Prep: February-March. During orientation, I was impressed by how much the city does. Now I know how much goes into doing it at a reasonable cost.
Before reviewing the first penny of expenses, City Council spends weeks on the basics: where budget information is on the city Web site (it’s all there), what drives expenses (70 percent salaries), where property taxes go (the city is less than one-third of the bill) and just how convoluted raising revenue is (taxes going up half as fast as expenses).
Vehicle replacement takes a lot of attention. Keeping our fleet current is a large and variable expense. New fire engines now cost about $1 million n too big for a single budget to accommodate n but deferring purchases increases maintenance while diminishing service.
The mayor proposes financing vehicle replacement, borrowing at about 4 percent to purchase equipment while spreading costs over the vehicles’ life. The interest rate is lower than inflation in vehicle costs, the debt service keeps internal financing commitments at a modest 3.9 percent of general fund expenses and the strategy can be reevaluated each year. It strikes me as good fiscal management, a strategy the city will employ for a long time.
Executive budget: June-August. Not long ago, Missoula did zero-based budgeting, taking more than a year to evaluate every budget item. This year, departments started there and adjusted for higher fuel and utility prices.
City Council focused on new requests n software upgrades, overtime during Hells Angels and new hires: only four firefighters at the new Miller Creek station, a half-time person to help the city attorney cope with increasing workload and a quarter-time person to grind down hazardous sidewalks and preempt some of the attorney’s work.
Parks got the most attention, especially maintenance of neighborhood parks. The mayor proposed less than $100,000, but $250,000 is the target, one we’ve never actually hit.
Magic Number: Aug. 4. Our fiscal year starts July 1. The state Department of Revenue tells us in August how much property tax revenue we’ll collect, reflecting the legislature’s cap on revenue growth. Cities across Montana wait for the August tax number with bated breath because revenue otherwise goes up no faster than half as fast as expenses.
This year, the tax base feeding the general fund was smaller than expected. Combined with higher liability insurance premiums, this meant a general fund increase of 2.92 percent n up from the 1.72 percent estimate n would be required to fund the budget.
With the increase authorized to build fire stations, that’s a 4.82 percent increase in the city’s share of property tax bills: $26 on a $225,000 house. Are there reasonable alternatives?
Deliberation: August. I look for unjustifiable expenses when juxtaposed with a tax increase. I find a couple thousand dollars in the City Council budget everyone agrees to cut and support mandating conservation by reducing inflationary increases for unleaded gasoline by
10 percent. The latter plan fails on a tie vote.
Colleagues propose cuts as well, but we mostly back off those n say, reducing the neighborhood projects fund n because of opposition with good arguments. Just before the end of the Aug. 20 committee meeting, a list with up to $1.5 million in cuts surfaces. It targets parks, planning, open space, transportation alternatives and communications and considers higher employee health care premiums or reducing the health insurance fund balance.
I don’t think the list reflects Missoulians’ priorities but I wait to be convinced otherwise. All along, I field comments about tax increases and cuts to services and explain my position: The tax increase is smaller than the increased cost of services, the cuts in consideration would damage important services, tax relief for low-income homeowners is available. (Call 552-6001 if you or your neighbor is in jeopardy.) Still, doubts nag. How can we be sure?
Committee vote: Aug. 27. The mayor makes the case for keeping the budget whole; this is not a crisis. He argues expenses were kept lean this year: near $1 million less in new requests than last year, almost no new hires, 3 percent raises for existing staff.
He outlines what changed since June: smaller tax base, higher insurance premiums and fewer fee hikes. The proposed tax increase is less, excluding voted debt service, than in each of three previous years. It’s less than the cost of services has risen. No one proposes to amend the budget, and we vote to approve it 7-5.
Council vote: Sept. 8. The county needs our budget done Monday in order to print tax bills. I’ve been thinking about little else and hearing mostly from proponents of what passed. Those opposed don’t argue with most of what’s funded: fair wages for firefighters, police, street workers and other employees; road, sewer, parks and public safety programs; lean computer, vehicle and equipment purchasing.
I’m not satisfied with everything: more money for gasoline than I would like, fewer conservation efforts than seem wise. Overall, though, the budget balances Missoula’s priorities as best I can determine.
Next year, I’ll start earlier on the big picture: finding efficiencies in existing programs, developing alternatives to property taxes, insisting on a robust conservation strategy. This year, however, I’m saying yes because, even if no more than six people join me, many more are relying on the budget to pass.
Jason Wiener represents Ward 1 on the Missoula City Council.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)