Title: Citrus Mutual Urges Defeat in Water District Tax Vote
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00002088/00001
 Material Information
Title: Citrus Mutual Urges Defeat in Water District Tax Vote
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: Tampa Tribune
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Citrus Mutual Urges Defeat in Water District Tax Vote, March 4, 1976
General Note: Box 10, Folder 2 ( SF Taxation, ad valorem tax referendum-SWFWMD-1976 - 1976 ), Item 40
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00002088
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text






Citrus Mutual Urges Defeat



In Water District Tax Vote


By JIM FISHER
Tribune Citrus Writer


LAKELAND Florida Citrus Mutual
is advocating defeat of the March 9 ref-
erendum regarding ad valorem taxes for
water management districts, but it does
not oppose the basic idea for levying
such taxes.
Decision to oppose the proposal was
made by the Mutual board in the wake
of seven months of study by its water
and pollution control committee. in a
report to the board. Robert Fritch. chair-
man of the committee. said it had held
numerous meetings on the matter about
the state, had gathered with informed
parties from the three water manage-
ment districts that will involve citrus.
i .


and had read "countless volumes of ma-
terial on the subject."
FINDINGS OF THE committee were
as follows:
(1) A local ad valorem tax for local
water management projects is a proper
use of this type of tax. Land directly
benefits from water management. (2)
The use of subdistricts or basin boards is
advisable as this brings government
closer to those governed.
(3) The proposed amendment is mis-
leading and an unacceptable funding
tool. The ballot omits a portion of the
amendment under question. with a
minor but unexplained tax discrepancy
in the Northwest District. (4) There is an
unquestionable inequity in the one full
mill for most of the state and only one-
twentieth of a mill for the Northwest
portion.
(5) It is merely a matter of time until
water management boards are reappor-
tioned. At that time. the importance of
separate river basin boards or subdis-
tricts with a voice in decisions concern-
ing the millage levy will become much
more apparent. (6) Water management
cannot be considered as a separate issue
from other natural and man-made re-
sources.
(7) A major shortcoming exists in the
lack of any working provision for coor-
dination among planning agencies. (8)
The Legislature has no plan of how to
use the "new found" tax money if the
referendum passes. Presently, some
funds are matched with those generated
by ad valorem taxes, but in a money


crunch year. the Legislature well could
not grant general revenue funds. and
could raise the millage on property for
ad valorem taxes.
(9) There is no emergency to pass the
referendum. Even if the referendum
passes, the complexity of the State Con-
stitution and the Florida Statutes would
delay the water management districts
from receiving any funds until'at least
November. 1978. (10) Financing of water
management districts should not be con-
sidered in isolation from the other issues
which remain unresolved in water man-
agement.

RECEIVED


MAR 5- 1976


By -- ---------------------


-1 1




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs