Cape Coral adopted the budget. It still owes taxpayers answers.
To the editor:
Cape Coral has now completed its FY2027 budget process.
I participated in that process.
I attended meetings, spoke at the podium, reviewed budget documents and submitted questions both in writing and through public comment. Other taxpayers asked questions as well.
Not one single question I asked received a complete answer. Almost all have simply been ignored.
And that is the problem.
This isn’t about whether I agreed with the answers. There weren’t complete answers to agree or disagree with.
Consider just some of the questions that remain.
The City’s Financial Management Policy No. 1 states:
“The City of Cape Coral shall commit to and develop and maintain a structurally balanced budget, whereby current revenues equal current expenditures for the current and forecasted years.”
Yet the city’s original five-year General Fund forecast showed fund-balance use of approximately $6 million, $10 million, $18 million, $26 million and $37 million.
That’s nearly $100 million in projected fund-balance use over five years — before any potential revenue loss from Amendment 3 property-tax relief.
The city later explained the roughly $6 million of FY2027 fund-balance use as prior-year encumbrances carried forward. That may explain how the city considers FY2027 structurally balanced.
But it doesn’t answer the forecast years.
The city’s own presentation specifically stated that FY2028 and FY2029 were projected to be structurally unbalanced.
Policy No. 1 doesn’t apply only to the current budget year. It specifically requires structural balance for “the current and forecasted years.”
So I asked:
How does a forecast showing structurally unbalanced budgets comply with Policy No. 1?
I never received an answer.
Then there was public safety.
At the July budget workshop, the city was considering approximately $23 million in additional Police and Fire spending for FY2027.
Council said to hold off on the proposed public-safety increase until after the election, when voters would decide Amendment 3 and the city would know more about its potential effect on future revenues.
Yet the later budget forecast showed Police and Fire spending increasing by approximately $27 million over two years.
So I asked:
Why did public-safety spending continue to increase after Council said to wait? What happened to Council’s direction?
I never received an answer.
And that leads directly to the Fire Service Assessment.
More than $8 million was moved from Government Services personnel into Police and Fire, including approximately $4.5 million placed in a new Fire-Operating line in the General Fund.
The city later said the $4.5 million was not eligible for inclusion in the FSA.
But when I asked how and why those Fire costs were determined to be ineligible — and requested the details supporting that determination — I never received them.
At the same time, taxpayers were being told the FSA remained at 81% cost recovery.
So I asked:
Eighty-one percent of what?
Where was the complete calculation showing taxpayers exactly which Fire costs were included, which were excluded, and how the 81% was calculated?
I never received an answer.
Then the FSA forecast itself changed.
An earlier forecast showed approximately $83 million in FSA revenue for FY2028. A later forecast showed approximately $73 million.
That’s a $10 million reduction.
What changed?
Did the Fire budget decrease?
Did FSA-eligible costs change?
Did the assessment calculation change?
How did Fire spending increase while the forecasted FSA decreased by $10 million?
I asked.
I never received an answer.
Then, on the eve of the final budget hearing, I opened Ordinance 48-26, Attachment A — the tentative budget included with the hearing materials.
On its final page, the 2027 budget labeled three 2027 totals as 2026.
It showed $1.442 billion in revenue and $1.444 billion in expenditures — a $2 million difference — and then listed the 2027 total as $1.442 billion.
This was literally the day after Council had praised top city staff for their accuracy and fiscal responsibility while approving raises.
So I asked another very basic question:
Which number was correct?
I never received an answer.
These aren’t “gotcha” questions.
They are budget questions.
Yet during this same process, City Manager Michael Ilczyszyn publicly apologized to city staff for not defending them when Council questioned their work, including criticism involving “quality of work, manipulation, trickery and changing of numbers.”
Instead of apologizing because Council asked pointed questions, I’d like to hear an apology to taxpayers for the questions this city hasn’t answered.
Councilmembers should ask difficult questions when numbers change or don’t reconcile.
Taxpayers should too.
Nobody should expect city staff to have every answer instantly. There is nothing wrong with saying, “I don’t have that information tonight. We’ll get it for you.”
But then get it.
The pattern throughout this budget process was remarkably consistent:
Ask a question. Be ignored. Ask again. Be ignored again.
Transparency isn’t simply putting hundreds of pages online.
If a number changes, explain why.
If money moves, show where it went.
If a forecast changes by $10 million, explain what changed.
If Council asks a question, answer it.
And if taxpayers ask reasonable questions, answer them too.
The FY2027 budget has now been adopted.
But adoption does not make the unanswered questions disappear.
That isn’t disrespect toward city staff.
It is accountability to the taxpayers who pay the bills.
Because every taxpayer matters.
Stuart “Wes” Owen
Cape Coral