Council defers saving till later
City refuses to cut spending by 5% immediately, even though we face a $500-million deficit for next year
By SUE-ANN LEVY
Yesterday, before council was asked to approve an operating budget advance for the first four months of 2010, Coun. Mike Del Grande made a sensible plea to reduce the $3.4 billion proposed by 5%.
After all, he reasoned, if all city departments and agencies are being asked to trim their budgets by 5%, as they are, in order to deal with a projected $500-million deficit in the 2010 operating budget, it's an inconsistent message to give them the same amount they got in 2009 to spend from January to the end of April.
In other words, should city staff not be expected to make do with 5% less from Jan. 1 -- instead of waiting until after the 2010 operating budget is approved in mid-April?
As Del Grande argued, if they let four months go by at the same spending levels, they'll be left with eight months to make up the $500 million they claim they want to trim from city budgets.
It should have been a no-brainer. After all, we've been hearing plenty of hand-wringing from the city's fiscal brain trust and budget chief Shelley Carroll that the 2010 operating budget will pose a heap of challenges with few options left to balance the books.
Judging from the reaction, you'd have thought Del Grande wanted everyone to cut their own pay packets and car allowances by 5%.
CFO Cam Weldon told the councillor they didn't feel it was "necessary" to reduce the amount requested by 5% because "it might be difficult" for some areas of the city to "stay within the guideline."
City manager Joe Pennachetti said it was "very difficult to adjust" the numbers because some programs have higher expenditures in the first quarter.
When Coun. Case Ootes asked the city manager how he intended to make up the 5% savings in the last eight months of next year, Pennachetti said they will "still have some reductions" but they don't know what they will be at this point.
"This ($3.4-billion advance) is unrelated to the budget itself," he insisted.
Now how the first $3.4 billion spent in 2010 can be "unrelated" to next year's operating budget is beyond me. But perhaps I'm living in some sort of parallel universe.
Not that the 10 minutes, at most, spent on this item surprised me in the slightest.
After all, why should the city's fiscal fortunes be a priority when Mayor David Miller and his lapdogs had more important things to do like pound their chests for more than an hour yesterday morning about their very "bold" sustainable energy strategy (which passed 33-2)?
"Climate change is the challenge of our time," declared the King of Climate Change, clutching his The Power to Live Green document as if it were the Bible.
I have no doubt he will be taking the document with him when he trots off to Copenhagen from Dec. 10 to 17 with two staff members to schmooze with his environmental buddies.
Del Grande said he was "livid" with the narrow 19-16 vote against his motion (and the 10 councillors who were MIA).
"If you're serious about the 5% argument debate, spend at 5% less for the first four months," he said. "At least you're giving a consistent disciplined message ... we just blew that concept out of the air here."
Ootes called the whole issue "surreal." He agreed that what happened is proof the budget brain trust and the Millerites aren't really serious about cutting budgets by 5%.
Del Grande added he's thankful this is an election year and he hopes voters will "wake up" and see who on council is trying to be fiscally accountable.
"I challenged this council to put their money where their mouth is," he said. "These guys demonstrated that they have no backbone."
SUE-ANN.LEVY@SUNMEDIA.CA
No comments:
Post a Comment