Comments on: OPINION: I’m Not a Numbers Gal, but Budget Time’s Up

By: Andy Rankin

Andy Rankin — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:11:30 +0000

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.

By: Dan Maller

Dan Maller — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:31:25 +0000

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.

By: Annette

Annette — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:00:19 +0000

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?

By: TFC

TFC — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:49:43 +0000

I expect there will be a vigorous discussion of the topics at hand tonight…….yummy.

By: Dan Maller

Dan Maller — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:22:18 +0000

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.