Opinion
A responsible budget still deserves hard questions
When Jacksonville's city budget is released, the public discussion can quickly fall into two camps. One side describes nearly every expenditure as an investment. The other searches the document for something to call waste. Neither approach gives taxpayers the serious conversation they deserve.
I reviewed Mayor Donna Deegan's proposed budget with a straightforward question in mind: What will Jacksonville residents receive for the money entrusted to City Hall?
There is much in this proposal that deserves support. The approximately $2.027 billion General Fund grows by about 1.1%. The budget does not use reserves to pay ordinary expenses, and it does not add non-public-safety employee positions. Those are responsible decisions, regardless of who proposed them.
The budget also continues essential commitments to public safety and infrastructure. Jacksonville must provide its police officers, firefighters, rescue personnel, corrections officers and emergency communicators with the people, equipment, facilities and training required to protect a growing city. Public safety is a fundamental responsibility of local government, not a convenient place to search for reductions.
The same is true of roads, sidewalks, drainage, flood protection and septic-tank phaseout. Residents experience local government through the street they drive, the neighborhood that floods and the public infrastructure they depend upon every day. Deferring necessary work might lower today's bill, but neglect usually costs taxpayers more in the end.
Acknowledging those strengths does not mean City Council should approve every other expenditure without asking difficult questions. A budget is more than a collection of programs and dollar amounts. It is a statement of priorities and a promise about what public money will accomplish. That promise should come with evidence.
The proposed Mayor's Office budget, for example, grows substantially faster than the General Fund as a whole. That does not automatically make the increase unjustified. It does require an explanation. What is driving the growth? What additional service will residents receive? Will the increase create continuing expenses in future budgets?
Publicly supported special events and city venues deserve the same examination. These activities can benefit Jacksonville, but taxpayers should be able to see each event's complete public cost, private contributions, attendance, revenue and measurable benefit. Travel expenditures should also come with clear rules and public reporting.
Jacksonville's nonprofit community does valuable work, often reaching people government agencies struggle to serve. But a worthwhile mission does not eliminate accountability. Organizations receiving public money should accept clear performance expectations, financial controls and regular reporting.
Major downtown and riverfront projects present similar questions. Residents have heard promises about downtown for years and understandably want progress. Before more money is committed, Council should receive a complete picture of each project's cost, construction readiness, remaining funding requirements, future maintenance expenses and practical public benefit.
Pausing an expenditure until those answers are available is not the same as opposing the project. Sometimes it is the most responsible way to protect both the project and the taxpayer. Asking questions is not an accusation. It is one of City Council's most important responsibilities. Council should also ask what higher-priority responsibility will be delayed or left unfunded when it approves discretionary spending.
Jacksonville can also make the budget process easier to understand. A resident should not need experience in government accounting, or hours to search through hundreds of pages, to determine what a major program is supposed to achieve. Every significant new program, grant or construction project should include a plain-language summary of its purpose, total cost, expected result, responsible department and reporting schedule.
The city should also maintain public scorecards showing whether major commitments are on schedule, at risk, over budget or complete. Before the next budget is introduced, Council should hold a public hearing focused on results: What did the city promise? What did it deliver? What fell short? What will change?
Mayor Deegan's proposed budget is not broadly wasteful. Describing it that way would ignore the responsible choices and necessary investments it contains. But a budget does not have to be broadly wasteful to deserve careful scrutiny. Even a restrained proposal can contain individual expenditures that are inadequately explained, poorly measured or not ready.
Jacksonville residents should expect both responsibility and accountability from City Hall. We should support the services and infrastructure our community genuinely needs while requiring clear evidence that discretionary spending will produce a meaningful public benefit. That is not partisan. It is the basic accountability every taxpayer deserves.