Budget Adoption 4/11
The Council adopted the 06/07 operating budget tonight. There were several votes, but the crux of the vote was 6-3 (Altieri, Ecke, Esty, Hall, Visconti, White in favor; Orsini, Ruocco, Schrumm opposed). As I said during the meeting, in an effort to reduce costs, spending and taxes, I made a motion. My motion was the single biggest reduction to the spending, costs and taxes offered in any amendment this evening. It was no surprise to me (nor probably anyone else in town) when my motion failed, 8-1.
By considering a $400,000 reduction in the pool subsidy and a $200,000 reduction in the education budget, I feel I was the only person who had a serious interest in further reducing spending. Although, when we voted on the pool budget, that motion passed 7-2 (White, Ruocco opposed). So I want to give credit to Tom Ruocco for having voted for what I consider to be a common sense cost reduction... the $416,400 pool subsidy is simply too high.
BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS:
The spending increase in this budget: 4.37%
The tax increase in this budget: 1.88%
The mill rate increase in this budget: 0.50 mills (26.65 to 27.15)
I certainly wish that I could have found some more support for, what I consider to be, my very reasonable requests for tax & spending reductions. But with the exception of Tom Ruocco agreeing with me on the pool budget vote, I didn't feel much love tonight (or last night when I made other suggestions) for serious, thoughtful tax & spending reductions. (Although, again, in fairness to Elizabeth Esty, she was supportive on at least one significant budget change that I suggested last night. And it could have a long-term positive effect for the taxpayers.)
Budget articles online: the Herald and the Record-Journal. (I can't find the Wtby paper or Register articles online.)
Tim White
Town Council, 4th District
TimWhite98@yahoo.com
13 comments:
What's the word on Camp Nerden?
Off the top of my head... the town manager's recommendation is in the budget.
any idea what the recommendation was? We never got that infomation.
I would have to disagree with your statement that "I was the only person who had a serious interest in further reducing spending." You proposed a miniscule cut in spending for General Government and Education (which you later would not support) along with slashing the pool budget. You made no case for supporting the cuts to the pool, other than it would save money (using this argument, why not close the senior center?). Since closing the pool would have an obvious, negative impact on pool revenues - a reduction of $400k would have led to a precipitous drop in revenue - resulting in a net savings far less than $400k. Do you know how much that would be? Do you know how much additional expenses would be incurred closing the pool for the winter? Would exposure of the pool to cold winters cause damage to the facility? Thank goodness there are 8 other members of the council who recognize that careful, thoughtful deliberations are essential to a sound, decision-making process.
Tim,
Had I been in your position last night I would have supported the amended motion advanced by Dave Orsini. Yes this is the one that you couldn't support, which I found to be very confusing. Had you advanced in your motion one cost cut area, the pool, I could sympathazie with your disappoointment with its lack of support from the entire council. But you turn around and refuse to support and amendment that embraced 2 areas of the budget you had included in your amendment. I find that confusing and odd as a concerned citisen from the 4th. Is it possible you considered your amendment to be a nonstarter knowing many would love to see spiraling pool costs cut, but couldn't wrap your arms around the idea of real public support for a reduction in education, etc. Help me here Tim. You've left me puzzled along with a lot of other folks I am sure.
Tim Slocum
I must agree with Tim S...I watched the meeting from home and was totally confused when there wasn't at least 4 of you supporting the amendment Mr. Orsini made which increased the reduction to the budget by only another 35K. Wish that one could have been worked out a little better, but then again, it wouldn't have received 5 votes anyway. And I have to agree with Orsini's comment that some people in the public know more about the budget than some councilors. I attended all boe budget meetings and saw hardly any tc members there. Even at the tc budget meetings they didn't all show. How can they use the excuse that "we can't blindly cut the boe budget" when they seemed to "blindly" vote to hand over $53,749,242 to the boe?? Just doesn't make sense!
It was a philosophical difference in the role of the Town Council in Town Government
Here's my version of what happened not only last night, but the events that led to last night’s meeting:
Monday night budget meeting: 6 Council members in attendance (Ecke, Esty, Orsini, Ruocco, Schrumm, White) And we went thru the budget, primarily in the items (costs & services) that were related to changes in services from the current budget. During that meeting, three of us (Esty, Schrumm, White) made suggestions for specific cost reductions in the General Government budget (police, town hall, public works, etc.) by line item. I felt as though I found little support for most of my suggestions, even when I made it clear that my intention was to reduce spending and taxes. As a member of the Council, my view is that we are a policy board. And we use the budget as a policy tool. We enact policy by virtue of the budget and, therefore, I feel we need to make changes to the budget that reflect the policy decisions of the Council… line item by line item.
What do I view as a policy decision? Well, there was a perfect example on Monday night. At one point, Mr. Schrumm suggested a reduction of $1680 for a summertime position in the Town Clerk’s office. (It was related to dog license processing.) I agreed with Mr. Schrumm on two fronts here: 1) the spending was unnecessary and should be eliminated; and 2) this was a policy decision… to fund or not to fund a particular position.
Again, on Monday, I made my intent very clear. I wanted to reduce spending and taxes. (I even had to repeat this several times as one Council member, surprisingly, kept saying to me that I was trying to get employees to pay more for their healthcare. But that was not my point at all. My point was to reduce spending and taxes.) But there was clearly very little support for my suggestions.
Then as the meeting was coming to a close, Mr. Orsini made a suggestion that we increase use of various tax & revenue streams ($400,000 or so), reduce the education budget (by $200,000) and reduce general government (by $100,000). Although I don’t recall having said anything about the first two items, I did ask him a question about the reduction in General Government. I asked him where he would recommend making those reductions. He deferred to the town manager and suggested that Michael Milone determine what items are cut from the General Government budget.
While I respect Mr. Orsini’s view on policy making, this is in direct contradiction to what I’ve just laid out… a philosophy which says we, the Council, determine where taxes are levied and where those taxes are spent. And based on Mr. Schrumm’s suggestion of reducing the Town Clerk’s budget, I assumed that he agreed with me… that we, the Council, should make decisions on individual line items in the General Government part of the budget. And not simply “set the mill rate” and let the Town Manager decide what budget line items will be changed.
Which leads me to Tuesday’s Council meeting…
I made a motion which I firmly supported. It included a $400,000 reduction to the pool budget, a $200,000 reduction to education and a $132,000 increase in use of the General Fund.
With regard to the $400,000 reduction to the pool budget, I relied on town staff for the substantiation of my numbers. I asked about the pool budget for the past month, both during budget workshops and in individual conversations with the Town Manager and other town staff. I asked for revenue and expense history (in order to extrapolate likely revenues and expenses for a summer only pool) and I asked for engineering details related to possible negative effects of not putting the bubble back up… that process started for me a month ago. And there were reports from town staff that were distributed at budget workshops during the past week, as a result of my questions about the pool. And to make a long story short, those reports suggested that a summer only facility would require a subsidy of $12,000 to $38,000. Thus, I suggested a $400,000 reduction (from the proposed $416,400) in the subsidy to the pool… not really a $400,000 reduction to the pool budget. And I could have been more clear about this, but considering that other people wanted to talk and that I was pretty sure my motion would not garner 5 votes, I decided this part of my explanation was unnecessary. (Although I feel this blog is a very appropriate place for this explanation… so “anon 8:12pm” thanks for bringing this up.)
With regard to the $200,000 reduction in the education budget... I’d have been quite comfortable with this reduction had it passed. However, I’m certain that even if this were proposed as a standalone motion, it wouldn’t have passed. And therefore, I didn’t see any need to bifurcate this from the other budget adjustments that I proposed.
And the last part of my motion… there was confusion. And in fact, I even tried to clarify this with Mr. Orsini after the meeting last night. Here’s my version of the events…
I had suggested an increase in use of the General Fund (this is the “rainy day fund”). Our General Fund is getting bigger and bigger every year. It’s now approximately 7% of the annual budget, but the bond rating agencies tend to want us at anything above 5%, so I felt we could use a bit of this and round out my suggested budget amendment to a $732,000 adjustment… a number that would reduce the mill rate by 0.30 mills.
Then my motion failed. And Mr. Orsini suggested an alternate motion. However, his motion was significantly different from mine. He suggested a $200,000 reduction in the education budget and a $132,000 reduction in the General Government budget. I suggested a $132,000 increase in the use of the General Fund. I believe confusion arose in the difference between the terms “General Government” and “General Fund.” Again, I spoke with Mr. Orsini after the meeting and apologized to him for any confusion in me speaking unclearly. (As well, before I realized he was suggesting a reduction in General Gov’t and not an increase in the use of the General Fund, I suggested to him to increase the $132,000 to $166,000. The purpose in this was simply to provide the Town Manager with a simpler change in the mill rate… 0.15 mills… not a number with many decimal places that, if adopted, may have difficulty being processed by town software.)
But back to Mr. Orsini’s motion… I had a philosophical difference with him on his motion that I explained in relation to Monday’s meeting. Mr. Orsini said on Monday night that he was comfortable with proposing a $100,000 reduction to General Government. But I respectfully disagree with him on that approach. Again, I feel the Council is a policy board and the budget is our single most important policy tool.
And if on Monday night, there was support for suggested reductions in the budget… line item by line item… and we identified $100,000 (or $132,000 or $166,000) in General Government budget reductions, then I could have wholeheartedly supported Mr. Orsini’s motion. And as I mentioned, both I and Mr. Schrumm tried to do this. But for some reason, there was no apparent support for any changes I was suggesting. (At least that’s how I felt. But there were others at the meeting, so feel free to ask them if my assessment is fair.)
So when we got to the budget vote on Tuesday night, I did not feel that I could support Mr. Orsini’s motion. If Mr. Orsini had followed the precedent that I had seen set by Mr. Schrumm over the past two years with the budget… and offered specific line item reductions to the General Government budget, then I could have supported it… but I didn’t know what Mr. Milone’s recommendation would have been and if I would have agreed with it. And that was the reason that I voted against his motion… it was a philosophical difference in the role of the Town Council in Town Government.
I agree with Dave Schrumm that we need to consider each line item. I disagree with Dave Orsini's approach of deferring to the Town Manager.
(Finally, if anyone… Dave Orsini, Dave Schrumm or anyone else disagrees with my version here, please say so. Again, this is my version and as with any story, there are always two sides. I’m just trying to be as upfront about this as I can possibly be… and Tim Slocum… thanks for including your name. I appreciate it.)
anon 7:59am... $10k, I think.
I think Tim's decision to not support Mr Orsini's amendment was that rare occasion when a politician puts principle ahead of politics. Many of Tim's supporters, including readers of this blog, recognize and endorse Tim's efforts to cut spending. So it must have been difficult for him to oppose a motion that would have reduced next year's budget. But as Tim points out in his above post, while it is important to control spending, it is more important to do so responsibly. That means deciding which services and functions of government should be trimmed. It is easy to propose a reduction in spending and then let someone else decide what gets cut. More difficult is to make those difficult and often unpopular decisions and to stand by them.
A major issue is that contimued lack of desire to reduce costs. It is easy to reduce projected increases to the budget but very hard to make strategic cuts to the existing fixed cost base of expenditures. We live in a society of demanded instant gratification. We want, want, want but refuse to cut.
I would like to suggest that as concerned citizens we start to be more active in our government. Showing up at meetings, asking questions and making suggestions is the way to get things changed.
A good place to start is to employ a Business Manager for the School system. Take the budget development away from the Superintendent. A Supt. should manage the educational process, let a business manager run the business. A dedicated business manager will provide a BOE budget with better clarity, more honesty and a solid base of justifications for spending. If the BOE budget went through the same process the Town Manager employs, all of us would have a much better understanding of the BOE budget.
I will provide a specific case. From the start of the budget year the Supt has stated he needed $157,000 for 3.5 new teachers, 2 at Dodd and 1.5 at the High School. Last Monday night when asked in the budget committeee meeting if there was other funding that could be reduced he gladly gave up the $157,000, although he qualified his suggestion by saying the BOE would not agree.
So who is for the kids? that is all we hear. If the teachers were such an important link in the education process how come they became expendable at the last minute?
Second example, the Supt new in January there would be an increase of 22% for electrical energy starting in January 2007. He never put the known, planned increase in the budget. Not until this past Monday night did he acknowledge the fact he failed to include the energy increase in his budget. So his budgte gets cut from 3.6 mil to 2.2 mil, he does include the added electrical cost, by his own admission of 166k, removes the teacher funding and all is well.
All of the cuts came from requested increases, not one penny from current operating costs. There needs to be change.
Tim,
The Cheshire Herald called it right. The council could have and should have made cuts. Your amendmaent was a start. And do not blame the lack of public participation at workshops on how these budgets move forward. It is a lack of political will. That vote should have been 5-4 at the least. If a $400K cut is good for the pool because you saw some figures, then how is 200K from BOE just right, too much, or not enough. You simply can not have it both ways and I think your lengthy explanation is proof that even you have to labor with justifing your vote. A cut is a cut...a policy tool, a quiver elected officials have at their disposal. The voters selected you to make the big decisions. And the council has hired managers to do what YOU say.
I know how hard everyone works on this stuff and maybe that's the problem. A little instinct and common sense on TC's part will make our managers earn their pay, which is handsome I'd say.
Tim Slocum
Tim S said... "do not blame the lack of public participation at workshops on how these budgets move forward."
Do you feel that I blamed the public for this budget in some way?
Tim S... BOE Budget included a reduction of $157k. I suggested an additional reduction of $200k. That would be a total reduction of $357k.
And here are some budget reduction ideas that total $357k:
$175k = 3.5 new teaching positions that we do not need to add (3.5 x ~50k)
$100k = 5 teacher retirements (the BOE assumed 5 teacher retirements at $100k in their reduction of the Sptd's proposal. So I'm just assuming an additional 5 retirements. And with 370 teachers, almost none of whom stay more than 37 years, I feel this assumption is fair.)
$40k = fluff that I identified in an earlier blog
$42k = reduction in a/c 115. For the past four years, this account has been overbudgeted every year by $60-80k.
$175 + 100 + 40 + 42 = $357k reduction
So I disagree that I had no basis for reducing the BOE budget request by an additional $200k. I know I didn't lay this out before, but would this suggestion mean anything to the elected members of the BOE? I think I made my view on the elected members of the Board quite clear during the TC meeting.
Post a Comment