City seeks $500K in cuts on Faribault Daily News

FARIBAULT — City staff will be directed to make a half-million dollars in cuts to general fund expenditures, the city council joint committee decided Tuesday.

The recommendation will be made at Tuesday’s regular city council meeting.

After accepting a preliminary levy that includes a 9.95 percent tax increase last week, council members have started reviewing other options. The proposed levy can be lowered by year’s end, but cannot go any higher.

After already cutting

3 percent of the 2009 budget, general fund expenditures for 2010 are projected to be $13.9 million.

Using that number, the 9.95 percent property tax levy hike would bring in

$6.5 million, and require that the city use just over $800,000 of its cash balance to meet the expenditures.

Last week, city council members asked that the levy increase be dropped to 6 percent.

At that rate, committee members learned Tuesday, the amount raised would be just over $6.2 million; the city would need to dip into its cash balance for an additional $1 million.

“I want to be at six percent, but we can’t rely only on the cash,” said Faribault Mayor John Jasinski. “The public is going to tell us, if the economy is downsizing, you as the government need to act accordingly, also. There’s no two ways about it.”

He suggested cutting $500,000 from the projected expenditures.

Committee member Steve Underdahl agreed.

“We’re not going to return to the economy we had,” he said. “We could go for $500,000 in cuts, but we need to go at it incrementally.”

“When you cut down to the basics,” said City Administrator Tim Madigan, “you start eliminating not only bodies, but services.”

“We don’t have a product that we’re selling,” said committee member Dave Miller, “but we have things we have to take care of, and people we have to take care of.”

The key, said member Carol King, is to “find what we can cut from the budget without impairing the safety and welfare of the citizens of Faribault.”

“I want to see what we (would be) taking away as far as services go,” Underdahl said. “I’m not going to look at the dollar amount; I’m going to look at the services we have, then look at the dollar amount.”

Unallotments to local government aid in the amount of $845,000 have hit the city hard.

“But we don’t have the business as a city that we had three years ago, either,” said committee member Kay Duchene. “Our building permits are way down, and I’d guess our inspections are, too.”

Personnel, too, could be on the chopping block.

“I hate to say it,” Jasinski said, “but if employees don’t want to settle (for the proposed 5 percent adjustment), then we have to start looking at staff cuts.”

The city staff payroll for 2008 was $11.4 million, including benefits. That amounts to 63 percent of the budget, said Finance Director Terry Berg.

“It’s not going to be fun,” Jasinski said, “but I have a hard time going over 6 percent (levy), and I have a hard time dipping into the cash for more than a million dollars.”

The final levy will not be certified until December.

Share:

Digg

Guidelines: Welcome to the Faribault Daily News community. Please keep your comments civil. Don't attack other readers personally and keep your language decent. If you would like to report abuse click here to notify us.
Member Opinions: By: Juice4You on 9/16/09 Has anyone done the research to see if requiring dogs to be licensed in city limits would generate enough revenue to pay for the cost of administering the licenses and our animal control officers? In addition, perhaps dog owners should be charged a dispatch fee if animal control has to come out because their dog is running loose or barking too much. Fees could increase as the number of offenses increases $50, $100, $200.... Don't get me wrong, I enjoy dogs and my kids absolutely love them, but there seems to be way too many irresponsible dog owners in our midst - check out the daily Cops and Courts section to see how many calls there are daily. By: secretsquirrel on 9/16/09 Well, that's not a bad idea. I suggest we take it a step further and assess a fee for fire dispatch, police dispatch and meter reader dispatch (at least until the new wireless system is completely on line). Where I live, about four times a day I will have the rescue truck and a couple law enforcement vehicles whizzing by as they speed to an apartment complex down the road (Golden Meadows I presume). That has to be damned expensive. A privately owned business catering to the infirm and elderly should not benefit from public money by having public personnel and equipment fill their needs. Occasionally? Certainly, but not to the exclusion of their obligation to provide services on their own. I can assure you that this city will have a substantial portion of their expenses covered in THIS particular area if such a fee was enacted. By: Juice4You on 9/16/09 secretsquirrel, I can't stand with you on this one. I believe that emergency services should be available for all, without fear of not being able to afford a dispatch fee. To me, access to emergency services is more than just a priveledge, but rather a right that improves the community we choose to live in. However, if one commits a crime and is convicted, maybe we could recoup the expense the city incurred because of the crime. I'm not exactly sure where the money that is collected from fines imposed at sentencing goes, but my hunch is that it doesn't cover our city's expense in dealing with them. Some counties now charge their inmates room and boarding fees during their incarceration as well, do we? A provision for if someone is found innocent or charges are dropped would be proper in honor of the consitituion. On a separate, but related note to the article, how did things turn out after the city council supported an incentive plan for employees to suggest ways to save money? Has any follow up been done on that? By: MNBear on 9/16/09 I just love how city leaders are clucking their tongues about how to cut $500k out of the budget. Not a single word mentioned about all of the high-5-figure and 6-figure salaries being paid to numerous city employees. What does Mr. Madigan make again? Well into the 6-figures? Plus, from the article, it appears as if the city unions/employees are balking at a 5% pay cut. Well, if they don't like that, then I would make the following suggestion - fire a bunch of them and see how much the rest like it. Get real here people - the ONLY sector of the economy seeing any employment growth is GOVERNMENT! "We're entitled to this." "We're entitled to that." Enough! If government wants to actually be responsible, then act like it. People are losing jobs left and right; people are taking massive pay cuts. But, apparently, not at good ol' city hall, eh? Gee, that's comforting. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside knowing the the city ONLY wants to raise the levy nearly 10%. Luckily, they feel bad about that and REALLY only want to raise it 6%. Get real here, people - this isn't a joke. By: Lessgovt on 9/16/09 No big surprise here. What's strange is that they knew this was coming as all indicators certainly pointed at it, and they continued to spend, spend, spend, on things that were not essential. This is simply nothing more than poor fiscal management on the part of the city administrator. By: RessL on 9/16/09 $69,xxx in the budget for ice and snow removal. 2007-2008 had alot of excess salt on the roads, We should consider using less salt and limit mainly toward intersections and main roadways. The problem is that if the snow plows are not out early enough the snow becomes packed and then once the salt is placed it becomes a pot holed mess. Scrape the snow off or do not bother creating a scating rink with expensive salt. By: Ofsilence on 9/16/09 Again, you have the narrative of government telling everyone employed in the private sector to tighten their belts and weather the storm for the sake of community and collectivism, yet, when it comes governments turn to tighten their belt....what do you get? Resistance. It's not surprising. There's plenty of people out there who have worked with and in unions that realize that unions are a historical piece of society that are used not in the context to where they were originally formed, but to exploit employers. Here's some reality for all the unions out there: When your employer has no money, then it can't pay you. Period. Then, come layoffs. The unemployment line. Government is no different in this scenario. They have no money. And anyone that goes to work in the public sector should be aware that when your salary is funded by taxpayers, there's absolutely no guarantee on how your future employment status will look. By: bigdaddy on 9/16/09 Note to FDN - when you write stuff like this you should just include MNBear's rant about how much city employees make. At a time when budgets are tight we need administrators who are more competent to make good, tough decisions. Those people make more money. If we hired some $30k a year yahoo he likely wouldn't have the knowledge or experience make the cuts. Hey Juice - What's the difference between a fee and a tax? close your eyes, you'll see it. By: Lessgovt on 9/16/09 bigdaddy. You're right. At a time when budgets are tight we need administrators who are competent. Unfortunately, the city administrator is not that person. He isn't even competent when their isn't a tight budget. He needs to go and fast! By: ofreason on 9/17/09 I agree to an extent with mnbear. If the city wants to make us the taxpayer pay more for the short commings in the budget, then we should ask they do the same and take less. If any business is contracting in size does anyone think that management would not look into salaries as means to an end, at least temporarily? I also agree though that you get what you pay for. Whether its a car, construction materials, or employees. However, if you look at local, state and national govt and what they recieve compared to the reuslts they produce it would make anyone sick. Is there any reason we should continue to reward our elected "experts" when they can only dig us deeper in trouble?? It is time for people to wake up! This is not about left or right, but about what is good or bad for the people of this country. The longer we bicker back and forth about petty differences and who said what we will never prosper.
Login and voice your opinion!