The survey results were clear, City Controller Pat Roller said: Residents like the city services they have and don’t want to see them cut.
But they also don’t want higher taxes.
Even the City Council’s budget hawk, John Crawford, R-at large – who has often said there are always places to cut a budget – says keeping services without raising taxes is no longer an option.
The council has a choice over the next four months, Crawford said: Raise taxes to keep services as they are, or keep taxes the same and make drastic cuts in road repairs, parks and city services.
“We have choices. We’ve got a bad one over here and a bad one over there,” Crawford said. “Our job is to choose the least bad one.”
Roller’s report to the council Tuesday was the first in a series of reports arising from the city’s Fiscal Policy Group, which has been studying the looming budget crunch for nearly a year. Because of the property tax caps enacted in 2009 that limit taxes on a home to 1 percent of the value, the city has lost $53 million in revenue. The amount it will actually collect in property taxes this year will be $8.4 million less than it collected in 2007.
Among the options the Fiscal Policy Group – a group of people from the public and private sectors – found is moving the cost of fire hydrant maintenance from property taxes to utility bills. That would raise utility bills for the average home about $2.50 a month but free up property taxes for other services.
A 0.5 percent increase in the income tax could pay for new firefighters and police officers, plus provide up to $4.9 million in property tax relief. The city fire department is 30 firefighters below the 375 authorized but cannot afford an academy class. The police department is 21 officers below its 440 authorized and will lose more to retirement this year.
A new property tax levy, called a Cumulative Capital Development Fund, could be added, which would bring in about $1 million a year, and property taxes could be raised over six years to the maximum the state allows.
There also are options such as changing city employee benefits and redirecting income taxes the city already gets from economic development to fixing streets and roads. The city is behind on road maintenance by an estimated $60 million.
...
Next week’s discussion will center on income taxes.
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20130313/LOCAL/303139972/0/SEARCH
In contrast, see this article from the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel:
In contrast, see this article from the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel:
Let's not start with the assumption that taxes are going to go up.
A couple of questions for you: 1) Are you happy with the level of services provided by Fort Wayne city government? 2. Would you be willing to contribute $120 or so more a year to maintain that level?
That’s the basic choice that will apparently be offered to the “typical” Fort Wayne taxpayer when work is completed on a new city budget later this year.
“We continue to be tasked with finding alternative revenue sources to maintain the services our citizens expect,” said Democratic Mayor Tom Henry.
“We’re not necessarily talking about huge increases in what we’re doing,” said Republican John Crawford, one of the most conservative members of City Council. “We’re talking about not cutting what we’re already doing. If we want to keep things the same, we’ve got to consider possible revenue increases.”
That pretty much covers the political spectrum, so let’s take them at their word that new revenue is required to maintain the status quo. The question then becomes whether the status quo is the optimal amount of government. Both police and fire departments, for example, are below authorized staffing levels. Are the authorized levels necessary, or could we do with a few fewer public safety officials? The city is behind on road maintenance, but how many miles a year are sufficient?
These are the kinds of questions that taxpayers who want to be informed will ask, and we hope many will.
Officials are talking as if the adoption of two new types of local income taxes at the base level of 0.25 percent is all but inevitable. But we shouldn’t let them operate on that assumption.
The federal government is pretty much out of control, and taxpayers have lost all faith in anybody’s ability to tame it. Even at the state level, we listen to debates about the governor’s proposed tax cut and stand mute when it’s shot down by his fellow Republicans.
Locally, there is still a chance our voices will be heard, and if we think they’re not, we have the ability to kick out those who ignore us.
The city’s budget woes are supposedly being caused by the state’s property tax caps. Those caps were meant to relieve one particular group of taxpayers but also to make cities and counties more aware of the need for fiscal discipline. We should do our part to increase that awareness, too. Let’s make city officials justify the increases they are seeking and, further, to show us proof they are spending the money they already get wisely.
We have the chance to tell public officials not just how much government we want, but how much we’re willing to pay for. Let’s not waste it.
