Hello everyone on this foggy Monday morning, I hope all is well.
Per my article in today’s newspaper, which you saw on Friday, Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike presents his 2010 preliminary budget proposal to City Council members at 7 p.m. tonight.
The budget proposal is $187.8 million in expenditures for 2010, a figure that is lower than 2006 levels of city spending, when a budget of more than $193 million was adopted.
Though city officials have so far said that a “big chunk” of cuts in 2010 will come from capital projects - like road improvements - it still appears that city services will be cut. The question is, by how much?
And will those cuts mean more layoffs or reduction in positions at the city? In departments like the library, the administration’s directive for flat budget levels plus another cut means that it’s unlikely jobs won’t be affected.
The public — including me — will get its first glimpse at the budget at 1 p.m. today, according to the city, which said in council agenda documents they’ll throw it online prior to Mayor Pike’s presentation.
Meanwhile, as the administration and council cull $28.3 million from the budget between 2009 and 2010, Pike is also asking the council to take their state-allowed 1 percent property tax increase, which would net the city about $180,000.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Sam,
Thanks for the balanced article. The choices we are making as a government are challenging, as are the choices facing the members of the broader community. The only disagreement I harbor with the article is not with the article, but the emphasis of the headline on taking the 1% tax increase. I did not advocate for the increase lightly, but in the context of a budget of $180+ million, the tax will provide .001 of the funds for next year’s budget, or 1/10 of 1%. There are dozens of other actions we took that were more meaningful financially, including layoffs, program reductions, and deferrals. The $180,000 forestalls a couple more layoffs or program cuts at a time when we have cut capacity significantly. In my opinion–and I recognize that others will disagree–the tradeoff makes sense. The total cost per citizen of the increase is about $2.25 per year, or less than 20 cents per month. With it appearing that we have found the bottom of the current recession, preserving the capacity of the City to deliver the goods, services and programs which collectively make Bellingham such a great place to live, work, and play is vital.
I know that you don’t always write the heds, but wanted to give your readers a little context, and a glimpse into my thinking. Thanks for your work in keeping everyone informed.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:02 AM
The most important abstraction from our complicated city budget, which draws on many separate funds and funds many different city services, will be a presentation that underscores priorities - which departments use what total funds for what purposes, how many employees are being cut from each department.
The second most part of any financial presentation should be modeling of future economic revenue streams. The city is predicting increasing and sustained losses of the general fund from decreasing sales tax, B&O, and real estate taxes.
How will that trend be satisfied for the next 3 - 4 years?
Through increasing budget cuts in social services, public works, health and safety cuts?
Is there a sustainable long-term *plan* to increase middle class employment, to incubate business, and to attract and use existing private capital?
If “building the waterfront” fails because of continued slumps in the real-estate market or lack of funding external to COB’s city budget, how does the city intend to prevent massive swells in unemployment and the poverty rate and the social consequences thereof?
Ryan M. Ferris
October 19th, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Ryan, thanks for your thoughts. I have also written a post about your newish blog. Looking forward to reading it more.
October 19th, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Would our city be more responsive to budgetary restrictions if every employee shared equally in the cuts?
Those that collect far more tax revenue than they’d ever need to be comfortable should make voluntary cuts that match the pain that is happening in the private economy.
A sign to every citizen of the proper hard choices made.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Sam:
Thanks for your post. I will put a google analytics counter on my blog and let you know how many readers drop a cookie there….I should probably add that I was going to stop any political activism I have engaged in, until the library cuts awakened me.
Ryan
October 20th, 2009 at 12:23 PM
The sad truth of human nature is that those who actually DO THE WORK to EARN their money are the ones who place the highest value on it. Most family fortunes are squandered by the third generation, because they were completely removed from the SACRIFICES it took to amass their wealth, so they spend it frivolously.
This is the situation we are in as a city/county/state/nation, the folks in charge of spending are FAR REMOVED from the individual sacrifices that make up the sum of tax monies represent. As strange as it seems, doing nothing is TAX FREE, while being productive earns one the punishement of being taxed.
The only peaceful solution is to bind our taxing/spending tightly to EXACTLY what is allowed by our social contract, the state Constitution, and to not deviate from it’s bounds one iota; anything else is tyranny and theft!