October 20, 2009

Whoops! City corrects $100 million error in mayor's budget

Mayor John Dickert at Monday night's budget address meeting.

Funny things can happen when you're being responsible.

That's a lesson we learned today after discovering an error in Mayor John Dickert's budget. We reported last night the city's property tax rate would increase 5.7 percent under Dickert's plan, despite only a 1.4 percent increase in the city's property tax levy.

The tax rate number jumped out at us because, well, it didn't make sense. The only reasonable explanation was the city was anticipating a drop in its total assessed value this year. In fact, the mayor's budget anticipated a 4.1 percent decrease in the city's total assessed value to $3.96 billion. (Total assessed value is a combination of residential, commercial, industrial and personal property values. In 2008, Racine's total assessed worth was $4.13 billion.)

A total drop in the city's assessed value may seem reasonable given the economy. It's certainly true homes in the city are selling for less than they're assessed at, which in theory should lead to drops in assessments. But, understandably, communities are loathe to drop assessments because that means less tax base and less money available for city departments and programs. So this year the city's total assessed value remained flat despite market forces indicating they probably should go down.

OK, back to the story. We reported the property tax rate increase last night straight out of Mayor Dickert's budget. City Administrator Tom Friedel called this morning upset the focus of our story was on the tax rate increase, and not on the $683,000 in savings included in the budget. There are two sides to every story and we agreed, after leaving the tax rate up for about 12 hours, to flip the headline around point out the savings, which seem to be legitimate.

But we also kept digging because it didn't make sense for the mayor's budget to, basically, hold the line on spending and still increase the property tax rate by about $75 on an average city home, which is assessed at $124,700.

It all became clear after talking with City Assessor Ray Anderson. We asked him why the city's total assessed value dropped some $133 million in 2009. Anderson's response: It didn't. Actually, it increased slightly.

Something didn't add up. We confirmed with the city's Finance Department that Dickert's budget included the 4.1 percent drop in assessed value. (We're pretty sure we were the one to bring it to the department's attention.) But we also learned from the city assessor there was no decline.

Then we put two-and-two together. The number was wrong. We've heard two theories on why the number is wrong. The first from Anderson was the city left out about $133 million in assessed manufacturing property in the city. The state handles assessments on manufacturing properties (that's how SC Johnson got its Administration Building and Project Honor largely exempt from property taxes), and they have yet to send over the city's 2009 number. The final number is not expected for another two weeks, Anderson said, though projections suggest Racine's manufacturing base slightly increase this year. (It is somewhat shocking, though, to see Racine's manufacturing property only valued at about $133 million, or roughly 4 percent of the city's total worth.)

The second explanation we heard was the city used property tax assessments for 2010 to set next year's budget. This makes a difference because assessments (reacting to the market) are projected to go down next year, compared to staying flat in 2009. Regardless of which, we were right. The budget's number was wrong.

The upshot of the mistake is the property tax rate is too high in the mayor's budget. Instead of $11.36 per $1,000 of assessed value, the projected rate is $10.84 per $1,000 of assessed value, or an increase of less than 1 percent. City taxes on that average city home would increase about $12.50 under Dickert's plan, or about $1 per month.

Discovering this discrepancy in the budget, we called Friedel and the mayor's office for confirmation. Out of courtesy, we held off writing a story this morning to give city officials a chance to confirm and correct the mistake.

Their response? An email from Friedel at 3:57 p.m. confirming our findings - an hour and half after the JT published a story noting the mistake we helped uncover.

Here's the message we got from Friedel (emphasis added):
Our conversation this morning accomplished at least two good things. The budget got presented from my point of view and we learned that the tax rate number was wrong. Thank you for both.

Communication between the budget director and the assessor on the estimated assessed value caused us to use the wrong number in our calculation. The new estimate puts the tax rate at $10.84, which makes a lot more sense. This number will not be finalized until December when the State certifies the value. We will make the correction in the budget document.

We don't usually get upset competing with the JT. If they get a story before us, we link to them and often congratulate them on a job well done. (Well done, Mike!) But in this particular case we could have burned the city this morning with a headline that reads: "Hundred-million dollar error found in city budget." (OK, we still used that language. But imagine the scrambling at City Hall this morning when that headline popped up on their screens. By now it's really lost its impact.)

But we didn't. And we got burned. Lesson learned.

(That sounds ominous, but it's not. We have no problem with the city administrator or mayor's office. Just a little irritated as we still wait for calls to be returned.)

25 comments:

  1. So the mayor submits an erroneous budget and then tries to manipulate the press?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wahlen did the same when he reported the crime stats - he was way off and had to announce them again. Does anyone have their head on straight in this city??

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah,Dustin and the rest of our pals at the Racine Post have their heads on straight. It's too bad they aren't running this thoroughly-loused up town!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Amen! Dustin and Pete should be in charge of this place. At least they know what's going on in The Dumbbell City.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The JT is a softball paper. The pogues in City government throw them the bones because of it. Don't give in. Write what needs to be written!

    ReplyDelete
  6. There have been many, many questionable comments on this site, but none moreso than Anon 11:14 and Anon 11:20. Seriously ...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dustin, when you really think about it, you guys are just taxpayers, not city staff or politicians. They don't call any taxpayers back unless they want something from you. Bottom line, get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maybe this blog should be renamed "Chopped Liver."

    ReplyDelete
  9. So Friedel makes personal phone calls to the Post to whine and cry, (indicating that he obviously reads the news in here), yet he doesn't have the stones to add comments and answer questions when taxpayers vent their frustration?? (At least Helding tries to answer questions in here once in a while) That's interesting to say the least. Some "city leader" he is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Mayor/Staff have been not rechecking numbers and facts for sometime.
    Its all good in a little over a year he be back selling houses.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mr. Block,
    We disagree on most political issues, but this time I got to say GREAT JOB.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good job.

    By the way, the property tax burden has been shifting steadily away from industrial property to homeowners for many years now in Wisconsin.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe the reason behind this is that a reader sees the news and thinks OK it isn't so bad. Then comes up the revision and the reader says OK now this is good. Like going to the store to buy something for $99.00 and find out that the actual price is $79.00. GREAT!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think we need some auditors to find out what really is going on. Seems like no one has a handle on it. We were going to rely on the state to find the error? The Racine Tax Payers group finds stuff like this all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This looks more to me that they got caught trying to pad the numbers rather than made a mistake. If I'm not wrong, didn't Dickert make a campaign promise not to raise taxes? Just like he said the city couldn't afford a City Administrator? Looks like Dickert is going to be just as unethical in his job a mayor as he was in the real estate industry.

    Good job Pete & Dustin.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Liars say anything to get what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  17. WTF enough said

    ReplyDelete
  18. concrete katie10/21/2009 12:58 PM

    Taxes on buildings downtown are then, per the article, double those for homes. When you have property taxes elevated beyond what the market will bear, you get stagnation. The mayor should get rid of the B.I.D. #1 and replace it with a chamber of commerce for the downtown. There is already little reason for a new business to relocate downtown where there are less and less people during the day.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Graham, Dickert also boasted and bragged about a 10 year plan. Where is that... no one has a clue at all, at this point I believe he never had one

    ReplyDelete
  20. Par for the course with Dickert. He just makes things up anyway, 10 year plan as an example. Arewe even sure the budget numbers were not just made up? I think the real ones are in the same drawer as the 10 year plan.

    ReplyDelete
  21. How many Dickerts does it take to change a light bulb?

    As many as it takes come up with a 10 year plan. None.

    ReplyDelete
  22. $70.00 is a big deal. Lets see when you have to wait a year for a raise that at most will be .75cents. Only to be told there is a pay freeze but that is good because you are lucky to still have a job. This makes me so nervous that I can't fully appreciate the only $75.00 per year for this and $25.00 per year for water because they lost a customer and WE energies wants to raise my rates because I have been using less and they still want me to pay for it, on and on. So don't kid yourself. I am informed and not happy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It is not $70. A $150,000 house would pay a whole $15 more per year.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 12:08 - I don't like increased taxes, but if these amounts are going to make or break you, I suggest you sell your house and rent.

    ReplyDelete
  25. ....Yeah because renters won't be paying anything extra. Does anyone actually believe that the added costs don't get passed on? We are all paying for this increase no matter what.

    ReplyDelete