair? Something must be broken in the procurement process, you wouldn't buy a car that had such a maintenance reputation? Add mandatory utility mandates to a sewer system that systemically dumps sewage in waterways, and the restraining of public comments, its starting to look like these guys are losing what little connection they had with the voters in the first place.