September 21, 2005

Back to the Table of Contents Page

Back to The Almanac Home Page

Classifieds

Publication Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2005

EDITORIAL: Drilling down on the budget

City officials have high hopes that residents will actually read and participate in the long questionnaire, which provides copious detail of each budget category, including expenses and revenues, if any. Those taking the survey are asked to complete a form and suggest ways to cut $2.9 million from a projected $32 million in expenditures starting July 1 of next year.

For example, the survey breaks down the cost of the various police divisions, so respondents can see how much it costs for patrol response ($7.1 million) and how much revenue the unit produces ($863,000). So, police patrol services cost the city $6.24 million a year. Add investigations, traffic enforcement, emergency preparedness and community outreach, and the Public Safety Division costs nearly $11 million a year, by far the largest item in the city's budget.

City officials say their plan is to receive and tabulate the survey's results, and conduct a separate telephone poll to make sure the mail-in survey was not hijacked by a special interest group. Then early next year a series of hearings will be held, when small groups of residents will be asked to play the role of City Council members and recommend a course of action on the budget. These groups will be helped by members of the city's volunteer Budget Advisory Committee.

All of this adds up to giving residents a huge opportunity to express their thoughts on the budget process as it is currently practiced. But as some residents have pointed out, there are other ways to reduce costs, which the city may be overlooking.

For example, in a guest opinion on the opposite page, Dan Dippery suggests that the city simply slice 10 percent off every department, which would be more than enough to get to the $2.9 million cut needed. By doing so, Mr. Dippery says, no department would be axed. And, if revenues started to return, the additional income could be spread equally among all the city's divisions.

Other budget critics have asked why cuts in pensions and salaries are not on table. At least a partial answer is that the city must compete for employees with other local governments in the area, so pay, health and retirement benefits are not on the table during the budget process.

And then there are the city's reserve funds, which amount to $25 million or more. An item in the survey simply says that the city already has dipped into reserve funds, "but cannot continue to do so." Many will agree with that statement, but some might agree that these are extraordinary times, that might justify use of at least some reserves to balance the budget.

At this writing, it is difficult to predict the outcome of this innovative budget approach. In the end, it will be up to the City Council to make the final decision anyway, so some residents may think it doesn't matter what they say. That would be a mistake.

We urge everyone who received the survey to fill it out, and send it in. There is no chance for your views to be heard if you don't express them.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.