I've been sitting on the sidelines watching this budget discussion and
finally have decided to weigh in, hopefully without writing an e-mail
message the size of "War and Peace."
First of all it's great to have folks like Barrett and Paul scrutinizing the
budget, since for years it was just myself and former CM Minn. I would like
to point out that Steve and I were responsible for helping change the CLIC
process to a five year plan so folks had to queue up for funding and also
for better financial planning. The other benefit is that we can coordinate
projects with other entities like the County, so that we use our resources
in a more efficient manner.
As to Ms. Becker's post, I want to point out some flaws. Although I have
utmost respect for her financial acumen I feel there are some problems with
some of the interpretations about the Mayor's intent.
The Mayor has come to the table about both the internal service fund issues
and the infrastructure gap rather late in the game. It is the efforts of the
fiscal moderate caucus, which started six years ago, that has forced these
issues into the budget discussions. Proof of the pudding is that the Mayor
has been in charge for twelve years (and in a city office since the early
1980's) four as council president, the rest as Mayor. At no time during her
past tenure has she focused on these long-standing budget issues, until we
made it the centerpiece of every budget discussion for the last six years.
As to the issue of substantial declines in city revenue. Two things come to
mind. One is that we've know these declines were coming for some period of
time. To just whine and blame it on the state or the feds certainly doesn't
solve the problem,. We still have to learn to live within our means.
Several years ago when the downtown economy jumped $8 million in revenue,
neither the mayor or the majority of the council wanted to spend it on
paying down the bill for new police cars or the Clinton cops, which some of
us asked for. Instead they wanted to spend on new programs. And the
priorities process is often about advocating, for new services, often at the
expense of basic services. The Mayor requests every year that basic service
departments, Inspections, licensing, public works cut their budgets 3-4 per
cent. The services provided by these departments are the one's that CM's get
the most calls about. So cuts result in a decline in basic services.
Secondly if the Mayor was so concerned about revenue then she wouldn't be
letting the MCDA create large Tax Increment Finance districts for projects
like the Target Store and Block E. The districts eat up dollars that would
have gone into the general fund. For example, inside the Target store
district, is the U. S. Bank building, the office tower on top of the store,
and the Target Headquarters. All of these would have been built whether or
not the store was built. That means there is $7.7 million less in the
general fund each year, for the twenty plus years these properties are in
the district.
The service redesign in public works, where folks now work 12 months a year.
has not only not saved us any money in the past few years but it hasn't
helped us get any better service, which is what it was supposed to do.
Every week we hear about another service that Public Works will have to cut.
There are basically only a couple of ways to be able to have more money in
the budget. One is more revenue through growing the tax base, two is to cut
non-basic services and three is to engage in service redesigns that get more
bang for the buck.
I would challenge Ms Becker that the actions of previous councils; which
included our current leadership, (the Mayor, Cherryhomes and Campbell) and
their inattention to infrastructure and internal service fund problems is
why we can't put out a real balanced budget. As we all know when we pay our
bills and balance our checkbooks each month, putting off paying a bill just
means we pay more in the long run.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carol Becker [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2000 2:28 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: City Budget -- Response to Council Member Lane
>
> I have done a number of governmental budgets and one thing I can say is
> that
> they are never balanced with rhetoric. It is easy to say that you want
> "world class services" and at the same time say you want to "turn off the
> money tap." (both quotes from your post) These are things we all want.
> There is nothing more telling about a politician then where they allocate
> dollars and staff. I personnally believe it is the hardest thing a
> politician can do. I challenge you to put out a budget, a real balanced
> budget that meets the criteria that you have set in this post.
>
>
