Dublin has completed one of the most important responsibilities of local government: adopting a budget for the coming fiscal year, which begins October 1. Budgeting is a time-honored process involving city staff, public participation, deliberation, and ultimately decisions by the representatives elected by Dublin’s citizens.
I voted for the budget. I voted against the increase in Dublin’s property-tax rate.
Those were two separate votes. That distinction is very important.
The budget funds real needs. It supports our police and other essential services, provides for city employees, and maintains the infrastructure and amenities Dublin residents depend upon. I believed those responsibilities needed to be funded.
My disagreement concerned the asserted need for a propertytax rate increase in order to do so.
Consider the numbers in the City’s own tax-rate materials.
At the previous rate of $0.7402 per $100 of taxable value, Dublin’s prior property-tax levy was $1,670,219. Property values havesinceincreasedsubstantially. Even if Council had left the $0.7402 rate completely unchanged, applying it to the new taxable base would have generated approximately $1,768,500.
In other words, without raising the tax rate at all, Dublin would have collected roughly $98,000 more in property taxes because of growth in taxable values alone.
Council instead adopted a higher rate of $0.7476.
At that rate, the City’s projected levy is $1,786,194. The difference between approximately $1,768,500 at the old rate and $1,786,194 at the higher rate is only about $17,700.
To be clear: this means that the increased tax rate, by itself and apart from property value increases, would generate the city a little less than $18,000.
That was my central consideration in supporting the budget, but opposing an unnecessary tax increase.
The budget presented to Council also included something I support: a $34,100 contingency fund. Establishing a meaningful contingency is prudent. It gives Dublin flexibility when equipment breaks, emergencies occur, or expenses exceed expectations.
Importantly, these two numbers deserve to be considered together.
Here is the reason: to emphasize again, the additional revenue attributable specifically to increasing the tax rate is about $17,700. But that is only a little more than half of the proposed $34,100 contingency.
We were told during the budget process that Dublin has not budgeted a contingency fund in years.
What if we had started with one again—but a contingency fund that is a little smaller?
Had Council maintained a contingency approximately half that size, while leaving the previous tax rate unchanged, the City’s available resources would have covered all the needs budgeted for under the adopted approach.
That is the taxpayersupporting and frugal alternative I preferred.
We heard discussion during the budget process about inflation and the increasing costs faced by the City. Those pressures are real. Let me state this clearly, though: inflation is never a reason to raise taxes. Inflation is already a tax: one being experienced every day by Dublin families and businesses. Food, insurance, utilities, vehicles, repairs, and countless other necessities are already costing Dublin taxpayers more, too.
As I see it, local government should always and continually look for ways to absorb pressures, prioritize spending, and make each taxpayer dollar work harder before asking residents for more.
At the end of the day, reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the line. I supported Dublin’s budget because city government must continue providing the services our residents rely upon. But I opposed the higher tax rate because, looking at the numbers, it is clear that we could have funded all those responsibilities while keeping the existing rate.
Our citizens work hard for what they have. Their city government should work just as hard to make every dollar count.
Dublin can do better.