Budget
I posted this to the Inter-Neighborhood Council list, but i thought i'd share it here. There's been some discussion about the priorities in the budget this year, with arts and other non-profits, which have traditionally been funded by the city, getting a much smaller piece of the pie in the proposed budget. And that's even before the cuts that Mayor Bell has asked City Manager Patrick Baker to make, to reduce the proposed increase in the property tax rate to 3 cents, from 5 and a half cents.
Mike Shiflett made the point that:
There's the rub. Read the news articles and you'd get the impression that staff came up with this idea all by themselves. But this is, as far as i am aware, a policy decision made by Council some time ago.
Why wasn't this communicated to the non-profits before the funding cycle began? For that matter, why wasn't the 54 cent property tax limit communicated to staff before the budget cycle began? If Council had a tax increase limit in mind, wouldn't it have made sense to let the manager and budget director know before they put the budget together? Or does someone actually think that by rejecting the proposed budget, our elected leaders look as though they are standing up for the taxpayers?
Really, the whole budget process this year has been disgraceful.
UPDATE: Several people have written to me explaining that the city staff did in fact communicate with the NCAs about the changes they could expect in funding levels and priorities in this and subsequent budget cycles. The suggestion is that NCA staff may not have communicated the seriousness of the city in implementing these changes to their Boards, with the result being the highly public clamor among these groups for more funds from the city.
Could be.
My thinking is that the city could have perhaps been a bit more proactive in letting the public and the people who use the services provided by the NCAs know about these changes as well. I don't necessarily oppose limiting the time frame in which local non-profits can expect to be funded by the city, or the levels of support they can expect to receive. But somewhere in the process this year, something broke. And the result is that everyone looks bad.
Mike Shiflett made the point that:
With ever increasing demands on providing basic services (police & fire protection, minimum housing code enforcement, roads, sewer and water, trash pickup/yard waste, other services) residents need to understand that there is not an unlimited amount of money to go around.emphasis mine.
. . .
The Non-City Agency funding changes being implemented by the City Council are attempting to address this.
There's the rub. Read the news articles and you'd get the impression that staff came up with this idea all by themselves. But this is, as far as i am aware, a policy decision made by Council some time ago.
Why wasn't this communicated to the non-profits before the funding cycle began? For that matter, why wasn't the 54 cent property tax limit communicated to staff before the budget cycle began? If Council had a tax increase limit in mind, wouldn't it have made sense to let the manager and budget director know before they put the budget together? Or does someone actually think that by rejecting the proposed budget, our elected leaders look as though they are standing up for the taxpayers?
Really, the whole budget process this year has been disgraceful.
UPDATE: Several people have written to me explaining that the city staff did in fact communicate with the NCAs about the changes they could expect in funding levels and priorities in this and subsequent budget cycles. The suggestion is that NCA staff may not have communicated the seriousness of the city in implementing these changes to their Boards, with the result being the highly public clamor among these groups for more funds from the city.
Could be.
My thinking is that the city could have perhaps been a bit more proactive in letting the public and the people who use the services provided by the NCAs know about these changes as well. I don't necessarily oppose limiting the time frame in which local non-profits can expect to be funded by the city, or the levels of support they can expect to receive. But somewhere in the process this year, something broke. And the result is that everyone looks bad.
Labels: City Council, city manager, local government
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
4 Comments:
It seems to me the City is asking businesses and residents to invest in it all the time.
As a person whose family and friends benefit greatly from the arts community in this town, it seems odd the City is no longer willing to invest in itself with the tiny, tiny amount of money arts-funding takes.
Sure, get rid of the Durham Blues Festival. Why, that's just brilliant.
I agree with your point, Dependable. WHERE was the heads up that this de-funding was in the works? This kind of parental approach to government leads to an all-or-nothing approach. We're all adults. Tell us we may lose our funding and we can get very creative. But to suddenly drop it without warning is unfair.
How much money are we talking about? Two weeks worth of fuel for city vehicles and buses?
Durham already has a bad reputation in how it handles funds. Look at any of the bond issues and ask yourself, "so, where's the money now?"
By
Tony, at 9:00 PM
Gee, maybe we should hire a consultant to help us figure this out.
Oh wait..
ya think the average consultant bill just might dwarf this shortfall?
Just what does more for Durham - the arts or "consultants"?
I can sure tell you which one resonates more with the clients I introduce to Durham. They ask about classical music, arts camps for kids, pottery classes, ADF & AADE, historic preservation and all these things that enhance the quality of life here in Durham and make us at least a little bit willing to put up with the stupid stuff. Like landfill fires and yard waste idiocy.
Never yet in 32 years had a client ask about consultants.
Durham does not have "an arts-funding problem" - it has a "spend a boatload of money like a drunken sailor on stupid wasteful stuff" problem.
By
Unknown, at 11:51 PM
Barry: I agree with your sentiment but quibble on one detail.
I'm not so sure I want Council setting a maximum tax rate and then having City staff bring in the most spending they can pack into the budget.
That approach essentially abdicates choices over priorities to the administration, not the Council. If the City Manager selects which items do and don't make it into the bucket, you're exercising influence by inclusion or exclusion from that proposal.
As unfortunate as this budget cycle has been, there is at some level a value in being able to see the wishlists from all departments, and then set priorities on what to or not to invest tax dollars on.
By
Unknown, at 9:03 PM
On the other hand, Kevin, a lot of time and energy went into developing this budget, at all levels of city administration. A lot of that effort now gets dumped, and the budget has to be rewritten in a matter of weeks, rather than months. I'm sure that the proposed budget that Patrick Baker presented was developed with some guideline about what the final tax rate could be, and how much each department, roughly, would be able to spend. It hardly represents a "wishlist" of every project every department would like to pursue.
Now, that work is, to a large extent, trash. It's not a simple matter of saying, well, here's my department's top 10 priorities, we can only fund 7, so we'll just dump the bottom three. The CBA for a lower priority item may be much better than for a higher priority item. Maybe you can fund parts of items 6, 7, and 8.
I'm just of the opinion that more communication, especially from those who have veto power, is better than less.
By
Barry, at 9:19 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home