Op Ed: The recent Lake Forest Park budget process, the value of the Mayor’s veto, and remaining issues
Thursday, December 18, 2014
By Myra Gamburg, Chair of Lake Forest Park Gov Watch, an informal citizens' political group in Lake Forest Park
In the Lake Forest Park Council’s press release to the Shoreline Area News on November 29, (view here) the Council describes its unanimous budget votes at the Friday, November 28th Special Council Meeting as “the continued cohesion of the council members working as an effective government body, and keeping their commitments for balanced, sustainable, transparent and clear information in the development and adoption of the 2015 budget.” Unfortunately, on both November 24th and 28th, Council cohesion fell short of delivering on some of these commitments.
On November 24, Council Members unanimously approved Ordinances 1089 and 1086 without even acknowledging the Mayor’s concerns in her Alternative Levy and Alternative Budget Ordinances. Consequently, Mayor Goss vetoed both ordinances. Her grounds were transparency, credibility, and fiscal responsibility, forcing a special meeting November 28th.
Regarding the property tax levy, it was discovered in mid-November that during the past three cycles, due to a reporting mistake, the City had charged residents more than the 1% allowed by state law. The Mayor’s Alternate Levy Ordinance sought correction. After some discussion, although recognizing the mistake, on Nov 28th, the Council overrode the Mayor’s veto.
We believe failing to correct the City’s errors would be tantamount to back-door taxation. This is not a matter of a small amount overcharged individual households, but of ethics and public trust in our Council.
Regarding the biennium budget, the Mayor’s concerns are related to deficit spending. Rather than using soft revenue beginning January 1, 2015 from new traffic cameras (still in the permitting process), she believes the Council should have waited to amend the budget next year when hard revenues from the cameras become available. Her budget did not include revenues from the new cameras due to uncertainty as to when they would be installed and how much revenue they would generate. The principal goal is to maintain current services in the amount needed to insure sustainability going forward. There is concern the City will not have the 12% reserve available to put into the General Fund to cover services as of 2017.
Council added more than $150,000 to the budget for new projects. It took the Mayor’s veto to elicit acknowledgement that projected funds might not be available for these projects, thereby necessitating last minute cuts or face deficit spending. During the November 28 Special Meeting, individual Council Members promised not to go forward with these projects if the revenue failed. Several Members asked the residents to “trust us,” then voted unanimously to override the Mayor’s veto.
We appreciate the progress our City Council has made to build on collegial working relationships to further the City’s well-being. However, if there is to be trust, we expect respect for the Mayor’s and residents’ concerns, that promises individual members made on November 28th will be kept, and that new projects will not be initiated before revenue is available. We also expect the City to correct mistakes inadvertently made by accounting errors related to property taxation for the past three cycles.
Posts
2 comments:
Thanks to LFP GovWatch for following the details of the decision making and budgeting process and providing this report. Thanks to the Shoreline Area News for publishing it and keeping residents informed!
Looking from the outside as an informed observer, I do believe that Myra's rhetoric needs a little grounding in reality.
Any City Council in our State is required to pass a balanced budget. They are also responsible for setting the policy of the City. The council has done both. The Mayor's role is that of executive, to administer the will of the council not to set policy in opposition to council policy.
In this case, the council heard testimony not only during budget season but throughout the year about direction of the city and its services. Such needs and analysis of these needs as specified by the council in its budget message. Close review of the transcripts and the majority testimony will show even the most infrequent observer that the unanimous vote of the council- TWICE- was carefully considered.
I find that my democratic PCO colleague, Myra, is more interested in continuing the outdated and outvoted platform of the GOVWATCH, rather that of the our party as well as that of many of our more conservative friends. Clearly, the budget approved is a compromise between the members of the council who believed that this change in city direction is absolutely necessary. A direction that will result in better services for all residents, an improved quality of life for the residents and maintenance if not increase in property values for city.
I applaud Deputy Mayor Catherine Stanford for staying positive and working to reach a consensus on the council. I believe each member should stand tall and take credit for a rational and forward looking budget. Each member found a way to make it work and put aside their own agenda to find a better future for LFP. The budget is not about an accounting mistake.... It is about the future of Lake Forest Park for All.
Post a Comment