Springfield’s Budget Debate Makes for Good Drama, Little Change for Taxpayers
by Bill Dusty
The month of June has been a busy one for Springfield officials as they try to hammer out the final touches on this coming year’s budget. There’s been much debate going back and forth, with some City Councilors wanting to trim the budget and spare city residents another inevitable tax hike, while the Mayor’s Office, in turn, has insisted that the proposed budget numbers are needed in order to prevent municipal layoffs and avoid any cuts in services.
Two weeks ago Mayor Domenic J. Sarno issued a letter to the City Council warning of dire consequences if the Council voted to either level the current residential tax rate or reduce it. Sarno outlined three ugly scenarios in the event of either a leveling or reduction in the tax rate. From his letter:
• Level Tax Bill for the Average Single Family – A tax bill level to the FY10
average single family bill of $2,685 for residential would require a reduction of
$2.5 million -$3.5 million from my current FY11 budget recommendations. To
achieve this reduction, the following would need to be sacrificed:
- Elimination of vacant Police Department positions and funding for a
police academy for 25 officers.
- Elimination of vacant Fire Department positions and funding for a fire
academy for 23 firefighters.
- Elimination of 4 vacant positions within the Police/Fire Centralized
Dispatch department.
- Elimination of 19 other vital vacant positions across all departments, including Veterans’, Libraries and Administrative and Finance positions
that will impact programs, services and back office functions across the
City.
• Reduction of $0.50 to the Residential Tax Rate – A residential tax rate reduction
of $0.50 would require a reduction of $8.5 million -$9.5 million from my current
FY11 budget recommendations. To achieve this reduction, the following would
need to be sacrificed:
- Elimination of all vacant positions as described above in Police, Fire,
Dispatch and other City Departments.
- Elimination of funding for new blue recycling barrels for all City
residents.
- Elimination of terrace maintenance, in house paving, line painting and
marketing for the City.
- Layoff of over 100 City Employees across all departments including
Police, Fire Parks, Facilities, Libraries and Public Works. This will mean
eliminating positions that are currently filled with a person.
• Reduction of $1.00 to the Residential Tax Rate – A residential tax rate reduction
of $1.00 would require a reduction of $12.5 million -$13.5 million from my current FY11 budget recommendations. To achieve this reduction, the following would need to be sacrificed:
- Elimination of all vacant positions and programs and services described in both scenarios above.
- Significant reductions in solid waste services and elimination of some curb side benefits.
- Layoff of an additional 80 workers for a total of 180 layoffs across all departments with significant impacts on Police, Fire, Parks, Facilities, Libraries and Public Works. This will mean eliminating positions that are currently filled with a person.
Sarno continued: “I am not writing this to be an alarmist, but rather to inform you of the devastating impacts of what seems to be a simple request.”
The Mayor went on to write that the proposed budget was “balanced and moves on many initiatives that are important to residents while maintaining modest growth.” He stated that the current budget “anticipates a reduction in commercial tax bills” in an effort to attract more business to the city.
But the City Council, it turns out, was decidedly unimpressed by the Mayor’s analysis.
Two City Councilors, Tim Allen and Michael Fenton, issued their own letter to the Mayor on June 9, arguing that the continued use of financial reserves to balance the city’s budget was unsustainable, and that a budget reduction was in the best interests of the city. They wrote that they were not seeking to make cuts in the budget simply “for the sake of making a statement.” But rather, their aim is to lower the tax rate.
Springfield City Councilor Michael Fenton
Allen and Fenton suggested a number of options in order to help reduce the proposed budget, including the elimination of redundancy in staffing, identifying non-essential spending and consolidating services.
A City Council budget vote that followed that next evening (June 10) then failed to get enough votes to pass. The amended budget had included about $425,000 in cuts, but that was not enough as the Council voted 5 to 8 against it.
The brinkmanship on the Council was short-lived, however, as a follow-up vote that took place the following week approved the budget after lopping off another $17,400. That amount came from the Council’s decision not to restore their annual pay to $14,500 per councilor. The City Council salary had been reduced during the reign of the Finance Control Board but was set to be restored this year. (Councilor Kateri Walsh was among the councilors voting against the continued reduction in pay, calling it a “slap in the face,” according to a Republican story on the budget vote.)
Councilors Fenton, Allen and co-supporter Keith Wright had wanted to propose over $3 million in cuts in the latter vote, but opted to drop their proposal after concluding it would fail to get enough votes.
All of this back-and-forth voting, meanwhile, was coinciding with the Republican Newspapers’ own editorial support for the latest version of the budget.
In a Friday (June 18) editorial, Republican editors asserted that while the tax rate was indeed a concern to taxpayers, “we think taxpayers are prepared to pay for services that maintain or improve the city’s quality of life and its infrastructure.”
Apparently buying into the Mayor’s warning of reduced police and other essential staffing, the editorial stated: “To leave police vacancies unfilled in a city where street crime is residents’ chief worry would be foolhardy. We also question the value of laying off municipal workers in a down economy.”
And so while higher taxes might well be a burden to fixed-income families in the city, the Republican editors asserted, “We think taxpayers can live with that.”
The Establishment: 1
The People: 0
The fight over the future financial course of the city, however, is far from over.
In response to the Republican editorial, City Councilors Tim Allen, Michael Fenton, Tim Rooke, Keith Wright, E. Henry Twiggs and John Lysak issued a joint letter of their own to the newspaper.
“The City of Springfield finished fiscal year 2009 with a $22 million surplus,” read the letter. “The surplus projected for this fiscal year is $11 million. The total surplus for the past 2 fiscal years is $33 million. With huge surpluses, couldn’t the city trim its budget where money wasn’t spent in previous years?
“Our proposed strategies to trim the budget and lower taxes were an attempt to give a little of the benefit of previous surpluses back to the taxpayer. What an opportunity we have – in these tough economic times, to share a little of the success with the taxpayers.”
That letter to the editor was accompanied by a joint City Council Resolution sponsored by the same six councilors. The resolution read in full:
CITY COUNCILORS RESOLUTION AGAINST INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES
WHEREAS, the undersigned members of the City Council, on behalf of the citizens of the City of Springfield, are committed to keeping property taxes level this year.
WHEREAS, the City of Springfield has returned to ward representation, and with this new form of local government has come the return of local control over the city’s finances. The Control Board is gone; financial oversight is now the job of the City Council.
WHEREAS, Springfield’s tax rates, both residential and commercial, are extraordinarily high.
WHEREAS, the city has continually raised taxes, most notably the $7 million tax increase that was announced 6 months ago.
WHEREAS, the community regularly speaks of holding or reducing the tax rate to encourage more businesses and residents to stay in Springfield or to move to Springfield.
WHEREAS, in the last three years, over 2000 Springfield property owners have been forced into tax title proceedings with the city.
WHEREAS, many Springfield homeowners, particularly seniors and others on fixed incomes, have seen decreases in their household income and the value of their property.
WHEREAS, we recognize that tax rates will not be set until this coming winter; however, we understand our vote on the budget in June will determine the level of taxes in December and will support cuts to this budget that result in a lower tax rate.
WHEREAS, the city expects to finish this fiscal year with an $11 million surplus and we believe these funds should be looked at as a way to identify savings in 2011 and used to prevent an increase in taxes this year.
WHEREAS, our spending for fiscal year 2010 is $522 million and our budget for fiscal year 2011 is $533 million.
WHEREAS, we have proposed a compromise that cuts money out of the budget but does not impact the salary of any existing employee. There are no mandatory furloughs and no layoffs.
WHEREAS, we request that the Mayor use additional money out of the city’s $43 million stabilization fund, which, in addition to the cuts we have identified, would result in a budget that does not require an increase in property taxes.
WHEREAS, our goal is level property taxes and the means by which we seek to achieve that goal should be a result of collaboration between the City Council and the administration. We have sought such collaboration and will continue to seek it.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the undersigned members of the City Council believe that property taxes should not be increased for the 2011 fiscal year and will work with the administration to create a budget that does not increase property taxes on residents by a single penny.
The Springfield City Council is set to meet Monday night (June 21) to decide on budget transfers needed to balance the city’s budget for the coming year.
| Share |
PDF
Comments are closed
ADVERTISE AT THE SI
 |
 |
