by Mike Sharkey
Staff Writer
Yesterday, in the morning session of the first day of budget hearings conducted by the Council Finance Committee, City Council President Richard Clark proposed an across-the-board 3 percent cut of the City budget — a cut that includes salaries and operational costs within the general fund.
“I guess we’ll have some lively debate,” said Council Vice President Jack Webb prophetically of the recommendation that eventually produced three separate amendments, all of which were either defeated or withdrawn.
Clark’s proposal came out of the blue and drew an assortment of initial reactions. Finance Chair Stephen Joost’s queue quickly lit up with just about every member of the Finance Committee. Clark defended his amendment to the budget as an upfront, immediate remedy to fill a $12.3 million deficit. That figure was produced by Council Auditor Kirk Sherman during his annual budget overview that occurs before the Finance Committee delves into the budgets of the City’s departments and independent agencies over the next several weeks.
“That’s a reduction I am offering up to find some of the savings in our budget,” said Clark.
The recommendation was passed unanimously. However, there are portions of the City’s nearly $1 billion budget that can’t be affected by that 3 percent reduction — namely the pension funds of the police, fire and general employees. Part of Clark’s amendment — an amendment to his recommendation suggested by Webb — included the abolition of the proposed furlough put forth by Mayor John Peyton that would have required each non-public safety employee to take five days of unpaid leave. Sherman said that measure would have saved about $4 million. Clark’s proposal saves about $20 million and equates to what Sherman said could be a net savings of right at $20 million.
Sherry Hall of the mayor’s office said it may be beneficial for the Finance Committee to hear from the City’s department heads to present their budgets before making a hasty decision.
“I’d recommend that you let each department explain what 3 percent means to them,” she said. “It’s different for each.”
Finance member Bill Bishop favors the cut.
“I support it wholeheartedly,” he said, making these kind of tough decisions is part of the job. “I feel 3 percent is not any pain of any significance.”
One person vehemently disagrees with the across-the-board slash.
“That would be for an additional $10 million on top of the $9 million I have already cut,” said Sheriff John Rutherford. “I have nowhere to cut but salaries, which are 82.5 percent of my budget.”
Rutherford may have been irritated, but he also understands this year’s budget woes are not an overnight phenomenon. He also doesn’t place the blame in Tallahassee with the State Legislature.
“The untold story is that the City is in a financial mess because for the past 13 years we have rolled back the ad valorem tax rate,” he said, adding the increases to the general employee and police and fire pension funds have contributed as well. “They (City Council) refused to increase the millage rate to (Peyton’s proposed) 9.5 and that’s wrong.”
Because there are portions of the budget which are off-limits to the 3 percent, it’s likely the salaries of many City employees, and the operational budgets of most departments, will be cut by more than the 3 percent.
Finance member Denise Lee said she doesn’t want to cut any salaries, but understands an across-the-board cut is the best place to start.
“I do agree we can’t nickel and dime everything. We don’t need to hear what the departments need, but we need to know how this will affect them,” said Lee, adding she doesn’t want to cut the operational budgets of what she views are essential city services such as public safety and public works.
Finance member John Crescimbeni said it wasn’t fair to implement a 3 percent salary cut across the board, especially for employees who may have recently gotten a similar raise. He suggested a tiered system that involved a higher percentage for those who made more.
Clark disagreed.
“A percent system is a tiered system. That’s class warfare,” he said. “Because you make more, you will hurt more. That is not fair. I think the operations needs to stay in. We are a policy board. We set policy.”
Webb sees Clark’s proposal as the only equitable way to trim the budget and put a healthy dent is the City’s $12.3 million hole.
“The beauty of the 3 percent amendment is it affects everyone,” he said. “This is an opportunity to do more. Let’s not get bogged down in the weeds. I support doing this at the outset of the process. If we do this now, it’s an opportunity to make meaningful change.”
356-2466