City Hall claims $8.46 million in buyout savings. But when Red Tape Florida asked to see the records behind the number, the City said: There aren’t any.
By Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida
Last week, Red Tape Florida reported on what appeared to be a glaring contradiction in the City of Tallahassee’s proposed FY 2026-27 budget. City officials have repeatedly claimed the voluntary employee buyout program will save taxpayers $8.46 million, yet the proposed salary budget actually increases from approximately $181.5 million this year to roughly $187.1 million next year.
That prompted an obvious follow-up request: Show us the math.
So, we did.
Red Tape Florida filed a public records request seeking the spreadsheet, financial model, workbook or other document used to calculate the $8.46 million savings figure presented during the June 10 budget workshop. We also requested any emails, memoranda or presentations explaining the calculation, records identifying which of the 171 vacated positions would ultimately be eliminated, frozen or refilled, and documents explaining how those projected savings square with a salary budget that nevertheless increases next year.
The city’s response was extraordinary.
No spreadsheet.
No financial model.
No workbook.
No memorandum.
No presentation.
No email.
According to the city’s public records response, there isn’t a single responsive document explaining how City Hall arrived at one of the largest financial claims made during this year’s budget process.
The city’s production, limited as it was, raises still more questions.
The city says decisions regarding which of the 171 positions will ultimately be eliminated, held vacant or refilled are still “ongoing,” and that the projected savings estimate itself will be updated before the budget is adopted in September.
Read that again.
The city publicly presented a savings estimate of $8.46 million, yet now says the decisions that largely determine those savings haven’t been finalized. If those decisions are still being made in July, how was the city able to calculate projected savings to the nearest $10,000 more than a month ago?
Here, by the way, is exactly what Red Tape Florida requested:
“All records, including emails, memoranda, or presentations, prepared by or for the Office of Resource Management, the Office of Management and Budget, or any other City department, analyzing or explaining the relationship between the buyout program’s projected savings and the proposed FY 2026-27 salary budget line, which increases from approximately $181.5 million (FY 2025-26) to approximately $187.1 million (FY 2026-27 proposed).”
The city’s response was equally direct:
“No such record exists.”
It then immediately added:
“The salary account line item increased from FY26 to FY27 due to the current fiscal year’s approved raise.”
That’s it. That’s the response.
Think about that.
The city says there is no document analyzing or explaining why a buyout program projected to save $8.46 million coincides with a salary budget that nevertheless increases by roughly $5.6 million.
Yet, in the very next sentence, explains the increase away by pointing to an across-the-board raise passed – much like the buyout – by the commission’s ruling majority.
Question to readers: is it believable to you that there wasn’t a single email, memorandum, presentation or written analysis prepared before the budget was presented publicly?
The Numbers Tell Their Own Story
Red Tape Florida reviewed the city’s last four budget cycles.
| FY23-24 | FY24-25 | FY25-26 | FY26-27 | |
| Salaries | $168,340,457 | $175,446,839 | $181,517,491 | $187,066,364 |
The salary line has grown every year — 4.2 percent, then 3.5 percent, then 3.1 percent — the same gradual slowdown the city was already on for two straight years before anyone left. The one line most directly tied to headcount is the one line that shows no sign anything changed.
If $8.46 million in savings is real, and if city staff meant for taxpayers to understand that as fewer salary dollars going out the door, it should show up there. It doesn’t. Whatever produced the slowdown in total personnel costs isn’t showing up where the city told commissioners it would.
Taxpayers are being asked to accept one of the largest financial claims made during this year’s budget process without being shown a single contemporaneous record explaining how that figure was developed.
And that brings us back to the same simple question.
Where’s the spreadsheet?
Or the financial model?
Or the workbook?
Or the memorandum?
Or the presentation?
Or the email?
Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
But it’s the city’s job — not the public’s — to provide it.
Government doesn’t build public confidence by asking taxpayers to trust the answer.
It builds confidence by showing its work.
On one of the biggest budget claims City Hall has made this year, the city says there isn’t any.