The City with the healthy budget

"Healthy." I think that's the word Barlow used to describe the City's fiscal situation a few weeks ago. Last night at the Council's evening work session, Finance Director Marilyn Peterson once again told the council the same news she'd given them earlier this year. The City will be $1.2 million into the reserve funds by June 2009 and, without drastic changes, could be bankrupt by June 2010.

Currently each department has been asked to suggest ways to cut 10% from their budgets and define how that would affect services to the public.

At last night's meeting only Police Chief Steve Salle' put staff on the line. His $2.8 million budget is personnel-heavy; all but about $400,000 is personnel, in fact. So, a 10% cut for the PD means staff. He unwillingly offered up four positions and then (very well, I thought) explained the difficulties the department would face without these positions, and how it would drastically affect services.

Parks, the Library, and administration made their suggestions and there was little discussion, with the council deciding to consider their options and make some decisions at their next work session (December 2 at 1:00 pm in Council Chambers).

Two interesting comments: one from Barlow, which I heard, and one from Morten which was voiced after I left so I don't know the exact context. Barlow said he thought since the PD was "willing" to give up four positions, the rest of the departments should do the same. First, Chief Salle' was not WILLING, nor do I think the four people affected by this would be willing. Second, I wanted to ask him if he was willing to give up his self-awarded stipend as a show of good faith!

Morten apparently said something along the lines of how he thought it was important to continue to scheduled park projects (specifically, the Columbia View Park improvements and beautification efforts just underway). The way I heard it was that he was suggesting park projects should continue even though the PD was losing a patrolman, both code enforcement officers, and a clerk. Again, I'm curious to know whether or not he intends to cut his stipend before he cuts jobs OR continues park improvements.

Way to go, boys.

The budget discussion is worrisome no matter how you view it. With Boise's closures, the City is in an even more difficult situation. At least two of the councilors last night indicated that Marilyn Peterson's information about a $1.2 million deficit was news to them, despite the fact that she said it in the joint Council-Budget Committee meeting last Spring (it's on tape) and provided the information to them in writing at some point earlier this year.

THIS is why Sally's recall petitions said the city could be in trouble financially. We heard it, we read it, where were the councilors?

Something else to ponder, I think, is the reaction all of this will get from the public, if and when the council or city decides to address it in a very public way. Granted, their meetings are public. But, will there be a public forum? Will there be information in the newspapers? Will the public be asked their opinions? Or, will the council simply make their decisions and forego public input? Who knows?

Several of us were talking at work today about the opportunity the council has here to be proactive: make the situation very public and get people involved; ask the public what they think the city should do to stay on an even keel financially. I'll be anxious to see what they do.

One thing is certain: there will be no easy decisions. Even among City staff that I've spoken with, there is great dissension. One PD staffer actually said, "close the library completely." A public works fellow thinks the PD gets everything because they claim to be "essential," which he reads as "better than everyone else." A court employee says we can't allow the PD to be cut. Do you see where I'm going here?

It's a no-brainer that something has to go and it's just as clear that most people choose based on their own biases. Not a surprise, but not very conducive to mutual agreement.

I work with the Arts & Cultural Commission and support them, but I can see that the $15,000 that was allotted them this year is something that can be easily and wisely cut from the general fund expenses. I am a strong supporter of libraries, books, reading, reading programs, etc., but yes, I think the Library could and should go back to being open just six days a week if that will help the general fund. And, as much as I support the parks and know that they work on a shoestring as it is, I think any planned projects that are "beautification" only need to be set aside.

And, yes, I think the PD is "essential" and libraries, parks, and art are not. I don't always practice what I preach, but I'm a firm believer in "needs" over "wants." Cut whatever you have too, INCLUDING COUNCILOR SALARIES, but don't cut the PD staff in favor of the councilors pet projects.