Last week the County’s property owners received first notification of their probable 2008 tax bill. While we have not taken a statistically significant poll, the maximum savings we have been able to document among friends and acquaintances (that are full time residents) is just over $100. Not exactly the major rollback touted by the Governor and Legislators, nor the precursor of massive cutbacks forecast by local detractors. From our perspective it is certainly not a major victory for the taxpayers, but a step in the right direction. We look forward to additional reductions that will continue to put pressure on local governments to constrain their bureaucracies and improve efficiency in delivery of services. Our goal is to see our governments and School Board spend as much time looking for efficiencies as they do searching for additional ways to extract money from taxpayers.

The need to reduce growth in our local governments is well documented. During the last ten years the growth in spending by the County Administration compared to the increase in population has been dramatic and accelerating. Our population grew from 116,300 in 1997 to approximately 145,000 in 2007, roughly a 23% total increase, an average of 2% per year that is currently decreasing. Spending grew from actual expenditures of $164.2 million in 1997 to over $200 million in 2000. This equates to about a 7% average annual increase in the late 1990s. From 2001 to 2006, actual spending climbed by over 70% to $347.3 million, about 12% per year. This year the adopted budget grew to $411.2 million, an over 18% planned increase in one year. Against that background the proposed FY 2008 budget currently under review reduces that figure by about 4% to $394.9 million - a relatively minor and long overdue correction.

On the front page of our July Taxpayer’s Association “Assessment” newsletter we had a chart depicting the above population to spending data. An elected official quickly called us to task for what appeared to be errors in the data. On examination these errors were actually the difference in showing “actual spending” in the early years and “adopted budgets” in the later years. We apologize for not annotating the difference and will also attempt to update this chart we frequently reference as quickly as actual data becomes available. There were relatively minor errors that resulted from the difference, but we stand by the basic conclusions displayed – major acceleration of expenditures over the last 10+ years.

As we researched the figures in the referenced chart some rather amazing facts jumped out at us. Using the years 1997 – 2006, where we have actual revenue/expenditure data and the adopted budgets for the same year, the differences were staggering. In several fiscal years the difference amounted to nearly $100 million with the usual scenario being a very high budget followed by less actual revenue and even less actual expenditure. Over the five-year period beginning in FY2001 the adopted budgets totaled a whopping $1.889billion. Revenues during the same five years totaled $1.432billion, while expenditures were $1.373billion. In short, the budgets averaged nearly $100 million per year greater than actual revenue and the total five-year expenditures were over $100 million less than the receipts. While it is difficult to reach exact conclusions, it is obvious that, at least in the past, planned spending exceeded available revenue year after year.

A smaller percentage error, but possibly a more troubling figure is the spending of an average of $20 million less than revenue each year. Obviously spending less than you bring in is, in most cases, a good thing, but it can easily lead to a more cavalier attitude toward that spending. When it happens year after year it begs the question as to why officials continued to increase their requested budgets, and in what account the excess funds now reside. Hopefully the era of budget excesses has now passed. We will continue to observe, research and report the data as it becomes available.

: