We’ve all heard the saying, “You get what you pay for.” In the midst of a contentious budgeting process a simple question seems to have been lost in the political spin: “What are we paying for?”
One thing is certain - we are paying our first responders. Both of the plans currently in front of City Council take the necessary step of bringing our fire and police department pay more closely in line with our neighboring jurisdictions. So let’s put that to the side for a moment.
Councilman Henderson proposes a tax rate of 1.69, which brings a median tax impact of $216/year. Mayor Kelly proposes a tax rate of 1.93, which brings a median tax impact of $408/year. Let’s just round it out and say there’s a difference of $200/year between these two plans for the median taxpayer. The question we need to answer is what is that additional $200/year paying for and is it worth it?
For a median additional cost of $200/year Chattanooga can pay for a much-needed ladder truck and crew at Fire Station 21, $7.5 million in road paving, $5 million in affordable housing initiatives, and $2 million in parks maintenance. Furthermore, several important city departments could avoid cuts proposed under Councilman Henderson’s budget, including IT, Economic Development, Finance, Neighborhood Services, and even the internal audit team.
My opinion is that these services are worth the cost.
Adding a new truck at Station 21 will close an important service gap and will help keep our fire insurance rating high (and our premiums low). Paving our streets will smooth our commutes and ease the wear and tear on our vehicles. Affordable housing initiatives will help protect our most vulnerable communities. Increased parks maintenance will protect the outdoor spaces that make this city so uniquely beautiful.
I have to say, I think the mayor’s office has missed an opportunity to keep this debate focused on costs and benefits. They’ve tried to spin this as a “historic tax rate decrease”, which may be technically true, but is cold comfort when we know our tax bill will be increasing. The rhetoric at play - dubbing Councilman Henderson’s proposal the “slash and burn” plan and clapping back at former COO Ryan Ewalt for “backseat driving” - is needlessly contentious. It upsets me to see this sort of petty politicking in local government.
That being said, I have tried hard to look past the rhetoric and political spin and form my opinion based on costs and benefits and I believe this is a worthwhile investment in the future of our city. I hope our City Council members can do the same.
Nathan Bird