It is completely inaccurate for Mr. Ostrow to try to take credit for long-range budget projections for the Minneapolis budget. It is completely inaccurate for Mr. Ostrow to say "For the first time, we have a budget report not just for the coming year but for the next five years. This is due to a resolution which I authored during last year's budget debate which requires these projections." How do I know? I worked on the Minneapolis budget from 1988 to 1998 and we did long-term budget projections. My colleagues and I did them. Capital. Operating. Tax-supported. Enterprise funds. Internal service funds. I invite anyone to take a trip to their local libraries and look at the budget books historically to see copies of these projections. The proof is there in black and white. These projections were presented to the Mayor and Council. I know because I did these presentations. I sat in front of the Ways and Means Committee, I sat before Mayor Frasier, I sat before Mayor Belton, and I did these presentations. Mayor Belton created a breakthrough in long-term budget planning through the development of the Priorities Process, a process for making multi-year operating budget decisions. Real change in the budget takes several years. The first year you have to identify potential changes to services. The second year you study how to change things and develop an implementation plan. The third year you implement your plan. The fourth year, given everything falling in line, you will see savings. Mayor Belton developed this program and used it to make her budget decisions. How do I know? Because I staffed this process for her. I invite anyone who does not believe this to go to the library and again, look at the budget books under "Priorities Proposals" and see the proposals. I also invite you to open up the books from several years and lay them open and see how the proposals carry from year to year as they are developed. Mr. Ostrow's assertion that long-term planning was not done until he championed it is simply bunk. Carol Becker Longfellow ----- Original Message ----- From: Richardson, Linda M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 2:08 PM Subject: Minneapolis Budget Issues > The following posting is from Council Member Paul Ostrow, First Ward, City > of Minneapolis: > > I have read with interest the recent postings regarding our current > financial situation and budget issues. I agree with Councilmember Lane that > we need to be very thoughtful in addressing these issues. We are not yet in > a state of financial crisis. However, there are structural imbalances > between current demands on our resources and available resources. Now is > the perfect time for us to engage in long term planning and wherever > possible to redesign services. > > For the first time, we have a budget report not just for the coming year but > for the next five years. This is due to a resolution which I authored > during last year's budget debate which requires these projections. The > resolution also calls for the maintenance of a constant tax rate. It also > gives priority to filling the infrastructure gap, addressing structural > deficits in the internal service funds, reducing interest payments on > capital projects and maintaining our previous commitment to finance the > public safety initiative. > > Good financial stewardship in my view is one of our most important > obligations as public officials. This means that we must resist > year-to-year budget solutions and choose instead the path that will lead to > the most benefit to the taxpayer over the long haul. I am the first to > admit that this is not easy, especially when all of us feel strongly about > many things we want accomplished for our constituents. > > > I am below providing a copy of the budget resolution. As stated in the > whereas clause, the resolution is important because it requires us to think > long term and to budget long term. We can then focus on the real challenges > before us in the shaping of our priorities and redesign of government > services. That challenge cannot be successfully met unless we actively > engage citizens in the setting of those priorities. Your comments on what > we should keep doing, what we should stop doing and what we should do > differently would be most welcome. > > Establishing a long-term revenue policy for the City of Minneapolis > > Whereas, the citizens of Minneapolis are better served when the > Council and Mayor establish long-term policies for the financial, social and > economic health of the City of Minneapolis; and > Whereas, the City's commitments to filling the infrastructure gap, > addressing structural deficits in the internal service funds, public safety > funding, and reduction of interest payments on capital projects are critical > to the long-term financial, social and economic health of Minneapolis; and > Whereas these commitments should not be sacrificed for short-term > budgetary considerations with no long-term benefit; and > Whereas, long-term financial and program planning is difficult, if > not impossible, in the absence of a coherent and consistent policy on > budgeting and taxation; and > Whereas municipal government should have clearly stated limits on > growth in the size or scope of government; > Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved By The City Council of The City of > Minneapolis: > That it shall be the policy and clearly stated goal of the City > Council to maintain a constant tax rate and to avoid increases in the > property tax rate and to first fund our commitments to filling the > infrastructure gap, addressing structural deficits in the internal service > funds, public safety funding, and reduction of interest payments on capital > projects, notwithstanding the Mayor's authority, as expressed in the City's > Charter. > Be It Further Resolved that the City Council directs the Finance > Director and the Budget Director to prepare and maintain annual and > five-year budget projections and further to assume in those projections the > following: > a) A property tax rate at the level in the 2000 Budget; > b) Maintenance of current and projected levels of commitments to > the infrastructure gap, internal service and work-out plan, and pay-as-you > go capital; > c) Reasonable projections on the growth of the property tax base > (from the City Assessor); > d) Additional cost (or savings) from identified decision packages; > and > e) Additional cost (or savings) from budgetary amendments. > Be It Further Resolved that the City Council directs the Finance > Director and the Budget Director to report quarterly to the Ways & > Means/Budget Committee to present these projections. > Be It Further Resolved that the Finance Director and the Budget > Director report annually to a mid-year meeting of the City Council, acting > as a Committee of the Whole, to present these projections. > Be It Further Resolved that beginning with the budget deliberations > for the 2001 budget, all licenses and fees for services shall be subject to > review on an annual basis and shall be established through the budget > process. Cost Savings or increased cost in delivering fee-based services > shall be the determining factor in establishing license costs and fees. > > Passed December 9, 1999. J. Cherryhomes, President of Council. > Approved December 14, 1999. S. Sayles Belton, Mayor. > Attest: M. Keefe, City Clerk > > > Just this morning our Committe of the Whole received a report on the demands > on our resources for the next ten years assuming no change in service > levels. These projections were understated because the workout plan for the > large deficit in our internal service funds has yet to be incorporated into > these projections. The projections show that over the next five years, > increases in spending (based on current commitments) will result in a budget > five years from now that is at least $100 million dollars higher than today. > If we capture growth in our property tax revenue base we can raise > approximately 40 million dollars over that peroid of time. As a result, > even assuming no new services or initiatives and without even addressing the > large deficits in the internal service funds, we are looking at a structural > deficit in excess of 60 million dollars by the year 2005. This cannot > continue. Now is the perfect time to chart a course for the next five years > that will responsibly put our fiscal house in order.
