9-25-23 Attachment AEllen Glasser <glassere@comcast.net>
Roll Back Rate Vote
9/21/2023 12:09 PM
Elected Officials <electedofficials@coab.us> khogencamp@coab.us <khogencamp@coab.us>
Greetings:
I tried to refrain from comment but failed. I have a good understanding of the millage rate, but, having
gone through some lengthy public discussion last year to reduce it slightly, I was pretty surprised that
you all voted for the roll back rate instead of the proposed rate in the last meeting. It is hard to be
dissenting in that environment. The proposed rate seemed a lot more prudent. As fiduciaries for our
residents, I believe you gave back more than we you had to, given that the current economy affects
the city too.
We are in a position where residents are paying more because the homes that they own are worth an
lot more, which is good for them. This is the system in place in our state - there is nothing arbitrary
about it. We are all lucky we can live in Atlantic Beach.
As someone who lives on a fixed income and whose home value has appreciated greatly, I do not
feel that the amount I pay to Atlantic Beach (app. 16.5 cents on the tax dollar, but that is another
discussion!)) is too much to pay. Am I overtaxed by AB? I think not. Looking at my TRIM notice, my
portion of taxes to AB is already less than what I pay to the County, or to public schools, or for
insurance, and I get a whole lot more for the money here in AB!
Other concerns:
1. At the last meeting, we were kinda in-between city managers, and the public discussion was timed
without Joe's presence. What was his input? He was paid a lot during the process and the budget is
perhaps your most important duty. The timing of your action puts a lot of pressure on the staff, since
the budget voted on used the proposed rate. Did staff converse with all Commissioners on the
impacts of this? Kevin was probably not in a position to question it in the meeting, although I don't
know.
2. To say that the roll back rate would not affect services does not take into account many factors,
mostly dealing with rising project and personnel costs. There are two major capital projects with the
LG Station and Baker Center, and perhaps the walkover project. I expect costs to rise on all of them.
3. No other local jurisdiction has adopted the roll back rate, to include COJ for the last 25 years. Ask
them why, as all of them, like us, are supported by budget professionals and fiscally conservative
officials.
4. You have boxed in future Commissions, so, off there is another recession, they will be the bad
guys to increase the rate.
5. Best practices inform officials not to use the reserve to manage a budget, but if reserves are at
39%, please refer to the existing fund balance policy to determine next steps. I liked that idea. Debt
payment from reserves might have been a more prudent option, rather that using the roll back rate.
6. Those who will benefit the most by your action are the wealthiest homeowners among us, as the
increases link to property values. None of them spoke at the meeting, as we heard primarily from
those on fixed incomes and former politicians.
7. We are a well-off city, and people expect good service. The revenue lost by using the roll back rate
could have been used needed to do better for our residents, whether by streets, infrastructure,
programs, workforce, or police.
In closing, the action may starve your efforts on behalf of residents, and it seemed like political
theater and/or an appeasement for one or more people. I believe few would have complained if you
had gone with the more prudent, proposed millage rate, which was still less than 3 mills.
Thank you for your service,
Ellen G