In that post, I wrote that the answer would be evident from a side-by-side comparison with a budget delivered by the County detailing "impact on UMSA." So here is a copy of the 2012-13 budget (this was prepared and submitted by the county "Office of Management and Budget", or "OMB").
A little messy, but here is the summary: Revenues of about $6M, of which $1.93M (about 1/3) comes from Property taxes, followed by Utility Taxes ($1.4M), Sales Taxes ($1.8M) and Franchise Fees ($0.7M).
The more important section for the purposes of this post is the "Expenditures" section. This is where the County says what it spends in our area (from the money it collects from us). The difference between what is collected ($6M) and what is spent here ($4.43M) is $1,560,723, which defines the extent to which we are a "donor community." We "donate" $1.56M every year, according to the County.
More recently we were delivered a 2013-14 "Impact to UMSA" statement. Here's what it looks like:
Again the revenues are consistent at just under $6M. The
"Expenditures" section comes in at $4.685M, making us a "donor community" to the tune of $1.2M in 2013-14, down from the $1.56M "donation" in 2012-13. On this newer statement, police is $3.6M (big jump from $2.97M the prior year), parks is $150,000 (big drop from $245,000 the prior year), public works is $106,859 (steady from $116,869).
Now look at an image of the most recent version of the budget presented at the 5/1 MAC meeting:
The revenues at the top of the page are different because a new city would have different sources of revenues. But to see if our area would spend more money locally as a "new city" than the county spends now, the focus should be on "Expenditures." From the above 2 images, let's analyze the differences.
Employees:
The MAC budget contains line items for "Council/Manager, Attorney, Clerk and Finance Department" that are absent from the OMB budget. Why? Because these functions are all performed downtown, and so are not technically "spent" locally. They are costs that we pay for, but the work is not performed within our community. This is the cost of the so-called "extra layer of government," which is not really an extra layer because it just takes money we pay already, and spends it here rather than downtown.
General Services:
The OMB indicates the County spends about $400K on this line item. The MAC sets this at $334K, and includes in that category [on another page not pictured here]: Rent ($75K), Audit Fees ($50K), Insurance ($50K), IT Costs ($50K), Repairs and Maintenance ($24K), Office Expenses and Supplies ($24K), Telephone ($12K), Utilities ($12K), Payroll Services ($5K) and Other Administrative costs ($32K). So the MAC figures that in this category it can be more efficient than the County, spending about $66,000 less than the county. That's a good thing.Police:
The biggest expenditure (by a mile): the most recent numbers from the County say it paid $3.6M on our police needs. MAC is budgeting $4.4M - almost $800,000 more. The MAC number is solid, because it was supplied directly by the MDPD and is based on the minimum service level allowed (which is still much more policing than we get currently, since police assigned to "new city" STAY in "new city" and don't answer calls down on 163rd Street). So more money for police to fight crime and keep the intersections clear: a good thing.
Public Works:
County spends $106,859. MAC proposes $200,000. Neither is a particularly large number since this line item represents money spent on making the area look better: fixing roads and fences, including the one in Highland Lakes that the criminals escape over. So this is an improvement for the community, but not a very big one, and one area the MAC may look at increasing to be more realistic.
QNIP:
This is "Quality Neighborhood Improvement Program", which sounds like the same kind of stuff as "public works" above, but actually has to do with payments on bonds (1999 and 2006), which is why it's the same amount ($200K-250K) in the County budget and the MAC one.
Building and Planning:
County says $470,323, MAC says $491,000, so the MAC is saying it will cost basically the same to perform these functions (but would save residents having to run their contractors down to SW Dade to get a permit).
Parks and Recreation:
County said $245K in 2012 and $150K in 2013/14. MAC says... $250K?! A little stingy. An earlier draft of the MAC budget was for $500K, but already that is on the chopping block.
Stormwater Costs/Bonds/Projects:
Not sure why these appear on the MAC budget and not the County one, but I assume we pay these one way or another, and that they aren't changed.
Contingency Reserve:
This $800,000 item only appears in the MAC budget. It is theoretically money that could be saved and spent on the "new city." HOWEVER, if there is a "mitigation payment" requirement imposed on the new city (if you haven't already read the April 12 post, do so immediately here), then this money, or at least a very big chunk of it, would be lost. It would be, in effect, "money for nothing," and in a budget of $8.39M, this creates a mighty 10% "hole" in the budget.
So, based on the above, is a "new city" a good idea financially? The answer is in the eye of the beholder: More police would be nice, but there's little new money for public works, and no extra money for parks (and forget about recreation: there will be no Aventura-style sports programs for boys and girls in "new city").
For me, the answer to "is this a good idea" centers on that $800,000 contingency reserve. That amount of money would buy a lot of playground equipment, road and fence fixing, eliminate the need for (ugly) bus benches, and make a new city easier to swallow. But if the county steals that money away in the form of a mitigation fee... well... let's just hope our MAC (or somebody), can negotiate a good deal when it comes to mitigation. That won't be possible before the MAC has to vote, but must be answered before the people vote.
