The budget discussion took something of a novel turn last week when three Clarkston residents showed up to ask questions and make observations about the city’s financial plan for the upcoming year.
Councilman Cory Johnston later said he was ‘very pleased? to see residents interested in how city tax dollars are spent.
‘I want to thank them for coming,? said Johnston, the council’s only ‘no? vote on adoption of the 2009-2010 budget. ‘They had some great insight and asked great questions.?
Clarkston’s fiscal year begins July 1; revenues for the coming year are predicted to come in around $816,381, while expenditures are estimated at $786,898.
The tight budget took a great deal of planning and revising, said Mayor Steve Arkwright.
‘The finance committee put in over 30 hours at my house over the last six months,? he said at Monday’s meeting. ‘I want everyone to recognize the efforts. Jan (Gillespie) and Dennis (Ritter) worked extra hours they’ve not been compensated for.?
Councilmen Jim Brueck and Mike Gawronski are also members of the budget committee.
At Monday’s meeting, City Manager Dennis Ritter reiterated what the council already knew: state shared revenue is down.
‘It looks like we’re going to lose about $12,787 from what we had in last year’s budget, Ritter said. ‘That’s pretty significant, and it concerns us. We’re going to do our best to get through it.?
The city expects to see about $ 67,213 in state shared revenue this year, while about $80,000 came back from Lansing in the 2008-2009 budget year.
Several previous meetings allowed for lengthy discussion, and most members of council didn’t delve back into issues already aired.
They did, however, vote to approve several changes to the upcoming budget, including pulling funds for police department morotcycles, and moving $1,500 allocated to the UM Depot Park project to the city’s tree maintenance fund, bringing that account to $3,000.
‘Our trees are in desperate need of attention,? said Councilman Charles Inabnit, who made the motion to move the funds. ‘I think we all know that. If we can’t maintain the trees we have in the city, we have no business planting new ones.?
With finances tight, he pointed out, the city should be focused on needs, not wants.
But Councilman Jim Brueck was opposed to leaving the UM park project fund empty.
‘This is potential seed money that could go toward obtaining a significant grant,? Brueck said. ‘If you could get a good grant, things like the bridge at the south end of the park could be included. That’s a $40,000 or $50,000 expense. To use $1,500 in seed money and get that kind of payback, that’s pretty good economics.?
Brueck and others have long said the wooden footbridge in the park’s south end is dangerous and needs to be replaced.
‘Last years tree trimming budget had $1,500,? Brueck continued. ‘By the end of May, we’d only spent $128, so I don’t think it’s a matter of money. I don’t see any need to rob Peter to pay Paul in this case.?
By the time all was said and done, the budget passed 6-1. Councilman Cory Johnston was the lone naysayer.
Several issues, he said were key.
Codification’arranging they city’s ordinances in a systematic order, required periodically under state law’is one.
‘It’s not anything anyone wants to do,? Johnston said, noting while the process is costly, he’s brought the issue up a number of times since joining the council. ‘But it’s in the city charter. We’re required to do it.?
And, while ‘park maintenance? falls under ‘Village hall? expenses, most of the work in the park is done by city DPW.
‘The park budget was never explained,? he said, noting $17,000 is again allocated under park maintenance. ‘I have no idea how that money is spent. I’ve been asking since I got on council and it’s never been detailed.
Johnston said the DPW budget is ‘impossible to read? as presented.
‘If you can do it for the police, why not the DPW,? he said.
He wasn’t the only one left confused.
‘I find the whole budget process around the DPW very disturbing,? said Clarkston resident Craig Fraser, who told the council it was the first meeting he’d attended. ‘I’ve heard a lot of talk about privatizing snow removal and park maintenance services, but the way this is set up in the budget I don’t know how anyone could look at this and say ‘here’s how much we spend on snow plowing,? or ‘here’s how much we spend to cut the grass.??
Fraser, who was careful to explain his comments were not criticisms of the council, but rather observations made by someone outside the budget process, said he spent ‘two or three hours? looking over the budget to see where the pieces fit together, noting he wasn’t all together clear in the end.
‘The residents of the city deserve to have a clear breakdown and summarization of where the money’s going in these major categories,? he said. ‘If you hand this to the average person’it’s very confusing. I can’t make an informed decision on ‘should we have 24 hour police? or ‘should we privatize snow removal? unless we can clearly see what the costs are.?
Fraser had a number of other concerns, as well, including a question about why website maintenance jumped from $500 last year to $2,400 this year.
‘I hope there’s a clear understanding of what the city is going to get for this five times increase,? he said. ‘I hope we’ll get some real benefit for the money spent.?
An explanation of line items would be nice, as well, he noted.
‘I noticed a line item that just says ‘insurance? for $192,? Fraser said. ‘That is about as little description as we could get; I don’t know if that’s for cars, to keep people from falling out of trees or against someone stepping on an endangered species. Even a tag about what that’s for would be very helpful.?