Shining light on the good, bad and ugly of bureaucracy in Uncategorized

Decision validates series of stories by Red Tape Florida 

By Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida 

For more than a year, Red Tape Florida has documented a pattern playing out across the state. 

The Legislature passes laws to reduce bureaucracy. 

Some local governments respond by creating new bureaucracy.  

On Thursday, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier drew a bright legal line that should put many of those practices in jeopardy. 

In a formal legal opinion requested by Rep. Chip LaMarca (R-Lighthouse Point), the Attorney General concluded that local governments: 

• May not require duplicate inspections or site visits that replicate inspections already performed by a private provider.  

• May not adopt procedures, policies or standards that are more stringent than Florida’s private-provider statute.  

• May not impose unauthorized administrative fees on projects using private providers.  

• Must refund fees collected beyond what state law authorizes.  

That’s not merely another interpretation of Florida’s private-provider law. 

It’s a sweeping affirmation of exactly what builders, engineers and private providers have been arguing for years — and what Red Tape Florida has repeatedly documented. 

The Attorney General wrote that Section 553.791 “explicitly prohibits” local governments from requiring additional inspections that duplicate work already performed by private providers. He further concluded that local governments “may not adopt or enforce any laws, rules, procedures, policies, qualifications, or standards more stringent” than those authorized by the statute. Finally, he concluded that fees collected beyond what the law allows are unauthorized and must be refunded.  

For Red Tape Florida readers, those conclusions will sound remarkably familiar. 

Over the past year, we’ve reported on example after example of local governments appearing to do exactly what the Attorney General now says they cannot. 

Among them: 

• Alachua County. RTF documented county policies that private providers argued amounted to duplicate inspections and locally created procedures beyond those contemplated by state law. The Attorney General’s opinion squarely states that local governments may not require inspections or site visits that replicate work already performed by a private provider and may not impose more stringent procedures than Section 553.791 allows.  

• Hotel Tallahassee. RTF reported on repeated city site visits after a private provider had already performed inspections, raising questions about whether local governments were effectively recreating inspections under different labels. While the Attorney General did not address that project specifically, his opinion makes clear that local governments cannot require duplicate inspections or site visits that replicate work already completed by private providers.  

• Gulf County’s $500 private-provider fee. RTF questioned whether the county could charge a flat fee to applicants simply because they chose a private provider. The Attorney General now concludes that local governments may charge only those fees authorized by statute, must reduce permit fees to reflect services they no longer perform, and must refund unauthorized excess fees.  

• Busy Bee in Columbia County. RTF documented wildly different permit costs on the same project and raised questions about governments charging for work they would never perform because a private provider had been retained. The Attorney General’s opinion reinforces that permit fees must reflect actual governmental costs and services, not become an additional barrier to using private providers.  

• Tallahassee’s private-provider discount. RTF previously questioned why Tallahassee retained such a large portion of permit fees compared with neighboring Leon County when private providers handled much of the work. The Attorney General did not evaluate Tallahassee’s calculations, but his opinion makes clear that permit fees must be tied to the government’s actual costs and savings — not arbitrary percentages.  

Each of those stories involved different facts. 

Each involved different local governments. 

But they all pointed to the same underlying issue:  Was Florida’s private-provider law actually being followed? 

Now the state’s chief legal officer has answered. This opinion leaves little doubt about legislative intent. 

The Legislature didn’t spend years expanding Florida’s private-provider law only to allow local governments to recreate the same bureaucracy through extra paperwork, duplicate inspections, local policies or unauthorized fees. 

That’s exactly what the Attorney General said. 

For months, Red Tape Florida has chronicled the growing gap between what the Legislature said it wanted and what many local governments were actually doing. 

Today’s opinion narrows that gap considerably. 

The law says what it says. 

The Legislature meant what it said. 

Now the question is whether local governments — and the state agencies charged with overseeing them — will finally start acting like it.  

July 17, 2026
Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida

Employment, wages, population, bankruptcy all headed in wrong direction; instead of lining up paid apologists, maybe local officials should take action? 

By Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida 

If one economic indicator were moving in the wrong direction, it could be dismissed as a bad quarter or a statistical anomaly. Two or three might still be explained away. But when a series of major measures tells the same story, it’s much harder to ignore.  

That’s exactly what emerges from the Office of Economic Vitality’s own public dashboard and the federal and state data behind it. 

This analysis focuses specifically on Leon County, where OEV is headquartered and where local taxpayers fund its operations. While the agency has increasingly emphasized Tallahassee metropolitan-area statistics — which include Gadsden, Jefferson and Wakulla counties — its own county-level data raise serious questions about the trajectory of Leon’s economy. 

Fewer residents are working. OEV’s interactive dashboard shows the number of Leon County residents holding jobs has fallen from 163,592 in October 2024 to 154,743 in the most recent reporting month — a decline of 8,849 workers, or 5.4 percent, in roughly a year and a half. At the same time, unemployment has moved sharply in the wrong direction. Federal Reserve data based on Bureau of Labor Statistics figures shows Leon County’s unemployment rate climbing from the mid-3 percent range a year ago to 5.0 percent in the most recent month available. Those two trends rarely point to an economy gaining momentum. 

Wages remain a concern. Leon County became the only one of Florida’s largest counties to see average weekly wages decline during 2024. Although wages rebounded in 2025, the recovery still leaves the county with only a modest 3.4 percent gain over the full two-year period. For a community that increasingly competes for higher-paying private-sector jobs, wage stagnation is hardly encouraging. 

Population growth has slowed to a crawl. Census estimates show Leon County added just 402 residents between 2023 and 2024 — a growth rate of only 0.13 percent — and continues to trail neighboring Wakulla and Jefferson counties. While earlier Census revisions showed an outright population decline, the broader trend remains unmistakable: Leon is growing far more slowly than much of the rest of Florida. 

Housing is recovering — but still below recent norms. Single-family construction permits have rebounded significantly from last year’s lows, which is welcome news. Even so, permitting through May remains about 14 percent behind last year’s pace and well below the levels reached only a few years ago. It’s an improvement, but not yet a return to the county’s stronger growth years. 

The remaining indicators point in the same direction. Bankruptcy filings have climbed 65 percent since 2021. Taxable sales declined 13 percent year over year in the most recent reporting period. New business applications have fallen by more than one-quarter since 2021. None of those trends suggest a local economy firing on all cylinders. All of them come from OEV’s dashboard. 

Any one of these statistics, standing alone, could be dismissed as noise. Economic data gets revised. Housing cycles fluctuate. Consumer spending rises and falls. But taken together, they paint a remarkably consistent picture. 

Fewer people are working. Unemployment is higher. Wage growth has lagged. Population growth is virtually nonexistent. Residential construction remains below recent norms. Bankruptcies are rising. Consumers are spending less. Entrepreneurs are starting fewer businesses. 

OEV’s own dashboard is designed to measure economic performance. On many of its most important indicators, that dashboard is flashing warning signs. 

This should be the first and main subject of every local commission meeting – what are we doing about our lagging, stagnant economy?  

July 16, 2026
By Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida 

No, it’s not a Florida-Georgia Line lyric, Tallahassee taxpayers actually shelled out nearly $100,000 – perhaps more – for a luxury vehicle for the TPD Police Chief. Here’s the kicker – a no-limit contract means the City could have spent more 

By Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida 

As the City of Tallahassee prepares for higher property tax bills, offers employee buyouts and weighs budget cuts, records obtained by Red Tape Florida show taxpayers have spent at least $98,751 to purchase and equip the Police Chief’s take-home truck. 

Chief Lawrence Revell now drives a ruby red 2025 Ford F-350 King Ranch 4×4, fully loaded with a four-inch lift kit, 20-inch aluminum wheels, a spray-in bed liner, power running boards, and, of course, police lighting. It was paid for by the City of Tallahassee as a part of his contract. 

Before receiving the King Ranch, the City had purchased Revell a 2024 Ford F-150. On July 18, 2025, it traded that truck to Tallahassee Ford for a $44,500 credit toward the purchase of the King Ranch, contributing an additional $52,114.43 in taxpayer funds to complete the transaction. It then spent another $2,136.90 outfitting the truck with police radios and emergency lighting. 

The documented taxpayer investment before the truck entered service: at least $98,751.33 (it is not yet known what the City paid for the 2024 vehicle, although it surely depreciated in the time since it was purchased). 

What makes that expenditure particularly noteworthy is that there was no contractual ceiling preventing the City from spending even more. 

The only approval required is from City Manager Reese Goad, who has the same provision in his own contract. The City has not yet provided information on what Goad is driving or how much it costs. 

The same contract also allows Revell to purchase the vehicle from the City at book value when his employment ends. 

The Paper Trail 

A City purchase order dated July 9, 2025, authorized payment of $52,114.43 to Tallahassee Auto Investors LLC, the parent company of Tallahassee Ford, for a 2025 Ford F-350 King Ranch 4×4. The purchase order notes that the price included a $44,500 trade allowance for Revell’s 2024 Ford F-150. 

The accompanying dealer invoice describes the truck as a King Ranch equipped with a number of features typical in police vehicle, such as a powerful diesel engine.  

The sales representative identified on both the quote and invoice is Shawn Revell. Red Tape Florida has not determined if Shawn Revell is related to Chief Lawrence Revell. 

The truck was later sent to Dana Safety Supply, where police radios, emergency lighting and related equipment were installed before it entered service. 

The Contract 

Section 6 of Revell’s employment agreement reads: 

“The Employee shall have the exclusive and unrestricted use, at all times during his employment with the City, of an automobile provided him by the City. The City shall be responsible for paying the purchase price, operation, maintenance, repair, and regular replacement of said automobile.” 

No dollar cap. 

No restriction on vehicle type. 

No requirement for Commission approval. 

No requirement that replacement occurs only after a specified number of years or miles. 

The contract gives the City Manager broad discretion over what taxpayers may ultimately purchase. 

The City Manager Had the Same Benefit 

Revell’s contract was signed by then-City Manager Reese Goad. 

Goad’s own employment agreement contains nearly identical language providing him a City vehicle, likewise with no stated maximum value or vehicle classification. 

The City has not yet produced records showing what vehicle Goad drives or how much taxpayers spent on it. 

What the Policies Say 

The City’s Fleet Management Policy establishes procedures for take-home vehicles, maintenance and replacement, but does not establish a maximum value for executive vehicles provided under employment contracts. 

Administrative Policy 803 addresses only the IRS treatment of take-home vehicles as a taxable fringe benefit. 

TPD’s vehicle assignment policy likewise governs operational use but does not address the Police Chief’s contract or establish any spending limits. 

Meanwhile, City Procurement Policy 242 allows purchases of up to $250,000 to be approved administratively without City Commission approval. 

None of those policies answer the larger governance question: 

Who decided taxpayers should provide the Police Chief with a nearly $100,000 take-home truck — and who decides what the next one costs? 

What the Standard Looks Like 

Florida city managers have another option. 

The Florida City and County Management Association publishes a model employment agreement for local governments across the state. Rather than providing an open-ended City-owned vehicle, the model recommends a fixed monthly allowance. 

Its language reads: 

“Vehicle Allowance. Manager to receive $______ per month for expenses, including maintenance, repairs, gasoline, and insurance associated with his use of his/her own vehicle within the City/County (and, in lieu of mileage expenses, within the State of Florida).” 

Under that approach, the governing board sets the monthly amount as part of the employment agreement. The executive owns the vehicle, is responsible for replacing it, and bears the cost if he or she chooses something pricier than the allowance covers. 

Tallahassee took a different approach. Revell’s contract requires the City to purchase, maintain, repair and regularly replace his vehicle, with no maximum value or class specified.  

What’s Still Missing 

Two of Tallahassee’s most senior officials — one of them now retiring — held contracts that let the City buy them a vehicle for any price, any class, replaced on any schedule the City Manager chose, with no Commission vote required at any point in the process. 

Records on how many other City vehicles work the same way are still outstanding. 

The two questions for Tallahassee taxpayers are this: is almost $100,000 too much for one truck for one city official and should there be a cap on what can be spent for that and other city brass? 

For now, what’s documented is this — taxpayers paid for a Police Chief’s truck, and nothing in his contract would have stopped that number from being higher. 

July 9, 2026
By Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida 

Inside Alachua County’s code chaos 

How a rogue building official is flouting state law – and costing homeowners 

By Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida 

The inspection dispute that unfolded on a jobsite in Alachua County wasn’t an isolated flare-up. It was a window into a system that has drifted far from what Florida law requires. 

Under state statute, a licensed private provider becomes the inspector of record. Yet Alachua County routinely sends its own inspectors anyway — and often shows up without the private provider present, issues findings, cancels inspections, and tells contractors they may not proceed until the county signs off. 

This is more than duplication. It is the county substituting its own authority for the one the Legislature created, and the result is predictable: delays, confusion, and costs ultimately borne by the homeowner.  

One case illustrates the problem. The pattern tells the real story. 

Florida’s Legislature rewrote the law to give property owners a choice. They can use government inspectors or hire licensed private-sector experts who must meet equal or higher professional standards. Private Providers carry personal liability, carry stronger licensing obligations, and often have deeper expertise in individual trades than the government staff reviewing their work. 

But in Alachua County, that choice has become an illusion. When property owners hire private providers, the county inserts itself anyway, rewrites the process, duplicates inspections, invents new requirements, and demands that contractors bow to a shadow system that appears designed to make private providers’ work slower, harder, and less viable. 

And the man driving that system, Building Official Dan Gargas, has a history that makes the pattern difficult to dismiss. 

In 1999, the Record-Courier newspaper in Ohio reported that Gargas had been fired twice as a building director in Streetsboro. In a formal termination letter, the mayor cited complaints from the construction trades, complaints from the public, codification errors, unjustified fee increases, budget disputes, and what she called “an unacceptable lack of accountability.” 

Gargas has since hopped around – Monroe County, Fla., Lakeland, perhaps other areas – with the circumstances of his departure unclear. 

Regardless, the echoes today of his time in Ohio are hard to miss. 

The county that doesn’t want private providers to succeed 

Florida Statute 553.791 is clear: when a private provider is engaged, that provider becomes the inspector of record. The local building official may audit, but may not duplicate inspections. The goals are efficiency, competency and accountability. 

Alachua County has decided otherwise. 

County leadership has invented a new category called “Private Provider Inspection Confirmation” — a phrase that appears nowhere in the statute. On paper, it sounds like simple verification. In practice, these “confirmations” are full duplicate inspections. County inspectors show up unannounced, redo the work the private provider already performed, issue correction notices without sharing them with the private provider, and tell contractors they must wait for county approval even when state law says otherwise. 

The message is unmistakable: if you choose a private provider, Alachua County will inspect you again anyway. And again. And again. 

At that point, why would any contractor risk the delays, confusion, or double-jeopardy created by a county that simply refuses to accept the legitimacy of private-sector expertise? 

And remember, these added costs and delays eventually are passed down to homeowners. 

The notice trap: how Alachua County rewrites state law by portal glitch 

The Legislature eliminated the old rule requiring next-day notice by 2 p.m. Private providers now must simply give an approximate date and time of inspection. 

Alachua County has rejected that.  

They refuse email notifications. 

They require scheduling through a county portal that doesn’t allow same-day appointments. 

They claim the statute somehow forbids same-day notice even though the text explicitly allows it. 

The result is predictable: contractors get blamed for “improper notice,” even when the only impediment is the county’s own system. 

The law gives flexibility. The county erases it. And private providers take the hit. 

Withheld reports and one-sided communications 

In multiple cases, Alachua County has sent inspection findings directly to contractors — listing deficiencies, cancellations, or demands for reinspection — while failing to send those same reports to the private provider responsible for the job. 

This breaks their own written policy. It also sabotages the provider’s ability to resolve issues promptly. 

When the county tells a contractor “you may not proceed without approval from Alachua County,” after the private provider has already approved the work, the county is not protecting safety. It is undermining the statutory authority of the private provider. 

This is discrimination through paperwork. 

The county invents permits to stall jobs 

During one visit in November, the county abruptly informed a contractor that the project required two new permits: one for lighting and one for the dumpster on-site. 

The lighting permit was an error. The dumpster permit was an invention. 

The dumpster was shown on the approved plans. No such permit requirement appears in Alachua County’s code. The public inspection log does not show a visit that would have identified it earlier. Yet this new requirement appeared after two unannounced site visits and was delivered as a condition of proceeding. 

This is regulation as improvisation, not law. 

A registration system the county ignores 

Florida statute allows local governments to create a one-time registration system to verify a private provider’s license and insurance. Once registered, the provider should not have to re-submit documents for every permit. 

Alachua County denies permits anyway, claiming the certificate of insurance is “missing” even after registration is complete. 

This is friction for friction’s sake — another attempt to discourage private-sector participation. 

Audit authority rewritten by semantics 

Florida law limits a building official to four audits per year per private provider — and only after the building department audits its own staff for two consecutive quarters. 

Alachua County appears to have completely skipped the self-audit requirement. Instead, they conduct multiple visits to the same job within days and label them “code checks,” claiming they are not audits and thus not subject to statutory limits. 

Calling an audit a “code check” does not make it legal. 
It simply exposes the motive: keep private providers under constant pressure until they leave the county or stop competing. 

The qualifications question: who is actually the most competent? 

Private provider inspectors are often more qualified than the county staff reviewing their work. 

Many private providers: 

• hold multiple state licenses 

• have decades of trade experience 

• carry personal liability for their work 

• maintain stricter continuing-education requirements 

• undergo direct oversight from DBPR and state licensing boards 

Many county inspectors: 

• do not hold equivalent trade licenses 

• have less recent field experience 

• face minimal personal liability 

• are shielded by government employment protections 

• may audit work they are not technically qualified to perform 

This is the root of the hostility. 
The private sector threatens the county’s monopoly. 
The county responds by creating rules designed to push private providers out. 

A statewide problem? No. An Alachua County problem. 

CT Solutions works in 181 jurisdictions across Florida. 
Only Alachua County behaves this way. 

Citrus County plays by the statute. In fact, most counties welcome private providers because they ease workloads and accelerate construction. 

Alachua County treats them as an enemy. 

And when a building official, once fired for “unjustified fee increases” and “complaints from the trades,” begins redefining inspections and inventing permit hurdles, it’s worth asking whether history is repeating itself — and whether contractors and property owners are paying the price. 

December 12, 2025
Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida 

When Backstreet Boys member Brian Littrell bought a stretch of beachfront property in Santa Rosa Beach, he likely didn’t expect the Walton County Sheriff’s Office to play the role of absentee landlord. But that’s exactly what’s alleged in a new legal petition filed this month. 

Littrell claims that, despite repeated reports of trespassers crossing onto his deeded beach, sheriff’s deputies refused to intervene — citing vague jurisdictional rules and unclear direction from county leadership. Translation: “Not our problem.” 

This isn’t just a celebrity property dispute. It’s a window into how local red tape — in this case, through inaction rather than overreach — can leave taxpayers holding the bag for services they’re already paying for. 

A Legal No-Man’s Land 

In Florida, the line between public and private beach is supposed to be clear: sand below the mean high-water mark belongs to the public, while sand above it — if deeded — is private. But in practice, that line is invisible. And when county law enforcement refuses to enforce property rights above it, homeowners are left to defend their land themselves. 

That’s exactly what Littrell is now doing. In his petition, he says he’s been forced to pay out of pocket for private security just to keep trespassers off his property — all while still paying taxes that fund the very law enforcement agency declining to act. 

The Walton County Sheriff’s Office declined to comment on the pending legal matter. A public records request by Red Tape Florida turned up no current policy or directive governing beach trespass enforcement. 

The Politics of Non-Enforcement 

This isn’t the first time Walton County has punted on beach-related governance. In 2018, under pressure from the state, the county repealed its customary use ordinance — which had allowed the public to access privately owned beach areas — sparking years of legal and political battles. 

Now, in the vacuum left behind, enforcement appears to be optional. But optional for whom? 

This case reveals the dangers of selective governance: when public officials shy away from enforcing established rules because the issue is politically hot, regular citizens — even famous ones — get left behind. 

The Red Tape at Work 

At Red Tape Florida, we spotlight government dysfunction in all its forms — whether it’s regulatory overload or bureaucratic cowardice. This case is the latter. 

If citizens must pay out-of-pocket to enforce their own legal rights, then we’re no longer just talking about bad governance — we’re talking about a fundamental failure of public duty. 

Walton County doesn’t get to stay silent forever. The taxpayers — and beach owners — deserve a straight answer. 

July 25, 2025

There’s no more fitting tribute to Red Tape Florida’s recent piece — “The Red Tape Machine Doesn’t Get Its Start in City Hall. It Cranks Up in the Comments.” — than the actual Facebook comments reacting to it. 

You can’t parody this stuff. In the very thread responding to a story about how grassroots outrage creates red tape, commenters lined up to — wait for it — fuel the very outrage machine that begets red tape. It’s a meta-loop of performative fury. 

The story made a pretty simple point: bad public process doesn’t begin in a conference room at City Hall. It starts when political leaders are bombarded with contradictory, emotional demands from people who may or may not have even read the proposals they’re railing against. Leaders over-correct, stall, and then wrap a simple plan in a hundred-page binder to appease the masses. Thus: red tape. 

And then the comment section delivered — with full-volume fury and not a whisper of irony: 

• “This was done behind closed doors.” 
• “They already paid off the commissioners.” 
• “All the politicians are bought.” 
• “Same sh*t, different day. The politicians are all corrupt.” 

Let’s pause here: These comments were made under a post of the actual story that explains what happened — a story that exists for the very purpose of dragging sunlight into the process. And yet, folks still lined up to type angrily that “no one’s talking about this.” 

And by the way, all those comments are maliciously false.  

Irony doesn’t get much more pure than that. 

Let’s be clear: frustration over development, traffic, tree loss, and neighborhood change is valid. But righteous anger loses its edge when it becomes a reflex rather than a reasoned contribution. And when that anger hits Facebook before it hits a planning meeting, what happens is exactly what this thread illustrates — the civic version of shouting at clouds. 

A few of the comments get closer to a real conversation — one asks why all the homes are going up in Northeast Tallahassee while other parts of the city sit idle. Another makes a fair point about lot sizes and tree cover. But instead of thoughtful exchange, they’re buried under accusations of bribery, developer cartels, and some half-baked call for criminal prosecution. 

Here’s the punchline: the very people who are most upset about local government dysfunction are often the ones unknowingly helping to cause it. When we argue from a position of ignorance, delay becomes the fallback. When we expect scandal, officials lawyer up. And when we insist that every pothole hides a conspiracy, we turn real planning into risk management theater. 

So yes — Tallahassee may have a development problem. But it also has a comment section problem, which then becomes a “t-shirt brigade” problem at public meetings, before whom local leaders all too often cower. 

And until we reckon with all that, the red tape machine will keep humming — powered not by bureaucracy, but by the very people shouting at it from their phones. 

July 24, 2025

Tallahassee’s fire service fee is back in the news — and once again, city leaders are finding new ways to explain something that doesn’t make sense to begin with. 

This time, the controversy is over churches: some are being billed, others aren’t. The rules are murky, the enforcement inconsistent, and the legal fight is already underway. But the real issue isn’t confusion — it’s principle. 

Here’s the bottom line: 
No church should be paying this fee. Not now. Not ever. 

1. The Fire Fee Is a Tax in Disguise — and Churches Are Exempt from Taxes 

Tallahassee can call this a “special assessment” all it wants, but functionally, it’s a mandatory government fee imposed on properties to fund a core public service: fire protection. And Red Tape Florida has already written about questions regarding how the City of Tallahassee uses these funds.

In other words, it’s a tax — and in Florida, churches and religious organizations are constitutionally exempt from taxation when their properties are used for religious or charitable purposes. 

You don’t get to slap a new label on the same old scheme and pretend the Constitution no longer applies. This is a backdoor tax — and it doesn’t belong on a church’s doorstep. 

2. Churches Earn Their Exemption — Because They Serve the Public 

This isn’t about churches looking for special treatment. It’s about recognizing the critical civic role they play. 

There are over 200 houses of worship across Tallahassee and Leon County. According to national averages, these congregations contribute 20%–30% of their budgets to direct community outreach — from food pantries and utility assistance to addiction recovery, housing aid, and disaster response. 

Assuming a reasonable average budget of $350,000 per church, that puts direct financial community support in Tallahassee at more than $23 million annually. 

And that’s just the start. 

Add the value of volunteer labor — conservatively estimated at $14.5 million/year — and donated facility space for AA meetings, civic events, and emergency shelters, and the total annual contribution by churches easily exceeds $30 million. 

Let that sink in: 
Churches are quietly contributing $30–40 million a year to the public good. 
They don’t need to do less of that to pay a tax. 

And while we’re on the subject of fairness, let’s be honest about compensation. The average Tallahassee firefighter earns over $60,000 a year in salary alone — before overtime and benefits. Compare that to the average pastor of a local congregation, who often makes half that amount (if that), or the median income for Leon County residents, which sits around $50,000. In that context, asking churches and modest nonprofits to subsidize fire operations through a glorified tax feels not only unconstitutional — it feels upside down. 

3. The Real Problem Is the Fee — Not the Exemption 

Some will argue that everyone should pay their share. But that logic falls apart when the mechanism is this flawed. 

The fire fee is regressive — meaning lower-income households pay proportionally more than wealthier ones. It’s confusing — with different rates for different zones and unclear exemption rules. It’s under legal attack — for good reason. And it now puts the city in the absurd position of deciding which churches count as religious enough to deserve an exemption. 

That’s not tax policy — that’s red tape in its most dangerous form. 

4. This Isn’t Church vs. State — It’s Common Sense vs. Bureaucracy 

Let’s not make this political or theological. You don’t have to be religious to understand that churches, synagogues, mosques, and faith-based ministries are on the front lines of community care. 

When government policy ignores that — or worse, punishes it — something’s broken. 

The fire department deserves funding. But it should come from transparent, equitable, legally sound taxation — not a patchwork fee system that burdens the poor, confuses the public, and taxes Tallahassee’s most charitable institutions for doing their job. 

July 16, 2025

Proposed new City of Tallahassee budget would result in an 8.69 percent average increase in property taxes 

Tallahassee residents are about to see another increase in their property tax bills — not because City staff is proposing a millage rate hike this year, but because it doesn’t have to. Property values across the city have surged, and if the current rate of 4.45 mills holds, tax bills should increase by an average of 8.69%. That increase comes on top of last year’s decision to raise the millage rate from 4.10 to 4.45 — the first hike in seven years. In other words, this is a compounded increase, and residents are right to be concerned. 

This year’s tax burden is driven not by new city policy, but by a changed economic landscape. A combination of inflationary pressures and reassessments has led to significantly higher property valuations. And while that may be a sign of a growing city, it also puts strain on homeowners, especially those on fixed incomes or just starting out. 

State law gives cities the choice: hold the rate steady and collect more money, or roll back the rate so residents endure a smaller increase. With a projected increase of nearly 9% in taxable value, now is the time to do the latter. 

It’s not that the city isn’t making good use of public funds. This year’s proposed budget shows investments in affordable housing, infrastructure, parks, and public safety. Long-deferred capital projects are moving forward, and the city is taking steps to improve transparency and financial resilience. Those are commendable efforts and should be applauded. 

But there is also some contradiction – spending money on affordable housing program, then adding to the property tax bills of homeowners by an average of almost 9 percent is obviously counterintuitive. 

Sound budgeting doesn’t mean maximizing revenue every time the market allows it. True fiscal responsibility is about balance — weighing the government’s needs against the capacity of its residents to fund them. In this case, a reasonable course of action would be to modestly reduce the millage rate to neutralize the spike in property values. Doing so wouldn’t threaten core services. It would simply give homeowners a break after two years of upward pressure. 

The City Commission has an opportunity to show leadership and restraint. A full or partial rollback would send a powerful message: that Tallahassee’s leaders are listening, and that growth in revenue shouldn’t automatically mean growth in taxes. 

As budget workshops and hearings approach, the Commission should take a close look at the numbers and ask not what is legal or permissible, but what is fair. An 8.69% increase in property taxes, following a millage hike last year, is too much for many residents to absorb. 

This is a defining moment for our city’s fiscal identity. Are we a government that quietly lets tax bills rise through valuation? Or are we a community that takes pride in being proactive, responsive, and responsible with every dollar? 

By adjusting the millage rate downward, the City Commission can protect the public’s trust while continuing to invest in Tallahassee’s future. 

June 8, 2025

Author, Gabriel Carraro de Andrade is a recent graduate and research intern at the DeVoe L. Moore Center in the College of Social Sciences and Public Policy at Florida State University where he majored in economics.

The  Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, indicates that Florida is the worst state in the nation for dental access.

Currently, 65 of Florida’s 67 counties are designated, either in full or in part, as dental health professional shortage areas, with population-to-dentist ratios exceeding 5,000 to 1.

This has left over 7.1 million Floridians living in “dental deserts.”

According to HRSA, an additional 1,536 dentists are needed just to eliminate the current shortages. Lafayette County in the Big Bend has no dentists at all, and there are several other counties where the ratio is as low as one-tenth of the national average. This is a critical issue, as dental health is as important as general health care.

A Florida Workforce Survey regarding dental care professionals found that around 70% of dentists work in a general private practice, while only 4% work in a public health practice. The lack of dentists in public health limits accessibility to dental care. Many private practices do not accept Medicaid.

With an aging population and declining interest in healthcare professions among younger generations, the dental care shortage is worsening. The same Workforce survey found that a mere 4.7% of dentists are 20-29 years old, and the extensive process of becoming licensed as a dentist in the United States is scaring university students away.

On average, students require six to eight years before they are able to practice in Florida, excluding any specialization licenses.

Increases in costs of living due to post-COVID inflation have caused many to avoid taking out massive loans needed to afford dental school, since these costs can range from $100,000 to a whopping $400,000.

Florida needs more accessible licensing pathways. According to the American Dental Association (ADA), a dental hygienist is responsible for performing preventive care, such as teeth cleanings, oral health assessments, and providing guidance on maintaining oral hygiene, which supports the work of dentists but does not involve advanced or invasive procedures. Additionally, a dental hygienist needs a license to apply anesthesia, strangling even more the supply of professionals.

However, the current licensure process requires candidates to have graduated from an ADA-accredited dental hygiene program or an unaccredited dental program with equivalent training. Additionally, a dental hygienist needs a license to apply anesthesia, which they rarely if ever apply directly, limiting even more the supply of professionals.

Applicants must pass multiple examinations, including the National Board Dental Hygiene Examination, ADEX Dental Hygiene Licensing Examination, and Florida Laws and Rules Examination. They are also required to submit numerous documents, such as official transcripts, certification of licensure, and even proof of CPR and AED training.

The licensing problem is even more bizarre for immigrants wth foreign licenses as their license is worthless regardless of their experience and practice as a dentist. Foreign dentists must start their studies from zero and enroll in dental school.

Moreover, Florida public dental schools, such as the University of Florida (UF) require applicants to be permanent residents. Excessive lawyer fees and a lengthy process mean foreign dentists must wait at least seven years to be able to apply to dental school. Affordability and complexity push away skilled workers looking to serve the American population.

Florida is facing a dental care crisis, and reducing unnecessary barriers for individuals entering dentistry, particularly for immigrants with foreign dental training, would help address this shortage.

Loosening these restrictions to allow competent and talented dentists and hygienists into the field would reduce wait times for patients and ensure that preventive dental care is accessible to more communities in need.

A change of this magnitude would serve as an example for reform in other fields in need, such as general health care and even education. The overarching issue of the labor shortage and gap is not being given the required attention from politicians, and even those running for the highest ranks in the US.

June 6, 2025
Gabriel Carraro de Andrade

via: floridapolitics.com

Builders and homeowners often get exasperated by delays — waiting costs time and money.

Good news might be coming soon for people in Florida who build houses or need home repairs.

A new proposed law (HB 683) aims to make the process of getting building permits for smaller jobs faster and easier. On Friday, the House passed it unanimously, 114-0.

Read the entire story on Floridapolitics.com

April 28, 2025