Pay workers or buy gear?

The city council is facing some extremely difficult -- and painful -- budget decisions this year.

What's driving the budget crunch is the salary study the city had commissioned earlier this year, a study that showed most city employees are underpaid in comparison to similar-sized cities in the region.

If fully implemented, the proposed raises would eat up an extra $450,000 of the city budget, which is well below the increase in revenue it will receive from the existing growth that has gone on the tax rolls during the last year (keeping in mind that because of the Business Improvement District approved last year, Marathon Cheese is functionally not included in the tax base growth).

The council is being wise to phase in these raises over time, but the end result is there is very little money left over for any capital improvements in city operations, and any other "extras" that have been requested from the city coffers.

That means city departments have been, to a large extent, "frozen" in upgrading or replacing old equipment this year. And it's not likely that there will be a lot of extra money to catch up next year.

So the dilemma is, pay city employees properly (which we have no problems with -- we'd all like a raise these days), or fund the capital improvements and the other "extras" requested.

By not funding capital improvements, the city could wind up paying for it in the long run. Upgrading old equipment, or adding new equipment and staff needed to keep up with the demands of growth, is part of the cost of doing business. This is truly a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Paul's happy, but Peter isn't.

The end result is some very difficult budget decisions. The city, for example, feels it can save money by cutting funding to the bus service, which rarely seems to have anybody riding it. Those few that do, however, need it. The voucher system proposed could solve that problem and save the city money. It's a good, innovative idea worth trying.

We were surprised to see Cam 8 get its funding maintained. That was one budget item that seemed in serious jeopardy, after its recent problems. But council apparently was willing to give it one more chance.

The city has had a very "open" budget process this year, and that's a good thing. People have been able to see how the budget is being shaped, and have been able to provide input early, before the formal budget hearing, when things are largely locked in stone (you can cut, but not add items, after that hearing). The next two weeks is crunch time for that input.

But remember that while any one interest group has a focused eye on specific funding, the council must see the big picture. Very few departments are getting anything they asked for. Any additional requests for funding, to be added or restored, must come out of department budgets that have gotten very, very tight, so don't be surprised if anyone asking for additional money is asked where they would cut other programs.

Tough job, but overall, council seems to be doing a good, conscientious job so far, considering its severe constraints this year.