BARRIE’S FY2010 BUDGET – THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE MYSTERY

This is an initial evaluation based on the written “Public Summary” – Mayor’s Budget Message, etc. – that was presented at the coming out party that Barrie gave yesterday. Because I was engaged in other activity that occurred elsewhere downtown, I did not attend her media event.

In this comment the term “year” is used in the budget sense – fiscal (not calendar) year.

In general it’s a mediocre effort under the circumstances. The overall total ($51.9 Million) is about 9.2% higher than this year’s budget as it was initially adopted last year – i.e., before it was adjusted upward for various reasons (unanticipated or overlooked costs, grants, gifts, etc.) during the year to date. Although the tax rate is unchanged from the level to which it was raised two years ago, the sewer and water rates will increase by about 15% as anticipated.

Both personnel and other expenses have been fairly well controlled, with a notable few exceptions, but more detailed (line item) information is needed for full evaluation. There is no cost of living salary adjustment (“COLA”) and no longevity (“step”) salary increase. However, certain city employees may be reclassified to a salary higher level (a “Lore Chambers pay raise”) -- and that warrants strict scrutiny.

There are eight new employees: the police officers to be paid with special grant funding (if received), although the message also mentions hiring a “Main Street Coordinator” to replace Urban Salisbury, which would be a “contractual/part-time” position. Apparently no present positions are to be eliminated, nor would there be any furloughs or a “freeze” on filing vacant positions. The budget analyst position recommended by a consultant is not being budgeted by Barrie.

But it is simply impossible to assess the proposed expenditure without having a more detailed (line item) format. For example the category “Municipal Buildings” is up by about 80% (almost $200,000) without any details that I noticed. Certain items are elaborated in the narrative part of the budget message – of those the following are inappropriate in my opinion:

$50,000 – light poles in Sassafras Meadows Phase I
$55,000 – sidewalks in Harbor Point

In those instances, the developer was not required to install those things, and the public should not bear the burden of doing so.

$15,000 – foundation repairs for the unused and obsolete “standpipe”

As usual, the budget message and data in the “Public Summary” is sketchy about revenue, and that’s the mysterious aspect as well. The main source of city revenue is from the property tax on real estate and other property. The amount of property tax revenue depends on the value of the “assessable base” and the tax rate – two years ago the rate was raised from .729 to .819 (by 12.3%) to increase the tax revenue.

Barrie’s proposed budget for 2010 projects a 9% increase in property tax revenue without further increase in the tax rate but an estimated 8.6% increase in the assessable base. The budget message describes the amount and yearly change in the assessable base as follows:

Year Amount($) Change

2007 1.832 Billion 9.1%
2008 2.080 Billion 13.5%
2009 (est) 2.038 Billion -2.0%
2010 (est) 2.213 Billion 8.6%

The projected 8.6% increase in the assessable base in 2010 seems questionable in light of the economy and the 2% decrease that is now estimated to occur 2009. But there’s even greater mystery – in last year’s budget data the assessable base was described as follows:

Year Amount($) Change

2007 1.832 Billion 9.1%
2008 (est) 1.925 Billion 5.1%
2009 (est) 2.048 Billion 6.4%

The difference in the estimated amount of the assessable base for 2008 in last year’s budget message and the actual amount that’s now reported for that period in this year’s message is over $150 Million – a huge difference – and casts a cloud over the City’s data and possibly its procedure as well. The narrative part of the budget message does not discuss the difference, which needs to be explained in detail.

Based on an initial reading of the pertinent material that has been presented to the public, Barrie’s last proposed budget gets a C-plus, subject to revision upon more detailed scrutiny. Because of significant discipline in personnel matters, a higher grade is certainly possible if the currently unknown details are reasonable in nature and amount.

Some further thoughts occur. Once again the budget message reeks with Barrie’s whining about things mixed with self-adulation. The “Public Summary” should be made much more objective and comprehensive – are you listening Mr. Ireton? The best thing about the City Council’s budget review and revision process is that Debbie Campbell will be there once again to provide real oversight. Hopefully, she will be able to call the plays if Ms. Polk prevails.