| |
I've been meaning to
do a post on the "Lansing Budget Follies," for some time, but
have been grappling with finding a way to explain the situation
in a manner understandable by non-accountants, while not seeming
negative about Lansing's financial future.
First & foremost is
Schor's blatantly apparent (to an accountant) attempt to hide
deficit spending by purposefully NOT filling $1.5M (or more?) of
budgeted public safety & basic city services vacancies. The
proof, at the end of the budget, is the adding back in that
$1.5M, in a line
item
labelled "Vacancy Factor." "Vacancy Factor" translates to:
"the jobs won’t be filled, so just let people continue to
believe we intend to fill them, add the money back to the
budget, & then we're free to waste it elsewhere." This is at
least the 2nd year this bait & switch accounting trick has been
played upon Lansing voters (maybe longer, but I lack budget
data from prior years).
What is not completely
apparent to ME is whether the Council’s failure to discuss the
"Vacancy Factor" bait & switch is a conscious effort to hide
uncomfortable facts (in hope of easy re-election) or financial
ineptitude. Either way, it's an injustice to Lansing voters.
Every year, Schor
promises to fill these public safety jobs, & every ELECTION
year, he & the council add more jobs they don’t intend to fill,
creating the illusion they are working on public safety.
Meanwhile, LFD is short 12± jobs (crucially, EMT divers &
equipment). Our firefighters are working way too much OT,
suffering burnout, as well as PTSD. The LPD is short 29±
officers, so our crime rate shouldn't be surprising. My
question is: do we want to become more like Flint, or more like
Detroit (which has decreased crime by actually hiring more cops)
or Grand Rapids; and in which direction is Schor taking us?
Schor is not the only
one to blame. Schor built into his budget a $250k "contingency
fund" (not to be confused with the "Rainy Day Fund," which has
a statutory minimum) but, at the May 19th Final budget hearing,
GARZA offered an amendment adding two MORE (unlikely to be
filled) LFD jobs @ $110k/ea; PLUS a $130k financial analyst for
the Council's use alone. This Analyst would be unnecessary if
the Mayor’s office was better informing the Council, OR, the
Council was better at reading financial statements. POOF! Garza
makes that Contingency $250k disappear.
Moments later, JACKSON
moves to make another last minute budget amendment, adding a
$130k "Sustainability Grant Writer" to be paid by dipping into
the "Rainy Day Fund" thus edging us dangerously close to its
legal minimum limit. Mind you, I’m all for Sustainability, BUT,
we have yet to onboard the three sustainability positions funded
by the Bloomberg grant, in a period in which we have no hopes of
fed grants for "Sustainability", given the current President's
Admin; AND when the State is also tightening it’s belt (meaning
fewer grants). Making matters worse, this position is only
funded for one year, meaning a "baked-in" increase in property
taxes in the 2026-27 budget.
Both Garza’s spending
ALL of the "Contingency Fund," AND Jackson’s edging us
dangerously close to the legal minimum of our "Rainy Day Fund"
happened a mere 4 days after the violent May storm with no
apparent thought given to funding our city's unplanned,
unbudgeted, additional clean-up expenditures.
My career was based on
financial analysis & forensic accounting, and I do believe there
is much hidden from us in terms of excess spending and precious
few ways to increase revenue, due to STATE constraints income &
sales tax reforms. Leaving us only the options hoping to lure
businesses & people within city limits, increasing fees
(preferably to those who can afford them), or, once
again, raising property taxes. Since the budget approved May
19th increased by 12% over last year we are facing a 10-12%
property tax assessment hike.
STOP PROPERTY TAX
INCREASES, WHICH ALSO GUARANTEE RENT HIKES. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
I implore ALL of you
to take the time, before the primaries, to watch the Council’s
"Committee of the Whole" videos from April 21st, May 12th, &
May 19th. I will, in a later post, highlight what I took away
from each meeting as they are ALL relevant to what SHOULD have
been more carefully discussed and addressed before the budget
was ratified May 19th.
THIS post was Chapter
1 of my thoughts on the "Lansing Budget Follies" focusing on
just the "Vacancy Factor" and the last minute budget amendments,
alone, for brevity. Later I'll write Chapter 2, on my
impressions of what issues should be prioritized based on those
three meetings.
Later, I'll write
posts on Schor’s policy failures, how the STATE ties our hands;
and how your BWL bill is actually a TAX (& why, it
unfortunately, for now, may be a necessary evil). |
|
