On a 15 to 3 decision, the City Council has decided to let the property tax rate fall as planned, rather than rolling back to a higher rate.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the Council spent a significant amount of time debating if they should even discuss the millage measure.  Those in opposition say the Mayor’s budget was not properly balanced, so it should not fall to the Council to fill the hole.

“The administration gave us what he knew, in my opinion, was not a balanced budget,” says Councilman Matt Schellenberg.

This accusation refers to a recent report from the Council Auditor, which found a potential $38 million hole in the budget proposal that comes from questions on projected revenue.

 “We cannot in good conscience budget for revenue that has no expectation of happening,” says Council President Bill Bishop.

One example a few member cited was the $1.5 million in revenue the Mayor budgeted which is expected to come from red light cameras.  Several councilmen pointed out the cameras have not even been approved yet, and it could take months before the revenue begins to come in.

Schellenberg even brought up the city’s General Counsel at one point to raise the possibility of sending the budget proposal back to the Mayor to balance, but was told that could not happen.

Once the Council voted to allow the discussion to take place that meeting, they moved on to deciding if the taxpayers should be responsible for shouldering these budget concerns.

At question was the ad valorem millage rate- or property tax rate.  It is scheduled to fall to 10.0353, but the Council was considering a “rollback” meaning the rate would jump to 10.5709 which would keep your payout the same instead of dropping.  That would give the city about $22 million more to budget than they have under the lower rate the Mayor pushed.

Bishop told me earlier today he is concerned where the city will get the money if this $38 million hole does not disappear and they do not hike the rate.  It’s a concern others shared.

“If we don’t have this flexibility in the budget then what arks are we gunna close, what libraries are we gunna close,” says Councilman Warren Jones.

But the majority of the council says the city needs to start living within its means and not place a higher burden on the taxpayers.

“We were sent here by a lot of voters who are struggling out there in the real world,” says Councilman John Crescimbeni.

Jacksonville Sheriff John Rutherford had actively supported the rollback.  When that was voted down, he changed some of his other funding ideas to compensate.  During public comment, Rutherford outlined his plan for the city to return a full $8.8 million to the Sheriff’s Office.  Rutherford says this is money his department saved during the prior budget year, so it should return to him to help keep officers on the streets.  Originally, he was only looking for $6.1 million, but changed the plan at the last minute once the rate hike was voted down.  There was no vote on his most recent proposal tonight.

The Mayor’s Office issued the following statement in responding to some of the accusations made Tuesday night:

"Mayor Alvin Brown's administration submitted a proposed budget that was balanced without raising taxes or fees. We look forward to working with City Council and to continuing the ongoing dialogue with council auditors to address any questions. The ultimate goal is to produce the most efficient city government without increasing the burden on hardworking taxpayers."

Councilmen Warren Jones, Ray Holt and Bill Gulliford were the three members who supported the rollback rate.