BUDGET COMPARISON

Current Administration’s Approved Budget vs. Dave Biggers’ Proposed Budget

Louisville Metro Government FY 2025-2026

Date: October 31, 2025
Prepared for: Dave Biggers for Mayor Campaign

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document provides a detailed side-by-side comparison of the current administration’s approved FY 2025-2026 budget and Dave Biggers’ proposed transformative budget integrating all 16 comprehensive policy areas.

Key Findings:

Budget Totals:
– Current Administration Budget: $888.7M General Fund + Capital
– Biggers Budget: $1.2B Total Framework (same revenue base)
– Difference: Fundamental reorientation of priorities, not total size

Philosophy:
– Current Administration: Traditional services + incremental improvements
– Biggers: Transformative investment + prevention focus + equity-centered

Approach:
– Current Administration: Department-based, status quo operations
– Biggers: Community-based, outcome-focused, ROI-driven

SECTION 1: PUBLIC SAFETY & JUSTICE

Current Administration’s Approved Budget (FY 2025-2026):

Approach:
– Traditional policing model
– Reactive crisis response
– High incarceration costs
– Limited prevention programs
– Violence intervention: Group Violence Intervention (GVI) program with limited funding

Dave Biggers’ Proposed Budget:

Key Differences:

1. Police Deployment:
2. Current Administration: Centralized precincts, traditional patrols

3. Biggers: at least one mini substation in every ZIP code + 18 wellness centers = hyper-local presence

4. Crisis Response:

5. Current Administration: Police respond to mental health calls

6. Biggers: Co-responder teams (mental health professionals + police)

7. Cost Savings:

8. Current Administration: $62.5M on corrections (500+ jail beds)

9. Biggers: Reduce incarceration by 500 beds = $15M annual savings + $22M diversion investment

10. Violence Prevention:

11. Current Administration: Limited GVI program

12. Biggers: $12M comprehensive violence interruption (hospital-based, street outreach, Cure Violence model)

13. Accountability:

14. Current Administration: Existing oversight mechanisms
15. Biggers: $8M for enhanced Inspector General + Civilian Review Board + body cameras

Net Budget Impact:
– Current Administration spends more on reactive services (incarceration, crisis response)
– Biggers invests in prevention, saves on downstream costs
– Biggers generates $23M net savings (Criminal justice reforms save $45M, new programs cost $22M)

SECTION 2: HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Current Administration’s Approved Budget:

Gaps:
– Limited mental health crisis services
– No dedicated substance abuse treatment funding
– Minimal food security programs
– No comprehensive homeless services infrastructure
– Reactive rather than preventive

Dave Biggers’ Proposed Budget:

Key Differences:

1. Investment Level:
2. Current Administration: $45.4M (5.1% of budget)

3. Biggers: $174M (17% of budget) = 3.8x more investment

4. Mental Health:

5. Current Administration: Limited programs

6. Biggers: $28.5M comprehensive system (crisis centers, mobile teams, co-responders, integrated treatment)

7. Substance Abuse:

8. Current Administration: Minimal dedicated funding

9. Biggers: $11M for MAT, residential treatment, harm reduction

10. Preventive Care:

11. Current Administration: Traditional reactive model

12. Biggers: 80 community health workers, home visiting, preventive programs

13. Equity Focus:

14. Current Administration: General services
15. Biggers: Environmental health justice ($12M addressing Rubbertown, lead poisoning), maternal health equity (addressing Black maternal mortality crisis)

ROI:
– Current Administration: Unquantified
– Biggers: $154M annual return (reduced hospitalizations $35M, improved productivity $90M, Medicaid reimbursement $29M) = 1.3x ROI

SECTION 3: HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT

Current Administration’s Approved Budget:

Limitations:
– Heavy reliance on federal CDBG funds
– Limited affordable housing production
– No dedicated anti-displacement funding
– Minimal neighborhood infrastructure equity investments

Dave Biggers’ Proposed Budget:

Key Differences:

1. Investment Scale:
2. Current Administration: ~$15M (mostly federal)

3. Biggers: $73M = 4.9x more investment

4. Housing Production:

5. Current Administration: Market-driven + limited subsidies

6. Biggers: 250 affordable units/year through CLTs, public housing, ADUs

7. Anti-Displacement:

8. Current Administration: No dedicated program

9. Biggers: $6M for tenant legal aid, rental assistance, property tax relief

10. Neighborhood Equity:

11. Current Administration: Standard maintenance

12. Biggers: $12M targeted to underinvested neighborhoods (West Louisville receives 50% vs. current 3%)

13. Community Control:

14. Current Administration: Top-down planning
15. Biggers: $5M participatory budgeting + $8M to capitalize 20 CDCs

Impact:
– Current Administration: Incremental progress
– Biggers: 1,000 affordable units over 4 years, prevent displacement of 2,400 households, reduce vacancy 52%

SECTION 4: INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT

Current Administration’s Approved Budget:

Approach:
– Reactive maintenance
– Car-centric infrastructure
– Limited climate action
– Minimal environmental justice focus

Dave Biggers’ Proposed Budget:

Key Differences:

1. Investment Level:
2. Current Administration: $58.9M

3. Biggers: $135M = 2.3x more investment

4. Transportation Philosophy:

5. Current Administration: Car-centric maintenance

6. Biggers: Complete streets (bike lanes, sidewalks, transit) + $10M free transit for 10,000 low-income residents

7. Environmental Justice:

8. Current Administration: $4M air quality monitoring

9. Biggers: $12M active pollution reduction (Rubbertown transition, enforcement, community health screening)

10. Climate Action:

11. Current Administration: Limited programs

12. Biggers: $42M comprehensive (solar, efficiency, green infrastructure, 5,000 trees/year)

13. Equity Focus:

14. Current Administration: Citywide maintenance
15. Biggers: Infrastructure equity fund targets underinvested neighborhoods

ROI:
– Current Administration: Maintains existing infrastructure
– Biggers: $420M annual return (reduced healthcare $45M, property values $120M, transportation savings $55M, economic development $200M) = 3.1x ROI

SECTION 5: EDUCATION, YOUTH & CULTURE

Current Administration’s Approved Budget:

Gaps:
– No dedicated early childhood education funding
– Limited out-of-school time programs
– Minimal arts/culture investment
– No comprehensive youth development strategy

Dave Biggers’ Proposed Budget:

(Plus Parks & Recreation, Library, Zoo would continue with enhanced equity focus within broader budget)

Key Differences:

1. Early Childhood:
2. Current Administration: Mentions “Thrive by 5” support but no dedicated metro funding shown

3. Biggers: $10M for preschool scholarships, quality improvement, early literacy

4. Youth Programming:

5. Current Administration: $2.4M Youth Transitional Services

6. Biggers: $16M comprehensive (after-school, summer programs, violence prevention, youth employment)

7. Arts & Culture:

8. Current Administration: No dedicated department budget shown

9. Biggers: $26M with 50% targeting West Louisville, artist support, equitable tourism

10. Philosophy:

11. Current Administration: Traditional services (libraries, parks, zoo)
12. Biggers: Comprehensive youth development + cultural equity + economic opportunity

ROI:
– Biggers: $193M annual return (future earnings $150M, reduced juvenile justice $8M, college enrollment value $35M) = 3.6x ROI on education
– Biggers: $3.8B tourism economy spread more equitably across city

SECTION 6: TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION

Current Administration’s Approved Budget:

Approach:
– Focus on internal government IT
– Limited broadband access programs
– No comprehensive digital equity strategy
– Mentions AI programs for efficiency

Dave Biggers’ Proposed Budget:

Key Differences:

1. Scope:
2. Current Administration: Internal government IT operations

3. Biggers: Citywide digital equity + economic development + government modernization

4. Digital Divide:

5. Current Administration: Not addressed as major budget priority

6. Biggers: $15M to provide broadband to 91,000 households lacking access

7. Economic Development:

8. Current Administration: Not part of IT budget

9. Biggers: $8M Innovation District in West Louisville creating 2,000+ tech jobs

10. Transparency:

11. Current Administration: Standard government websites
12. Biggers: $2M for open data portal, civic tech, real-time budget dashboard

ROI:
– Biggers: $380M annual return (economic development $266M, new businesses $69M, productivity $45M) = 10x ROI

SECTION 7: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & JOBS

Current Administration’s Approved Budget:

Approach:
– Corporate incentives and subsidies
– Traditional business recruitment
– Limited workforce development
– Not equity-focused

Dave Biggers’ Proposed Budget:

Key Differences:

1. Philosophy:
2. Current Administration: Corporate incentives, trickle-down approach

3. Biggers: Community wealth-building, worker power, equitable distribution

4. Geographic Equity:

5. Current Administration: Follows market forces

6. Biggers: $10M West Louisville fund (currently receives 3% of investment despite 22% of population)

7. Business Support:

8. Current Administration: Large business recruitment

9. Biggers: $8M for small businesses, entrepreneurs, microloans (200 loans @ $25K)

10. Worker Protections:

11. Current Administration: Not a budget priority
12. Biggers: $3M Employee Bill of Rights enforcement (wage theft unit, worker education, legal aid)

ROI:
– Biggers: $217M annual return through equitable economic development = 7.2x ROI

SECTION 8: FOOD SYSTEMS

Current Administration’s Approved Budget:

Gaps:
– No comprehensive food desert strategy
– No urban agriculture infrastructure
– No local food economy development
– Food insecurity addressed reactively through social services

Dave Biggers’ Proposed Budget:

Key Differences:

1. Priority Level:
2. Current Administration: Not a major budget category

3. Biggers: $25M comprehensive food systems approach

4. Food Access:

5. Current Administration: Market-driven

6. Biggers: Active elimination of food deserts affecting 142,000 residents (23% of city)

7. Urban Agriculture:

8. Current Administration: No dedicated infrastructure

9. Biggers: 100 community gardens + 20 urban farms producing 2M lbs annually

10. Economic Development:

11. Current Administration: Not connected to food
12. Biggers: $4M local food economy ($96M to local farmers through institutional purchasing)

ROI:
– Biggers: $175M annual return (healthcare savings $28M, economic activity $96M, food waste value $51M) = 7x ROI

SECTION 9: BUDGET & FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Current Administration’s Approved Budget:

Approach:
– Department-driven budgeting
– Limited public engagement
– Traditional financial management
– Debt service: $67.5M

Strengths:
– Improved investment income ($40M vs. $10M previous 12 years)
– $50M projected surplus
– 5% raise for non-union employees

Dave Biggers’ Proposed Budget:

Key Differences:

1. Community Control:
2. Current Administration: Traditional top-down budgeting

3. Biggers: $5M annually in participatory budgeting (residents vote on projects)

4. Transparency:

5. Current Administration: Standard reporting

6. Biggers: Real-time open budget portal, monthly public reports, quarterly community town halls

7. Revenue Generation:

8. Current Administration: Investment income improvements

9. Biggers: Systematic revenue optimization ($19.5-45.5M from corporate subsidy reform, procurement efficiency, fee restructuring, tax compliance)

10. Performance Focus:

11. Current Administration: Mentions “focus on performance”
12. Biggers: $2M dedicated performance management system with outcome metrics and accountability

Impact:
– Current Administration: Achieves budget surplus through growth and investment management
– Biggers: Generates $11.5-37.5M annual surplus while increasing services

COMPREHENSIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY

Total Budget Allocation Comparison:

*Note: Biggers budget shows policy-specific investments; Parks, Libraries, Zoo would continue within broader operational budget with equity enhancements.

PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES

Current Administration Administration:

Priorities:
1. Public safety (traditional policing – 51% of budget)
2. Economic growth (downtown revitalization, corporate partnerships)
3. World-class amenities (parks, pools, libraries)
4. Fiscal responsibility (surplus, investment income)
5. State partnerships (Belvedere, Louisville Gardens, etc.)

Approach:
– Incremental improvements to existing systems
– Department-based service delivery
– Market-driven development
– Top-down planning
– Corporate incentives and partnerships

Strengths:
– Achieving budget surplus
– Reducing violent crime (30% reduction in shootings/homicides)
– Improving government efficiency
– Delivering on visible projects
– Strong state relationships

Limitations:
– Heavy spending on reactive/punitive systems (51% on traditional public safety)
– Limited investment in prevention
– No dedicated equity strategy
– Minimal community control over resources
– Geographic disparities not systematically addressed

Dave Biggers Administration (Proposed):

Priorities:
1. Prevention over punishment (wellness, housing, economic opportunity)
2. Equity & reparative justice (West Louisville priority)
3. Community control (participatory budgeting, CDCs)
4. Systems transformation (root causes, not symptoms)
5. Return on investment (every dollar generates economic return)

Approach:
– Transformative investment in root causes
– Community-based service delivery
– Equitable economic development
– Bottom-up planning with community control
– Public goods over corporate subsidies

Strengths:
– High ROI (2.8x overall return = $1.787B annually)
– Addresses root causes of inequality
– Community wealth-building
– Evidence-based (proven in 50+ peer cities)
– Creates 5,000+ quality jobs

Challenges:
– Requires major system transformation
– Needs community buy-in and trust
– Complex coordination across sectors
– Front-loaded investment (ramp up over 4 years)
– Political will to challenge status quo

WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM: FUNDING SOURCES

Current Administration Budget Revenue Sources (FY 2025-2026):

Revenue Strategy:
– No tax increases
– Improved investment income ($40M vs. $10M over 12 prior years)
– Strong economic growth (4.5% withholding growth)
– State partnerships bringing additional capital

Biggers Budget Funding Sources:

Plus Cost Offsets:
– Criminal justice savings: $45M annually
– Budget management revenue generation: $19.5M (conservative)
– Total Offsets: $64.5M

Funding Strategy – Same Revenue Base, Different Priorities:
1. No tax increases – Works within existing $1.2B framework
2. Federal grants maximization – Strategic pursuit of COPS, SAMHSA, HRSA, HUD, FTA, EPA grants
3. Medicaid reimbursement – Wellness centers, mental health services, HCBS (Home & Community Based Services)
4. Revenue optimization – Corporate subsidy reform ($8M), procurement efficiency ($5M), fee equity restructuring ($3M), tax compliance ($2.5M)
5. Smart borrowing – $65M annual bond capacity for infrastructure (20-year amortization)
6. Reallocations from ineffective spending – Reduce incarceration, eliminate waste, consolidate programs

WHERE THE MONEY GOES: EXPENDITURE PRIORITIES

Current Administration Administration – Top Expenditures:

1. Louisville Metro Police – $254.5M (28.6%)
2. Traditional policing model
3. Recruitment, training, equipment
4. License plate readers, cameras, drone program

5. SAFE Louisville crime plan

6. Louisville Fire Department – $85.4M (9.6%)

7. Fire suppression and prevention
8. Recruitment classes

9. Equipment upgrades

10. Office of Management & Budget – $73.5M (8.3%)

11. Includes $67.5M debt service

12. Budget operations

13. Department of Corrections – $62.5M (7.0%)

14. Jail operations

15. Prisoner housing

16. Public Works & Assets – $54.9M (6.2%)

17. Street maintenance
18. Infrastructure repairs

Remaining ~$357.9M distributed across libraries, parks, technology, health, social services, elected officials, and other departments.

Dave Biggers Administration – Reoriented Expenditures:

Top Investments by Impact:

1. Health & Wellness Systems – $174M (17.0%)
2. Community Wellness Centers: $45M
3. Mental health crisis services: $18.5M
4. Substance abuse treatment: $11M
5. Environmental health justice: $12M
6. Senior services: $28M
7. Disability services: $28M
8. Community health workers: $12M

9. Plus maternal health, food security, homeless services

10. Infrastructure & Environment – $135M (13.2%)

11. Public transit expansion: $30M
12. Complete streets: $25M
13. Street maintenance: $20M
14. Environmental justice: $12M
15. Climate resilience: $10M

16. Transportation equity: $10M

17. Public Safety (Preventive Model) – $132.5M (12.9%)

18. Community Wellness Centers: $45M (overlaps with health)
19. Mini substations: $6.3-25.6M (phased)
20. Violence prevention: $12M
21. Co-responder teams: $8M
22. Police accountability: $8M

23. Criminal justice diversion: $22M

24. Housing & Neighborhoods – $73M (7.1%)

25. Affordable housing production: $15M
26. Neighborhood infrastructure equity: $12M
27. Homelessness prevention: $8M
28. CDCs & community wealth: $8M

29. Vacant property transformation: $7M

30. Education, Youth, Arts, Culture – $54M (5.3%)

31. Education & youth development: $28M
32. Arts, culture, tourism: $26M

Remaining investment in technology ($38M), economic development ($30M), food systems ($25M), plus continuing existing operations ($428M).

RETURN ON INVESTMENT COMPARISON

Current Administration Budget ROI:

Not explicitly calculated or published

Implied returns:
– Crime reduction (30% decrease) → property value protection, business investment
– Infrastructure maintenance → prevents deterioration
– Economic development incentives → job creation (amount not specified)
– Government efficiency → $40M investment income vs. $10M historical

Estimated Total ROI: Unknown/not disclosed

Biggers Budget ROI:

Explicitly calculated for each policy area:

*Public Safety achieves near break-even financially while generating immense social value (lives saved, trauma prevented, community trust)

Every Dollar Invested Returns $2.80 to Louisville’s Economy

EQUITY COMPARISON: WEST LOUISVILLE INVESTMENT

Current Administration Budget:

West Louisville Investment: Not explicitly itemized by geography

Known West Louisville Initiatives:
– General city services distributed across all districts
– Some violence intervention programs (GVI)
– Standard infrastructure maintenance
– Market-driven development (follows private investment)

Estimated West Louisville Share: ~8-12% of city investment (West Louisville is 22% of population)

Approach: Color-blind / geography-neutral

Biggers Budget:

West Louisville Investment: Explicitly prioritized across all policies

Dedicated West Louisville Allocations:
1. Creative Communities Fund: 50% reserved = $4M/year
2. Equitable Economic Development: $5M West Louisville investment fund
3. Innovation District: $8M West Louisville tech hub
4. Neighborhood Infrastructure: 50% of $12M fund = $6M/year
5. CDCs: Priority funding for West Louisville community organizations
6. Mini Substations: 18+ of 46 located in West Louisville
7. Community Wellness Centers: 6-9 of 18 in West Louisville
8. Food Access: Priority elimination of West Louisville food deserts
9. Transit: Free transit benefits low-income residents disproportionately in West Louisville
10. Housing: Anti-displacement protections prioritize gentrifying West Louisville neighborhoods

Estimated West Louisville Share: ~30-35% of new investment ($180-210M of $605M)

Approach: Reparative justice / equity-explicit

Impact:
– Current: West Louisville receives 3% of development investment (22% of population)
– Biggers: West Louisville receives 30-35% of new investment = 10x increase

IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE COMPARISON

Current Administration Budget Implementation:

FY 2025-2026 Focus:
– Immediate: LMPD recruitment classes
– Immediate: Fire/EMS recruitment classes
– Q1-Q2: Drone program launch
– Q1-Q2: 9-1-1 nurse triage program
– Ongoing: SAFE Louisville implementation
– Ongoing: Downtown revitalization projects (Belvedere, Louisville Gardens, etc. – state partnerships)
– Ongoing: Affordable housing preservation/creation (toward 15,000 unit goal)
– Ongoing: Parks, pools, libraries improvements

Timeline: Annual budget cycle, incremental improvements

Biggers Budget Implementation:

Year 1 (2026) – $298M Investment:
– Q1: Hire Community Safety Director, identify first 6 mini substation locations, launch 3 co-responder pilot teams
– Q2: Break ground on first 6 mini substations and 3 wellness centers, expand to 4 co-responder teams
– Q3: First 3 mini substations operational, first wellness center opens, 6 co-responder teams citywide
– Q4: Planning for Year 2 acceleration, comprehensive Year 1 report

Year 2 (2027) – $585M Investment:
– Scaling: 18 mini substations operational, 6 wellness centers operational, 10 co-responder teams
– Housing: 300 affordable units produced
– Infrastructure: Major transit and complete streets projects underway
– Results: Crime reduction, health improvements, community transformation visible

Year 3 (2028) – $698M Investment:
– Maturity: 40 substations operational, all 18 wellness centers operational
– Housing: 600 units total produced
– Infrastructure: Complete streets 60% complete
– Evaluation: Independent assessment, data-driven optimization

Year 4 (2029) – $665M Investment:
– Sustainability: All at least one mini substation in every ZIP code operational, full system optimization
– Housing: 1,000 units produced over 4 years
– Results: 40-50% crime reduction, transformation complete, Louisville as national model

Four-Year Total: $2.246 Billion investment

Timeline: Phased transformation with measurable milestones, quarterly public reports, annual independent evaluation

ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY COMPARISON

Current Administration Administration:

Accountability Mechanisms:
– Annual budget adoption by Metro Council
– Internal audit office ($0.9M)
– Inspector General ($1.0M)
– Department performance reporting
– Financial audits
– Metro Council oversight

Transparency:
– Public budget documents (executive and detail budgets)
– Metro Council budget hearings (public testimony)
– Standard government website
– Improved financial management (investment returns)

Strengths:
– Professional financial management
– Budget surplus demonstrates fiscal responsibility
– Improved partnership with Metro Council

Limitations:
– No real-time public budget portal
– Limited community input beyond hearings
– No participatory budgeting
– Performance metrics not published comprehensively

Dave Biggers Administration (Proposed):

Accountability Mechanisms:
– Enhanced Inspector General Office ($2.5M vs. $1.0M)
– Enhanced Civilian Review Board ($1.5M dedicated funding)
– Independent program evaluations (each policy area)
– Community oversight boards (every department)
– Performance management system ($2M with 10 FTE data analysts)
– Budget Advisory Committee (15 residents)

Transparency:
– Monthly: Budget execution reports, program enrollment/outcomes, construction progress, community feedback
– Quarterly: Comprehensive performance dashboard, ROI calculations, comparative peer city data, community town halls in all districts
– Annually: Independent financial audit, external program evaluation, community satisfaction surveys, strategic plan updates

Real-Time Tools:
– Open budget portal (see every dollar, real-time)
– Open data API (developers can build tools)
– Mobile app (track city services, report issues, see budget)
– Public dashboards (crime, health, housing, environment metrics)

Community Control:
– Participatory budgeting: $5M annually controlled by residents
– Budget advisory committee: 15 residents with quarterly input
– Departmental community advisory boards: Ongoing policy input
– Policy co-design: Communities affected lead program design

Strengths:
– Unprecedented transparency (real-time data)
– Direct community control over resources
– Performance measurement tied to outcomes
– Independent evaluation prevents self-serving reports

RISK ASSESSMENT

Current Administration Budget Risks:

Fiscal Risks:
– Economic downturn could reduce revenue (payroll tax dependent)
– State funding for major projects could change
– Debt service obligations ($67.5M annually)
– Pension obligations

Operational Risks:
– Police recruitment challenges (national shortage)
– Infrastructure maintenance backlog
– Climate events (flooding, tornados – as seen in 2025)

Mitigation:
– Budget surplus provides cushion ($50M)
– Conservative revenue estimates
– Strong investment income strategy
– Improved state relationships

Biggers Budget Risks:

Fiscal Risks:
– Front-loaded investment (Year 3 peak at $698M)
– Reliance on federal grants ($88M annually)
– Economic downturn impacts revenue generation
– Implementation cost overruns

Political Risks:
– Requires Metro Council buy-in for transformation
– Opposition from status quo interests
– Union negotiations for position transitions
– Community skepticism after decades of broken promises

Operational Risks:
– Complex coordination across 16 policy areas
– Staffing challenges (hiring 5,000+ workers over 4 years)
– Construction delays
– Technology implementation challenges
– Change management across government

Mitigation Strategies:
– Contingency fund: $25M annually
– Phased implementation: Can adjust based on revenue
– Diverse federal grants: Not dependent on single source
– Performance-based contracts: Protect taxpayers
– Conservative timelines: Build in flexibility
– Early wins: Demonstrate success builds momentum
– Transparent communication: Build trust through honesty
– Community engagement: 100+ meetings in first 100 days
– Professional management: Experienced implementation team
– Evidence-based approach: Following proven models from 50+ cities

WHAT THE BUDGETS SAY ABOUT PRIORITIES

Current Administration Budget Says:

We Value:
1. Safety through traditional policing (51% to public safety)
2. Fiscal responsibility and professional management
3. Visible infrastructure and amenities
4. Economic growth and downtown revitalization
5. State and private sector partnerships

We Believe:
– Strong police presence prevents crime
– Economic growth lifts all boats
– Government should be run efficiently like a business
– Public-private partnerships accelerate progress
– Incremental improvements compound over time

Message to Louisville:
“We’re making progress. Crime is down. We have a surplus. We’re delivering world-class parks and libraries. We’re partnering with the state on transformative projects. Louisville’s momentum is undeniable.”

Biggers Budget Says:

We Value:
1. Prevention over punishment (17% to health vs. 5.1% current)
2. Equity and reparative justice (30%+ to West Louisville vs. 3% current)
3. Community control and democratic participation ($5M participatory budgeting)
4. Root causes over symptoms (wellness centers, affordable housing, economic opportunity)
5. Return on investment and fiscal innovation (2.8x ROI, generates revenue)

We Believe:
– Safety comes from wellness, opportunity, and community trust
– Decades of disinvestment require intentional repair
– People closest to problems are closest to solutions
– Prevention is cheaper and more effective than crisis response
– Government should build community wealth, not subsidize corporations
– Every investment should demonstrate measurable returns

Message to Louisville:
“Louisville’s momentum isn’t reaching everyone. We can’t arrest our way out of poverty, incarcerate our way to health, or develop our way to equity. We need transformation, not incrementalism. We need community control, not top-down planning. We need investment in people, not just buildings. And we can afford it—by being smarter about where we invest, we’ll get better outcomes while generating economic returns. The question isn’t ‘can we afford this?’ The question is: can we afford NOT to do this?”

BOTTOM LINE COMPARISON

Current Administration Administration:

Achievements:
– 30% reduction in violent crime
– $50M budget surplus
– 15,000 affordable housing unit goal (in progress)
– Improved state relationships
– Visible infrastructure improvements
– Strong financial management

Budget Philosophy:
– Maintain and improve existing systems
– Fiscally conservative
– Evidence of results (crime reduction)
– Professional government operations

Best For:
– Residents who value stability and incremental progress
– Those satisfied with current direction
– People prioritizing traditional law enforcement
– Belief in market-driven solutions

Dave Biggers Administration (Proposed):

Promises:
– 40-50% crime reduction over 4 years (through prevention)
– $1.787B annual economic returns (2.8x ROI)
– 5,000+ quality jobs created
– 10x increase in West Louisville investment
– 1,000 affordable housing units produced (4 years)
– Eliminate food deserts affecting 142,000 residents
– Close digital divide (91,000 households)
– Community control over $5M budget annually

Budget Philosophy:
– Transform systems addressing root causes
– Invest in prevention, save on crisis response
– Equity-explicit and reparative
– Community-driven and democratically controlled
– Evidence-based (proven in 50+ cities)
– High ROI (every dollar generates economic returns)

Best For:
– Residents demanding transformative change
– Communities experiencing disinvestment (West Louisville)
– Those prioritizing prevention over punishment
– Belief in community power and public goods
– People willing to challenge status quo for better outcomes

KEY QUESTIONS FOR VOTERS

About Current Administration’s Budget:

1. Is 51% spending on traditional public safety the right balance when health/human services receive only 5%?

2. Are we addressing root causes or just managing symptoms with reactive services?

3. Is the current approach reaching West Louisville which receives 3% of development investment despite being 22% of population?

4. What’s the return on investment for corporate subsidies and economic incentives?

5. Do residents have meaningful control over how their tax dollars are spent?

About Biggers’ Budget:

1. Is this transformation realistic or too ambitious for a 4-year term?

2. Can we trust government to execute this complex plan effectively?

3. What happens if federal grants don’t materialize as projected?

4. Will reducing police budget (even while adding mini substations) compromise safety?

5. Can Dave actually generate the projected ROI and revenue?

CONCLUSION

These two budgets represent fundamentally different visions for Louisville:

Current Administration’s Budget: Competent management of existing systems with incremental improvements. Proven ability to generate surplus, reduce violent crime, and deliver visible projects. Best for those who believe Louisville is on the right track and needs steady leadership to continue momentum.

Biggers’ Budget: Transformative reorientation toward prevention, equity, and community control. Ambitious promise to address root causes of inequality while generating economic returns. Best for those who believe Louisville needs fundamental change to address decades of disinvestment and systemic inequity.

Same revenue base. Completely different priorities.

The choice is between:
– Incrementalism vs. Transformation
– Status quo vs. Systems change
– Top-down vs. Community control
– Punishment vs. Prevention
– Market-driven vs. Equity-centered

The question voters must answer:

Which vision of Louisville do you want to invest in?

Dave Biggers for Louisville Mayor
rundaverun.org

Budget Comparison Document | October 31, 2025
Current Administration FY 2025-2026 Approved Budget vs. Biggers Comprehensive Policy Integration