Councilman Tom Phillips needs a blog. If he had one he could correct what he believes to be erroneous N&R reporting. But, for now, he’ll have to keep depending on others to get the word out… including the N&R itself…
“…Phillips told Wharton that the News & Record, in an article published Tuesday, had misrepresented the council’s discussion. He said the board wasn’t seriously considering eliminating all of the Nussbaum Fund.”
7 Comments
I haven’t been able to read the N&R today but am glad to hear that the Nussbaum fund appears to be safe. That kind of comment doesn’t come up by mistake though in my opinion and I’m real disappointed that Mike Barber seemed to be pushing it (and supposedly Tom Phillips too?), from a previous article. Barber seemed to be somewhat of a moderate on the County Commissioners (although that just meant he didn’t yell and throw things as much I suppose) but his true colors have come out on Council. I keep hoping the philosophy of helping the entire community might come back into play but am not holding my breath. I mean seriously, get rid of the only stable source of funding to support affordable housing development so an individual taxpayer might save $10-$15 a year on their tax bill, maybe. That’s just crazy.
I respect Tom. But I heard from two people I trust, and who are in a position to know, that the Nussbaum
Fund was on the table — city staff was asked to prepare a report of what the impacts would be if it were eliminated.
I’ve seen the report, and sent you a copy, David.
David, You are right. A report was prepared as part of Mike Barber’s request for what it would take to have a zero tax increase. When the council saw what would be affected, we focused on the mortgage program which Andy Scott indicated he was probably going to recommend ending next year.
Mike Barber really seems to be driving the budget process this year.
I think it’s great for council to get its hands dirty in really digging in to the details. But as I said at the meeting,
it looks like all the big items on the table affect central neighborhoods the most. So far we’ve looked at
eliminating the historic district program, the Nussbaum Fund, and many positions at the Central Library.
What cuts are being looked at for the city’s periphery? Bryan Park and Hagan-Stone Park aren’t even in the city.
Why haven’t the free-marketers on the council suggested putting those on a pay-as-you-go basis, like
Bur-Mil, which costs the city a net $0?
Who sets the priorities for looking at potential cuts for a zero-tax increase? Is it Mitch Johnson? Mike Barber? Suggestions from all
council members?
My impression is that the suggested cuts I’ve seen so far are skewed to please constituents in Mike’s district,
and the process has SEEMED very inequitable in that respect. If I’m way off base, please correct me.
To add to David Wharton’s last post, I’m wondering why there aren’t more broad based (department-wise) suggestions for cuts. Are you telling me that there are not savings to be found in every City department, or is it too hard to cobble together a bunch of smaller line item savings versus identifying a handful of bigger items. One of the thoughts, as I understood things, was for departments to take a hard look at their processes and operations and truly justify all expenditures. Unfortunately the budget process in general discourages such thinking in that there’s not a lot of incentive to underspend your annual allotment, since you’ll automatically be looking at less funds the next year when identified savings (and demands for service) can fluctuate significantly from year to year.
Mike K, I agree. Where I work, we’ve dealt with budget cuts for the last few years.
Every department was required to come up with scenarios for various levels of cuts. We had to
pick our own poison, as it were. But we made the cuts, and life went on. It seems to be a fairly
effective strategy.
Here, here, Mike. I suppose when you are looking for millions of dollars to trim, it’s easier to get there by targeting programs and positions. Since cutting those have the greatest consequences however, it would make sense to first attempt savings through greater efficiencies. I think the only way to do this is to move the decision-making process down the chain of command to the department, program or office level. Instead of the city manager thinking he has to find a few million to cut, if departments or prorgrams were all told to find a way to shave 0.5% off their budgets, we’d probably end up with savings through thrift and efficiency instead of through elimination of services.