Late in the day preceding the 4 th of July weekend the Martin County Administrator released his draft 2009 budget. Usually politicians who want to get the least publicity possible for a controversial decision take this tactic. However, at $363.7 million this proposal is just above the $355.9 million of the 2004-05 budget and appears to be appropriate and in line with the current ad Valorem tax revenue estimates. The final official estimate is due from the Property Appraiser’s Office on July 10th, so we may know whether additional cuts or assessments are required by the time you read this.
How this ad Valorem revenue is generated is part of the story that has not been adequately discussed. First, there is a recommended 3% increase in the millage from the current $6.83 per $1,000 taxable value to $7.04. This is being “sold” as a minor increase and that the “average” property tax will be reduced by over $200. However, many homeowners have been protected by the Save-Our-Homes “homestead” legislation to 3% per year maximum increase in assessed value on their residence since 1992. Because of the dramatic increase in home prices early in the decade, many homesteaded residences purchased before the real estate bubble are now taxed well below market value. Many homesteaders do not realize that even though their home’s value decreases, their assessed value will continue to rise 3% per year until it reaches market value. Therefore, many residents will have their assessed value raised 3%, taxed at the 3% higher millage, and their taxes will go up even though actual market value has declined. The additional $25,000 homestead exemption approved in January will help offset this increase for some, but this does not apply to the school’s portion of these taxes.
The broader result is that, for the first time in many years, the County’s resident voters will be hit by a tax increase while the long suffering snowbirds and businesses owners will get a break. And, since all residents and businesses will be paying more for basic public services such as garbage collection, electricity, water and sewer service, this is not a good election year scenario for incumbents. Stand by for changes.
One change we are not happy about is the lack of inclusion of the 5% cost-of-living raise “give back” offered by the International Association of Firefighters. We hope that not yet consummating this “deal” is just a misunderstanding and the much-lauded initiative to help our budget crisis will be quickly finalized.
We have only had a brief time to look at the actual reductions implicit in this budget, so we are still concerned about the spending side of this equation. We understand that 118 jobs that have been cut with 7 more in jeopardy. But, where and at what specific level are these cuts being made? Obviously senior management needs to be reduced in proportion to the reduced pay roll, span of control and responsibility. However, care must be taken to prevent creating problems when jobs requiring a high degree of technical knowledge are assigned to administrators ill equipped to supervise them. This can also lead to inadvertently adding additional and unnecessary layers of supervision/coordination rather than streamlining them.
Other questions that need answering include: Are labor contracts going to be negotiated by experienced personnel insulated from interference by the political process? Are management rights such as scheduling and promotions being protected in these negotiations? Have policies such as allowing sell back of vacation time and sick leave been changed? Are automatic pay raises based on longevity and not accomplishment still being given? In short, is the County taking the easy way out by cutting personnel and less essential services rather than getting to the heart of the matter by a long range program of reducing wages and benefits to those warranted by the job market? Only time will tell whether our politicians have the courage to make lasting changes that will get the County’s unsustainable spending practices under control.