Advertisement The committee met twice for more than nine hours to approve a budget proposed by Giese, and the results will be presented to the public at a 7 p.m. hearing Monday, Nov. 9.
Giese’s proposed budget would decrease overall general fund spending by 4.5 percent to $7.6 million. However, because of decreases in state revenues, lackluster interest earnings and cost increases, the proposed tax rate would increase from $6.02 per $1,000 of equalized value to $6.04, a 0.33 percent increase.
The proposed levy is slightly more than $4.5 million, 2 percent less than the 2009 levy.
Giese’s budget included a 2.8 percent decrease in general government expenditures, a 2.15 percent decrease in public safety expenditures, a 15.31 percent decrease in public works, a 17.72 percent increase in health and human services for the animal pound, a 3.88 percent decrease in recreation and education, and a 12.04 percent decrease in conservation and development.
These reductions were in addition to the budget cuts occurring mid-year that cut expenses about $333,000.
Giese’s frustration with the committee is due to the elimination of the city’s assistant planner position, now held by Deena Murphy. However, it was his proposal.
Despite the fact he proposed to eliminate the position, offered up by Land Use and Development Director Jason Gilman, and despite the fact Gilman and Giese told F&P members the duties could be carried out by other personnel, Giese did not support it and said the F&P committee’s lack of action to reinstate the position was “fiscally imprudent.”
Giese told F&P members the proposed cut was a result of trying to meet a perceived demand from council members for a zero mill-rate increase.
“If it has to be made in order to make that target for a no mill rate increase, then it would be the assistant planner position, but I do not think that is wise,” Giese told F & P members. “I would rather see
See ONALASKA bUDGET, page 7A
the city raise its mill rate. For every position, it is less than $.05 on the mil rate.”
Giese said the position is needed because the city is at the cusp of the waterfront development project and other economic development plans already in the works.
While there would be no immediate impact on the cut, Giese is concerned for the future.
“What (the F&P) are saying is ‘We don’t care about the future, we’re looking at one-year’s perspective, and 2011, 2012 and 2013 be damned’ and that’s why it’s fiscally imprudent.”
He pointed to federal and state dollars flowing to the city due Murphy’s, grant writing. He pointed to such grants as $560,000 brought in from the state for Great River Road trails and $119,000 on Safe Routes to School.
“The position they chose to cut brings in federal and state dollars many times over that,” Giese said. “That planning and economic development department’s work resulted in the growth, with Gundersen Lutheran, Franciscan Skemp, Globe University, Medical Associates. So much of that has happened because we have a proactive, assertive planning department, and now it’s being gutted.”
Kim Smith, 3rd District alderwoman, reacted to Giese’s comments with a letter to the editor.
“There was excessive concern and discussion by the committee about the removal of this position from the budget. Both the mayor and the department head have been adamant that if a position is removed, this is one that can be shifted to other employees. … The F&P committee is serious about maintaining quality of service and reducing costs to citizens. … Overall, my interpretation was that the committee basically supported the executive budget.”
In order to reinstate the position in the budget, a motion must be made to do so. So far, the F & P has not made the motion. Smith said the committee was open to reinstating the position if something of equal value is removed.
“As an elected official, I will do what I can to reduce the citizens’ burden during this financially difficult time,” Smith said. “Does this lack discretion, wisdom or good judgment?”
If they don’t reinstate it at the Nov. 4 F&P meeting, Giese is hoping the public and other council members agree with him.
There will be a public hearing Monday, Nov. 9, for citizens to react to the proposals with the full council meeting Nov. 10. To get the position reinstated at the council meeting, the vote has to be made by a super majority, or five of six council members.
“Is it more important for the city budget to reduce expenses or do we need to hold the line with modest increases in the rate and allow development to come in future years?” Giese asked. “The citizens will realize they will have $5 or $10 more next year, but the cost is we’re not going to have economic development and people should be contacting their council representatives and influencing their votes.”
