Ireton Submits Budget Concerns To City Council

Salisbury Mayor James Ireton, Jr. submitted this letter to Salisbury City Council members today, in response to the council finalizing their deliberations on May 18, 2010. Below is his correspondence to council members.

Council members – First, let me commend you for your work in preparing the FY2011 Budget for our city. I am keenly aware of the time and energy it takes to go through page by page and ask relevant questions.  Staff has worked exceptionally hard and lightning fast to answer your many questions in order that you could perform your charter duties. 
My concerns are few as to where you ended up in the process, yet they are important enough for me to ask for a response in writing.
1.      Elimination of Code Enforcement Officer Position – The increase in rental registration fees that I proposed was to create a position in a severely understaffed department. Specifically speaking, if the money generated by the fee increase, the first since 2004, went for anything other than the position, I could not support the increase.
2.      No furloughs for employees making under 30K/no reclassifications – Plainly speaking –council members have refused to support raises recommended by the administration for employees working at a higher pay grade than what their paycheck reflects on the basis that you didn’t want to single out a group of employees for separate treatment and, yet decided to, in the same vein, create a class of employees that are subject to a different set of rules (exempting employees under $30,000 from the furlough plan).  The furlough plan I submitted equitably dispersed the pain of this budget over all of our employees –which was the only way I could conscionably approach the difficult decision.  In my opinion, the council has sent mixed signals about its intention - employees that are underpaid for their jobs are acceptable, yet employees making under a certain amount are immune from budget difficulties.  I ask you to please clarify for me.
3.      Engine Replacements – Engine replacements for a sedan in the Salisbury Fire Department and Water and Sewer Department are, at best, a micromanaging of resources that I find the council has no purview over.  After reviewing the situation, I asked for new vehicles, in that the motor of each was more expensive than the total worth of the car.  The council indicates that it has no trust in the administration to determine if a car is needed in a department.  I remind you that I cannot administrate if we are debating the viability of carburetors – that is what staff is for.
4.      No In-house attorney/rebid procedure for legal department – This particular scenario leaves us in no different a position than what we now experience.  Surely you know that the day-to-day operations of city government, with the many questions of employee rights, dump trucks, zoning issues, etc., warrant that the city executive have an attorney that works directly for the government.  With the issues listed above, and the on-going wastewater treatment plant litigation, it is clear we need in house attorney.  I respectfully ask you not to micromanage this situation, as you have others, and realize that the city attorney – the highest paid in our budget, needs to work every day, all day solely for Salisbury.
5.      Bidding of Liability and Property Insurance – I object to the deletion of this appropriation that has the chance of saving us money by going out for competitive bid.
6.      Harbor Pointe Sidewalks – All of the work that has been done, by this administration and the previous one, would be sidetracked if the council changes the policy for handling this special assessment at the last minute.  I am not in disagreement with the policy.  Yet, this is not the scenario that the city and Harbor Pointe have been working under.  If you change this decision now, you will need to completely explain to the residents of Harbor Pointe that you have switched the policy at the last moment and have affectively put off the sidewalk project for that neighborhood until 2014.
I welcome the chance to dialogue with you and discuss the divide that we have on these issues.  The issues of neighborhood integrity, legal department, and micromanaging are not ones that I take lightly, so I look forward to that discussion.  I need to be clear, that a reasoning that solely rests on fiduciary responsibility will not be sufficient in these situations, I am hoping for much more.
In seeking a way to resolve these issues collaboratively, I suggest the following modifications to the budget crafted by the Council:
Add the Code Enforcement Officer back into the budget on the basis that the added fees were to pay for the position but we budget on the assumption that that person will not actually start until September 1 (cost $35,000)
Add a vehicle associated with this position to be purchased on lease-purchase (cost $5,000)
Add the consultant fee for the bidding of the property and liability insurance back in on the basis that there may be significant cost savings as a result of this project that may help us in preparing the FY 12 budget (cost $5,000)
Remove the exemption for employees under $30,000 in salary on the basis that to exempt one group of employees places an extra burden on all other employees (savings $29,500)
Provide for the purchase of the vehicle for the Nuisance Officer on a lease-purchase basis rather than a cash purchase as currently in the budget (savings $15,000)

The above changes balance each other and would maintain a balanced budget.

Agree to an in-house attorney on the basis of the need for the attorney to work closely with the City’s chief executive (this has no budgetary impact)
Add Harbor Pointe sidewalks back in on the basis that it is not fair to the Harbor Pointe community to switch the rules in the middle of the game (this point has no budgetary impact since we would be appropriating $55,000 in surplus to offset the $55,000 in cost).

I look forward to hearing from you.
Mayor Ireton