OPINION: I’m Not a Numbers Gal, but Budget Time’s Up
Now I’ll be the first to admit – I’m not a numbers gal. So I always follow budget processes with bemusement. But this year? I’m downright confused.
Some things I understand – Virginia State law requires municipalities to run a balanced budget. Check. In March, the city manager in consultation with his staff, after receiving the school board budget, presented a balanced budget proposal to the public and City Council. Check. The Council has over a month to examine, debate, and receive public comment about the budget before passing it on April 27. Check. Then the rest became murky.
Upon further reflection, it was discovered that eliminating GEORGE service would NOT save $450,000 as estimated on March 9. The School Board budget passed on February 25 – albeit reduced – included increases for its teachers, while the City’s budget froze pay for its employees and eliminated positions. Was that fair? So the public debate began.
GEORGE customers and public transportation advocates rallied to its cause, using data on subsidies, and penalties, and accounting practices to show that there may be a budget-neutral solution for keeping the service this year until an advisory panel could explore ways to make it more sustainable. Uh-oh, I thought – there goes $450,000 in budget cuts that the city manager and Council have to make up in order to balance the budget. What hard choices will they have to make?
So I wasn’t surprised when the mayor and Council instructed the School Board to cut its budget request by $170,000. What astounded me was that the School Board was asked to do that so that the City could RE-INSTATE two City employee positions slated to be cut. Now I’m not saying that I think the City should freeze pay, or cut positions, for City employees. I just know that the school superintendent and staff made some cuts in other areas in order to offset the increases to salaries. And the City certainly has that choice.
But to ask for cuts from the school budget to reinstate cuts already proposed? How does that get us to a balanced budget? And when will the community see a revised balanced budget — one that allows for debate, examination, and public comment by the April 27 vote? Tonight at the public hearing?
It is now April 23, the Council is scheduled to vote on the budget on Monday, and the School Board is scrambling to assess the impact of the additional $170,000 budget cut — a cut that still will not balance the budget. I may not be a numbers gal, but those who know me know that my strength is time management. So while I can’t tell you how the numbers work, I can tell you with still no agreement between the City Council numbers and the School Board numbers…time is running out.
By Annette Hennessey
April 23, 2009
Annette, aside from the real issue of cutting the school budget vs. the tax rate vs. mitigating the City Government layoffs in some fashion, which I am not addressing in this comment, I just wanted to point out that the GEORGE budget cut has nothing to do with the questions on the table now. The City Manager estimated that GEORGE would cost $600k to operate for the upcoming year and proposed not to spend this money, and we found a way to continue the operation without any general fund expenditure or any change in the proposed $1.07 tax rate. The users of GEORGE will receive less service and many will not be able to use GEORGE at all, and for their pain those taxpayers will on average pay about the same levels of tax but receive less service, but this does not affect in any way the remaining questions before the council as we deliberate the 2010 budget.
The issue the Mayor has placed on the table is whether the Schools should cut their enacted budget by $170,000 or 1/2¢ on our tax rate, and whether the City should use that money to fund additional personnel expenditure on the City Government side in order to mitigate proposed layoffs. Speaking only for myself, I consider this two separate questions, that is: (1) should the School budget be cut and (2) should we increase the proposed personnel spending. I appreciate all of the public comment we are receiving and look forward to the public hearing tonight.
I expect there will be a vigorous discussion of the topics at hand tonight…….yummy.
Dan: Okay now that you’ve said this has nothing to do with the GEORGE funding, I’m REALLY confused about the Mayor’s request. Since the School Board passed its budget request on February 25 and the City Manager presented his budget on March 9, why did the Mayor and her council wait until last week to ask for the School Board for a reduction in its budget to cover the eliminated City employee positions?
Annette: while I am proud to serve with Mayor Gardner, we are not “her council” but yours; although maybe I protest too much!
Commencing March 9, the budget was reviewed and deliberated in numerous work sessions with the schedule culminating in the second reading on Monday, April 27. The School Board formally attended at least two sessions and there was lots of exchange of information and views involving virtually every member of the Council and the School Board. While the specific proposal made by the Mayor was not made until April 20, there have certainly been indications to the School Board that the Council considered these to be extraordinary times and that reductions might be proposed and seriously considered. While I am sure this could have been floated earlier in the process, I really do not think that the SB or school community’s reaction would have been any different in March as opposed to April, or that the result will not be what it will.
I appreciate Mr. Maller’s approach to the two issues – considering the school budget amount separately from the issue of City personnel spending. Certainly these are complex issues, even for a relatively small City like ours, which is why I think it’s a mistake for people to simply look at the small pay increase for school staff and compare that to frozen pay and layoffs for the City staff.
One thing that seems very relevant to me is that the schools had a reduction of 8 full time positions last year compared to none from the City staff. If that’s true, why is it “unfair” if this year the City staff is reduced by 3 full time and 3 part time positions?
It may or may not be appropriate for the schools to be asking for money to give their staff a raise but I think it’s a separate issue from whether or not the City staff should be reduced.