Long Night at City Hall

Yes, it was a long night at City Hall.  With very few exceptions the larger organizations of this community stepped up one at a time to the microphone and loudly let the City Council know they think the city should honor their commitment to the contract with the Airport.  The item (2011 budget) was postponed and staff was asked to find the money.  Alderwoman Bohinc even suggested a couple places to find some of the money, offering to use a portion of one of her valid pet projects for some of the funds.  She also suggested moving funds allocated for a citizen and an employee survey to this line item.  Not a bad idea, after all they surely got the answer to one survey question last evening loud and clear.

Another of the alderwomen, Mrs. Williams is clearly against paying this agreement, and while I do not agree with the decision, I have to say, she at least gave a valid reason that is on the surface fiscally responsible.  I have to fault her on at least a portion of the logic she is using.  Yes, the contract is subject to annual appropriations as is most all contracts that cross over from one fiscal year into another of over several years.  The problem as I see it is that clause is useful for a city that literally can not pay their obligations.  In effect it is a stop gap measure between fiscal soundness and all out bankruptcy.  it is not a legal position I would want to defend with a 30% reserve fund and a surplus budget.  In essence, the city has the money, is capable of paying the bill, but does not want to cash in the savings account to do that.  I believe that in order to use this special "subject to annual appropriations" loophole in the contract, the city needs to be on the verge of collapse.  Since we are budgeting nearly 8 million dollars more than last year and are announcing a balanced budget with a surplus  why can't we find the money.

 Note:  Balanced Budget- I know, it is confusing, see if it is not a deficit budget, it is balanced even though it is not balanced or even, and it can be a surplus even though we have higher expenses than we do revenue, it's a governmental definition thing, go figure?

For one thing, the city is being very conservative in their assumptions (not at all a bad tact) and has assumed a 1% growth in revenue from taxes.  Now, we are experiencing the worst year in most of our lives economically and we still are bouncing at or above that 1% mark.  I don't pretend to know what the future will bring, but for most of history tells us this will rebound.  In fact some of our illustrious leaders in Washington tell us the recession is over (I know, don't get me started).  Anyway, a more aggressive, yet still conservative number might be in order.  We have experts that forecast visitor growth and spending habits in this town and I can't see where we asked their professional opinion as to the potential for next years tax revenue.  Lets see if the most important assumption regarding income is correct.  That may solve the problem all together.

I applaud alderman Todd also for acknowledging the possibility of an underestimated income assumption as well as being one of the voices suggesting honoring the agreement.  His willingness to send this budget once again back to staff for more research into the possibilities is admirable.  

I caution the city in their attempt to use the "subject to annual appropriation" clause too quickly.  It can only be used once because after that, nobody will do business with the city again if their contract includes this clause.  It was never meant to be used for the purpose they are now contemplating using it for and several attorneys I have visited with do not think it would hold up in court under these circumstances.  So they would be using the one thin metal shield they have at their disposal against an armor piercing anti tank missile. I know we don't like gambling in this town, but I got to tell you, them odds ain't too great and this administration has not had too good of a record in the courtroom.

It is a shame this had to be brought forth during a public meeting thereby airing the dirty laundry of this city once again.  I walked away with a little better understanding of the councils position and am thankful that the budgeting of the funds is all they seem to object to this time.  I must admit, I went into the meeting expecting to hear them try to weasel out of the contract altogether with claims of constitutionality and such.  If the problem is they can't seem to find the money, we all need to help them see places to save the money to pay the bills.  At least they did not try to claim the bill is not valid.  In that I think a step in the right direction was taken.

The unfortunate additional side affect was that very little other debate took place regarding the proposed budget.  The Airport issue overshadowed so many other issues that might have been opportunities to see savings.  Everyone seemed so focused on the one issue, very little was questioned and for the sake of democracy, that is unfortunate.