I want to acknowledge Paul Lohman's correction: > David Brauer wrote: > > >The details are grim...greatly reduced community-development funds, a 23 > >percent cut to the cops, > > This is really a bit misleading and just one way in which numbers can be > turned to almost any advantage. The budget for police over the next 5 > years (2003-2008) will INCREASE by about $18 million dollars. They will > actually receive a 3.6% average annual increase in their budget. > > They WILL be 23% of the solution - meaning the city has to find $55 million > in cuts over the next 5 years and the police will be 23% of that amount.
Sorry, I didn't intend to be misleading. A subsequent post I wrote stated, "The police make up 32 percent of the 2003 property-tax-supported budget alone; they are getting 23 percent of the cuts. ... According to the city's 5-year projections, they need to cut $55 million in anticipated spending growth. The police come in for $12 million in cuts, fire for $2 million and public works for $8.4 million." Good catch, Paul - I think my second post was more careful. As Jim Graham recently said, sorry for the initial haste. By the way, Dan Niziolek made a big deal of the fact that several city departments (including the mayor's office and the council) were getting 6.5 percent average annual increases when the cops were getting 3.6 percent. Expect this to be a major point of discussion. The rejoinder (from whom, I forget) was that you only save a little out of other departments but you save a lot off the cops. Niziolek's response was that everyone should be limited to what the cops get. By the way, the fire guys are getting more - 5.5 percent annual increases. David Brauer King Field _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
