« A Tale of Two Cities | Main | Vandals »
June 04, 2007
All Day Budget Party Tomorrow!
|
| Jenn Klein writes
a story
in today's paper about tomorrow's
all day budget work session. At the session the City
Council will attempt to iron out the city's long term deficit, which
has grown from an estimated $40,000,000 to $56,000,000 in just six months. At the top of the list of solutions is a tax increase, and in a previous blog entry I listed all 54 suggested proposals for reducing the deficit. The two council conservatives have some interesting decisions to make. As a distinct minority they are not needed to pass the bond issues that require a 2/3 vote. In fact all of the council decisions could be made without their input. If the City Council appears to be leaning towards an emphasis on raising revenue through taxation or borrowing (bonds) the conservatives could just vote against any budget proposal that doesn't have significant cost cutting associated with it. From a recent history perspective most of the councilors have weighed in on this budget issue in the last 6 months. There are two, Bertagna and Schwab, who I don't recall making statements. But I'm sure I just wasn't around when it happened. Of the remaining councilors Larry Wahl was the most obvious in his concern over the budget. In fact he was publicly thumped for being severe in his critique of spending decisions at a "State of the City" discussion in January. Wahl's concerns have been proven true. Council candidates that didn't make the cut last November also expressed concern over the budget, and were derided as crying wolf. Unfortunately, the wolf is not only real, but a bit meaner than expected. Councilors Holcombe and Flynn both made statements about the budget deficit being more a matter of changing accounting methods than an immediate concern. Holcombe wrote an editorial in the CNR suggesting that the budget problem was fiction. Flynn, in a candidate interview, emphasized taking a "wait and see" approach to see if the budget was of genuine concern. Gruendl and Nickell had the most realistic impression of the current budget crisis of the 5 left leaning councilors. Gruendl, in a candidate interview, said the community needs to have a discussion about which services it desires, and whether or not it is willing to pay additional taxes. These comments acknowledged the budget as a looming crisis. Nickell, at the first Chamber sponsored "debate", suggested raising taxes to deal with the budget shortfalls. I did not hear Nickell mention taxes again during the campaign, but he should get credit for giving what was probably an unguarded and honest opinion at the outset. As the 2007 campaign moved on the recognition of the budget shortfall from the left gave way to rhetoric that it wasn't a short term problem. From the right there was a concern that it was an immediate problem, and the left was the cause. |
| Summary: Chico's
revenue increases over the years have probably come on backs of new members
of the
community. The left's desire to stop growth, an inability to consider selling
assets like a portion of Bidwell Ranch, and dramatic
increases in public spending , have all contributed
to the budget problem. It's not correct to blame "saving Bidwell Ranch" as a cause of today's budget problem. It's just an obvious example of a valuable asset taken off the economic table. Recognition that all budgets to-date have been unanimously supported by the right and left should also move the discussion away from polarization. Councilor's historic positions on the budget deficit should be known by the public, but are of lesser concern than the decisions they make in the coming months. They shouldn't be pigeon-holed by previous opinions. In my opinion, the budget should be solved with equal parts increased revenue and reduced spending. The reduced spending should be implemented first. I don't believe a sales tax increase is a good idea in the short term. This is mostly because reducing spending requires discipline, and discipline should be exhibited before any taxpayer should agree to pay more money into the system. Perhaps a bond issue for a specific and popular community need would serve as an alternative revenue increase. For example, passing a Park Bond could free up some General Funds and could be specific enough in application to gain public support. |
Posted by Lon at June 4, 2007 08:35 AM