[ OUR OPINION ]
Council puts city at risk
by bungling police fundingSUSPICION and delusion would not allow some City Council members to take Mayor Harris at his word when he said money from the sale of a city parking lot already had been marked for other budget purposes and was not available to pay for raises due police officers.
THE ISSUE
Mayor Harris is trying to persuade members to approve a vehicle weight tax increase they previously rejected.
Now that their collective denial has been countered by their own researchers, members will have to find another way to generate the $5.7 million needed or trigger a disruptive series of layoffs and service cuts -- and time is short.
If Harris is able to persuade enough of them to approve an increase the vehicle weight tax -- a funding proposal they rejected earlier this month -- he may call the Council into an emergency session on Dec. 24, which public notice law requires be scheduled by today. Or the Council may come to its senses and post the Christmas Eve meeting itself. Whatever the case, the tax increase needs to be cleared by that day in order for collections to begin Jan. 1.
The time crunch is of the Council's own making. At their last meeting of the year, members were unwilling to make the tough political decision to raise the weight tax -- among a number of other issues they dodged -- and questioned the administration's veracity about the land sale proceeds. However, the Council's research arm has declared that the money was indeed accounted for in balancing the city's budget.
The Council's inaction places the city in jeopardy.
It risks legal action by the police union over the arbitrated contract, provoking a public admonition from Police Chief Lee Donohue, who chided both the administration and the Council for treating officers as political pawns. Although no one welcomes tax hikes, Council members should be savvy enough to recognize that police officers by and large have the public's support and taxpayers would more easily swallow increases to pay them.
In addition, the Council invites a mess if budget shortfalls force the administration to dismiss hundreds of city employees, precipitating a domino effect of job-bumping, or reducing services the community desires.
Even more troubling, terms of the police contract will require increases in revenue far beyond the $5.7 million for the current fiscal year. The contract will cost nearly $13 million next year and a total of $67 million during the next four years.
That the administration and the Council have been unable to work cooperatively to find solutions for the short term does not bode well for the future. The city's cash shortage is a problem that won't go away. It is essential that city leaders take a pragmatic look at the fiscal picture and evaluate needs, leaving behind the juvenile bickering that has plagued their governance.
