08/10/2026
Newberry's Budget: Let's Look at the Whole Picture
Public Response - FY 2026-2027 Budget
Two recent articles published by Inside Politics Alachua County have raised questions about the City of Newberry's FY27 budget, the growth of City government, and whether our fiscal decisions are consistent with responsible government.
Those are fair questions. Residents should ask them, and we should be prepared to answer them.
In fact, one of the articles makes a point with which I strongly agree: a single number does not tell the entire fiscal story of a city.
A low millage rate, standing alone, does not prove that a government is fiscally responsible. But, neither does a single TRIM notice prove the opposite.
That distinction is worth making because the first article began with one TRIM notice from one Newberry property, not 50 TRIM notices, not even a single data point from the final budget, but just one TRIM notice and used it to raise much broader questions about the fiscal direction of Newberry.
The second article, published after we adopted a budget, cautioned against evaluating Newberry based primarily upon one favorable number - our millage rate - and argued instead that residents should examine the 'entire ledger.'
On that point, we agree. So, let’s do it: let's look at the whole picture.
Is Newberry Government Growing?
Yes.
Newberry government is growing because Newberry is growing. But, the more meaningful question is whether the cost of government is growing disproportionately to the community we serve.
The articles specifically ask whether government spending is growing faster than Newberry's population and the underlying cost of providing services. That's an excellent question.
In 2019, Newberry had approximately 6,573 residents. By 2025, our population had grown to approximately 9,553. That is approximately 45% population growth in six years.
During that same period, governmental expenses increased from approximately $8.42 million to $12.89 million - an increase of approximately 53%.
If we stop there, that sounds like compelling evidence that government spending has outpaced population by 8%. However, that ignores inflation.
Using CPI-U South, $8.42 million of governmental spending in 2019 is approximately $10.67 million in 2025 dollars. That means that after accounting for inflation, governmental spending increased approximately 21% during a period in which Newberry's population increased approximately 45%.
Said another way, Newberry added 2,980 residents, while inflation-adjusted governmental expenditures grew at less than half the rate of population. That takes us one step closer to looking at the whole picture.
That doesn't mean every expenditure is justified. It doesn't mean every new position is necessary. It doesn't mean the City Commission should stop looking for efficiencies. It does mean that, if we're going to ask whether Newberry's spending is growing faster than its population and the underlying cost of providing services, we should actually do the math. So, let’s do some:
What About Staffing?
City staffing has increased.
The articles cite approximately 74 FTEs in 2023. The FY27 budget funds approximately 95 FTEs. Again, that's growth. No denying it.
Today, Newberry has approximately one funded City position for every 100 residents, or approximately 10 FTEs per 1,000 residents. The fewest employees per resident of any city offering the full range of municipal services around us by a lot.
The meaningful question isn't simply whether Newberry has more employees than it did several years ago. A city adding thousands of residents, roads, utility customers, parks, development activity and infrastructure should reasonably expect its service demands to increase.
The question is whether staffing is growing responsibly relative to the population and services those employees support. Every new position should have a purpose, and every vacant position should be evaluated before it is filled. That's a standard we have and should continue applying.
What About Property Taxes?
Newberry adopted a millage rate of 5.88 mills for FY27. The rollback rate was approximately 5.56 mills.
Let's be clear about what that means. We did not adopt the rollback rate. The City will receive additional property-tax revenue.
The articles are also correct that a lower or stable millage rate can still result in additional tax revenue when property values and the taxable base are increasing.
But that fact leads to another question: Why is the City collecting additional revenue?
A growing tax base doesn't exist independently from a rapidly growing community. New residents require public safety. New development creates transportation and planning demands. New homes require water, wastewater and electric capacity. More residents use parks, roads, and public facilities.
Growth generates revenue. Growth also generates costs. It is our responsibility to make sure those two things remain appropriately balanced.
What About the Fire Assessment?
The residential Fire Assessment increased from $200 to $360 over two years. That's an 80% increase. That number is accurate, and we shouldn't minimize it. But again, it isn't the whole picture.
During this period, Newberry expanded the level of emergency services provided to our community, including the addition of Advanced Life Support (ALS) and started the necessary planning for Newberry's next fire station.
The FY27 budget provides approximately $3.81 million for Fire Control. So residents should absolutely ask what they're paying for fire protection. They should also ask what level of service they're receiving for that investment.
Newberry isn't simply charging residents more to provide exactly the same fire service it provided several years ago. We are providing a higher level of emergency medical response while preparing our fire service for a community approaching 10,000 residents.
Whether that additional service is worth the additional cost is a legitimate public-policy discussion. But, once again, the whole picture requires acknowledging both the increased cost and the increased service.
What About the Size of the Budget?
Newberry's FY27 total appropriated budget is approximately $79.46 million. For a community of fewer than 10,000 residents, that number certainly deserves some explanation.
The budget contains approximately $42.01 million in estimated expenditures before reserves. It also reflects approximately $31.85 million in grants and contributions, including approximately $24.51 million in grant-funded enterprise capital investment.
The General Fund - the fund most closely associated with traditional City governmental operations - is approximately $15.77 million.
This distinction matters. When Newberry successfully obtains millions of dollars from outside sources to construct major infrastructure, our budget gets larger. That does not necessarily mean our bureaucracy got larger.
In fact, securing grant funding for infrastructure can mean exactly the opposite for the taxpayer: someone other than the Newberry property owner or utility customer is helping pay for infrastructure our community needs.
A larger budget resulting from a multimillion-dollar infrastructure grant is fundamentally different from a larger budget resulting from multimillion-dollar growth in recurring administrative overhead.
Both appear as government spending. They do NOT mean the same thing.
Utility Rates Are Increasing Too
The articles correctly suggest that residents should look beyond property taxes when considering the total cost of local government.
We agree.
For FY27, residential electric base rates are proposed to increase 2.5%. For a residential customer using approximately 1,200 kilowatt-hours per month, that's an estimated increase of approximately $3.69 per month.
Residential water rates are proposed to increase 3%. At 8,000 gallons per month, that's approximately $1.23 per month, resulting in an estimated monthly bill of approximately $41.91.
Wastewater rates are proposed to increase 3%. At the same usage, that's approximately $2.29 per month, resulting in an estimated monthly bill of approximately $76.94.
Combined, the estimated increase across electric, water and wastewater for the example residential customer is approximately $7.21 per month.
Those are increases, and we are not pretending otherwise.
Those revenues, though, support systems that must operate independently and reliably. They support daily operations and maintenance as well as infrastructure such as our second electric feed, State Road 26 utility relocation, electric distribution improvements and water and wastewater infrastructure. And, if I can brag for a moment, Newberry just received State level awards for both Reliability and Responsiveness. So, the cost ratio to level of service on these points are very favorable for Newberry.
The choice isn't simply between raising a utility rate and not raising it. More often, the choice is between responsibly maintaining infrastructure today and handing a much larger bill to our children tomorrow after that infrastructure fails or becomes inadequate. The historical examples here are too numerous to list.
Finally, Let's Talk About Law Enforcement
One of the most interesting facts in the second article actually illustrates why looking at the entire ledger matters.
Inside Politics reports that Newberry's FY27 contract with the Alachua County Sheriff's Office is approximately $1.15 million, while Newberry taxpayers would have paid approximately $3.27 million under the County's Law Enforcement MSTU. Using the article's own figures, that's a difference of approximately $2.12 million. Remember, we exited the MSTU nine years ago. So, that is almost a decade of savings.
The article then asks whether that is really a savings if the City invests money elsewhere. That's a fair question, but I would frame it differently.
If Newberry can provide its residents law-enforcement services through an arrangement costing approximately $1.15 million rather than approximately $3.27 million, the fact that the City invests resources in roads, parks, fire protection, infrastructure or other community priorities doesn't erase that cost difference.
Fiscal responsibility isn't simply about spending no money. It's about getting appropriate value from the money residents entrust to us. When previous commissions failed to invest in our fire department, that didn’t save us money, although I am sure that was exactly how it was framed. What they actually did was pass those costs on to the next generation, at much higher costs for construction.
Growth Is Not an Excuse - But It Is a Fact
One article cautions that 'growth cannot become a permanent excuse.' I agree.
We should never respond to every spending request by simply saying, 'Newberry is growing.'
Growth should make us more disciplined, not less.
We should ask whether a new position is necessary before filling it. We should look for efficiencies before adding bureaucracy. We should seek grants before asking local taxpayers to carry the entire cost of major projects. We should maintain healthy reserves. We should plan infrastructure before capacity becomes a crisis. And we should continually ask whether residents are receiving appropriate value for what they pay.
Growth isn't an excuse. It is a mathematical reality.
Newberry has grown from approximately 6,573 residents in 2019 to 9,553 in 2026. That's nearly 3,000 additional people using our roads, parks and facilities and relying upon our fire, planning, public works and other services.
Ignoring those residents when evaluating the growth of City government would be no more intellectually honest than ignoring an increase in the millage rate.
So, Is Newberry Fiscally Conservative?
I actually think that is the least useful question in this entire discussion.
'Conservative' and 'liberal' are political labels. Responsible stewardship has measures, and we should look to those.
How many employees do we have relative to the population we serve? How quickly is spending growing after accounting for population and inflation? What are residents paying for services? What level of service are they receiving? Are our utilities financially sustainable? Are we maintaining our infrastructure or simply leaving problems for future taxpayers? Are we leveraging grants and outside funding? Are we maintaining adequate reserves? Are we looking for less expensive ways to provide services? And are we willing to explain our decisions publicly when costs increase?
Those are the questions by which I believe Newberry's budget should be judged.
Let's Apply the Same Standard to Everyone
There is one final point worth making.
The first article used a single TRIM notice to raise a broad question about whether Newberry still represents responsible government.
The second article cautioned against Newberry highlighting its millage rate because one favorable number doesn't tell the whole story.
I agree with the second article. And I believe that standard should apply equally to the first.
One TRIM notice isn't the whole picture. One millage rate isn't the whole picture. An 80% increase in a fire assessment over two years isn't the whole picture. A percentage increase in City employees isn't the whole picture. A $79 million budget isn't the whole picture.
Each is a fact worth examining. None, standing alone, tells residents whether their government is being managed responsibly.
So, I welcome the scrutiny. I believe taxpayers should ask difficult questions about how we spend their money. When our costs increase, we should be prepared to explain why.
But if we're going to have that discussion, let's use the same standard for numbers we like and numbers we don't.
Let's look at the whole picture.
