Mayor John Peyton rolled out his budget proposal on Monday with a 33-slide presentation that some spinmeisters might describe as masterful.
After months of dire talk about the impact of “property tax reform,” the mayor said Tallahassee legislation had left the budget “$65 million out of balance.” Then he unveiled new garbage, utility and stormwater fees. Not only did he balance the budget, he provided some good news.
“The Estimated Impact to Average Homeowner,” according to the mayor’s slide No. 30, would be “savings” of $79.
That’s hokum, of course.
Unfortunately, the hokum made it to the front page of the Times-Union in a story that failed to provide sufficient perspective about the mayor’s proposed budget.
But the hokum did not fool Marcia Hedberg, who doesn’t expect to see savings. “This is very deceiving,” she said. “Peyton is blowing smoke.”
Indeed, with a little parsing of the numbers, Tuesday’s headline should have been: “Mayor seeks 6.4 percent hike in spending” with a secondary headline saying, “Higher taxes for most homeowners, even after tax reform.”
Here are some facts not easily gleaned from either the mayor’s presentation (www.coj.net) or Tuesday’s story.
- Despite all the fuss about property tax reform, the city would generate $16.5 million more in property taxes next year, an increase of more than 3 percent.
- Despite all of the talk about cuts, the mayor would increase city spending by $57 million over this year.
- The average homeowner would not save $79 because of property tax reform. In fact, the majority of city homeowners would pay more in new fees than will be offset by property tax savings.
When the mayor outlined the utility, garbage and the stormwater fees, he calculated their impact in the next “budget year,” meaning the city’s fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. The trick is that the utility and garbage fees don’t start until April; the stormwater fee starts in July. So in the next “budget year” those costs will be $77.
But if those fees are annualized, using the mayor’s numbers, the cost will be $184 for a home at the median value of $160,000. So the “average homeowner” would pay $28 more in fees annually than they save in property taxes, an increase of 18 percent.
Unfortunately, the Tuesday story used the mayor’s numbers without close examination: “$77: Fees Peyton says the average homeowner will pay during the next budget year. A $79 saving from property tax reform. However, some homeowners would pay more in fees than they receive in savings.”
The Tuesday story noted that Peyton never mentioned the total budget amount of $959 million. While the story gave that total, it didn’t give this year’s number for comparison, $902 million, let alone disclose the percentage of increase.
The Tuesday story said that the “new state law made the city reduce its property tax revenue to the current year levels, add tax revenue from new construction and then reduce it all by 3 percent.”
But the story didn’t say what the net effect of all of that would be. Neither did the mayor. Because of growth, it will mean an additional $16.5 million in property tax revenue for the city next year.
The story referred to the “$65 million shortfall” and said “to fill the gap” the mayor proposed $38.5 million “in cuts from next year’s anticipated expenses just to maintain the current level of services,” plus the $26.5 million in new fees.
Shortfall? Gap? Cuts?
In reality, the shortfall and gap would refer to the difference between the amount of revenue that is readily available and the amount the mayor wants to spend. The “cuts” would be how much he is reducing the proposed increases in spending.
So why are branch libraries being closed on Mondays and other programs being reduced if spending will grow by 6.4 percent, most people face higher taxes and even property tax revenue will increase?
Many costs are higher, which forces choices, and the mayor wants to increase police and fire spending by 7 percent.
As for the libraries, the real answer is they did not make the mayor’s “shortfall” bucket. Not among his priorities, in other words.
The mayor should have been more forthright about his proposed budget. The newspaper should have been more probing and perceptive.
