The budget process for 2006-2007 was the most challenging I have dealt with in the seven budgets I have completed as city manager of Auburn.
It did not need to be as controversial as it became. In an attempt to “frame” the issues in the fall of 2005, the city, working with the state comptroller's office, developed a 3-year budget projection for the city. These projections had dire consequences and, of course, generated controversy if the city did not alter certain revenue and expenditure assumptions in subsequent budgets over the next three years.
As a result, my staff recommended a budget retreat, which took place in January soon after two new councilmen took office. I and other staff explained the options to the city council and received suggestions from council that we would incorporate into my proposed budget. It is important to note that although $3.7 million was suggested as a possible deficit in fiscal year 2007 (the proposed budget), this was a worst-case scenario that included no increases in state revenue and no reductions in expenditures. For some reason, the $3.7 million projected deficit figure was the amount always referred to in future news articles, even though I only mentioned it when I projected what would happen if the city did not alter its budget assumptions.
My proposed 2006-2007 budget was balanced. It did not include the dire $3.7 million deficit. The budget had difficult recommendations including layoffs of 15 city staff and the ending of the school resource officer program. The budget only increased about 1.5 percent (a much smaller increase than the 3 year projections had). The key to my recommendations was to not use the fund balance (our financial reserves) and to not rely on one-time revenues. It was a starting point for discussion with the city council, which took place over the entire spring. We had some weeks where we met twice a week. This was a very public process, including input from affected unions and its members, citizens and staff.
Ultimately, a budget was approved by the council, with a smaller tax increase than I proposed, a retention of most services, and no layoffs. This was accomplished by a lot of hard work and greatly helped by the addition of revenue from the Auburn school district to fully fund their share of the SRO program. One of the key changes was the additional revenue provided by increasing our tonnage received in the landfill.
Although the budget has passed, our work is not done. The council has urged that staff look at ways to restructure the organization to further increase efficiency and this project has already commenced. We will also be looking at ways the city delivers other city services, such as collection of refuse, to ensure that there is equity in our system.
The mayor will continue to work with the power agency to develop alternative energy sources and ways to save tax dollars. The budget is but one phase of the city's work. I am hopeful that next year's process will not be as controversial because of the decisions made by the city council this year.
As a result, my staff recommended a budget retreat, which took place in January soon after two new councilmen took office. I and other staff explained the options to the city council and received suggestions from council that we would incorporate into my proposed budget. It is important to note that although $3.7 million was suggested as a possible deficit in fiscal year 2007 (the proposed budget), this was a worst-case scenario that included no increases in state revenue and no reductions in expenditures. For some reason, the $3.7 million projected deficit figure was the amount always referred to in future news articles, even though I only mentioned it when I projected what would happen if the city did not alter its budget assumptions.
My proposed 2006-2007 budget was balanced. It did not include the dire $3.7 million deficit. The budget had difficult recommendations including layoffs of 15 city staff and the ending of the school resource officer program. The budget only increased about 1.5 percent (a much smaller increase than the 3 year projections had). The key to my recommendations was to not use the fund balance (our financial reserves) and to not rely on one-time revenues. It was a starting point for discussion with the city council, which took place over the entire spring. We had some weeks where we met twice a week. This was a very public process, including input from affected unions and its members, citizens and staff.
Ultimately, a budget was approved by the council, with a smaller tax increase than I proposed, a retention of most services, and no layoffs. This was accomplished by a lot of hard work and greatly helped by the addition of revenue from the Auburn school district to fully fund their share of the SRO program. One of the key changes was the additional revenue provided by increasing our tonnage received in the landfill.
Although the budget has passed, our work is not done. The council has urged that staff look at ways to restructure the organization to further increase efficiency and this project has already commenced. We will also be looking at ways the city delivers other city services, such as collection of refuse, to ensure that there is equity in our system.
The mayor will continue to work with the power agency to develop alternative energy sources and ways to save tax dollars. The budget is but one phase of the city's work. I am hopeful that next year's process will not be as controversial because of the decisions made by the city council this year.
The Citizens' Say
There are 2 comment(s)
Leonardo wrote on Jun 22, 2006 2:38 PM:
BILL wrote on Jun 22, 2006 1:16 PM: