Pinching public pennies
Saturday's lead editorial.
The not-so-faraway tremors on Wall Street are shaking floors and peeling plaster in City Hall.
So city leaders are right to begin pruning their spending now. Nor should they be satisfied with temporary fixes.
Anticipating smaller tax revenues and tighter budgets, City Manager Mitchell Johnson has asked department heads to find $1.1 million in spending cuts. That’s a good start. Johnson hasn’t gone so far as to order layoffs, but City Councilman Mike Barber believes job cuts have to be part of the equation. Councilwoman Trudy Wade agrees and notes that many private businesses are trimming 5 percent to 10 percent in operating expenses.
Their sense of urgency is understandable. A troubled economy means falling sales tax revenues. Government shouldn’t be exempt from the same hard look at budgets that private companies have been forced to take. But, unlike private business, government is obligated to protect the public’s safety and welfare. The manager and council should bear that in mind when deciding what goes and what stays.
That said, tough economic times increase demands in some areas, among them public safety. But they also lessen demands in others, such as building permits and inspections.
At Barber’s urging last summer, the city eliminated 49 positions and has held open more than 100 jobs. The city also has pulled the plug on all out-of-state travel for employees and is searching for additional savings through energy conservation.
But the council and manager need to look further. Longer term, they should explore lasting changes such as the consolidation of some services that overlap with county government. For instance, preliminary talks to merge the Greensboro and Guilford planning departments have begun. Those talks should move forward and move faster.
So should the delicate process of building a regional transit system to meet growing ridership demands, relieve crowding and improve on-time performance.
Barber suggests outsourcing some functions, not only to private businesses but to sister governments, including the county. Good idea.
Even in the vital area of public safety, the city may need to put off a worthy but costly proposal to allow police officers to take their cruisers home.
Meanwhile, a $205 million bond package awaits on the Nov. 4 ballot. Cuts to recurring spending would put the city in a better position to handle the additional debt the bonds could create.
Finally, the city should solicit savings ideas from its employees and the general public. After all, we’re in this together. And it is our money.
Comments (9)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
So, Allen, did I read that correctly in the News and Record today? The greenway and the competitive pool are not stand-alone bond
items?
Posted on October 5, 2008 1:05 AM
Hmmm...I went back and re-read the editorial. They are lumping "wants" in with "needs." That is one big mistake. Do they think we won't notice? I have no intention of voting for the greenway or the pool in these tough economic times.
Posted on October 5, 2008 1:13 AM
That is correct, Thoughts.
The greenway is a small part ($7 million) of the $134 million transportation bonds.
The swim center is more than half ($12 million) of the $20 million parks and recreation bonds.
Posted on October 5, 2008 6:22 PM
Seven million is still seven million--especially when it's seven million that, in my humble opinion, needs to be deferred, if not deep-sixed.
Right now, these two items (greenway and pool) feel like pork. I feel manipulated as a voter and I am starting to get angry. I usually don't feel angry about things like this, so if I'm feeling this way, I wonder how other people are feeling.
We already voted against the pool (and it was separate item at the time, wasn't it?) and now they've plowed it in with other items to get it to pass. They skipped the first step altogether with the greenway and they've lumped it in with other necessary items as well. Neither bond is getting my vote. I'm usually not that stubborn, but it's the principle.
Maybe you can do a separate blog on this.
I would be interested in what other people are feeling. I know you are getting some grief over
this--kudos to you for keeping these issues in front of the voters.
Posted on October 6, 2008 8:42 AM
Bear in mind, however, that the transportation bond contains a lot more than the greenway, including some vital street projects, among them Horse Pen Creek Road and High Point Road.
Posted on October 6, 2008 8:53 AM
What am I missing? Our country, states and cities are in economic distress--and have been for awhile. I will not be manipulated into voting for the greenway. This is politics at its worst. The greenway never should have been lumped in with "vital street projects." Seven million is seven million. That is not small change--no matter what context one puts it in.
I think this bond may be in deep trouble.
Posted on October 6, 2008 10:10 AM
Next thing you know, someone will suggest that we build a canal downtown, put passenger barges on it and then lump it in the next transportation bond.
Maybe I'm the only one who is bothered by these pork barrel politics. What say you, Allen?
Posted on October 6, 2008 11:22 AM
It would be nice to see it stand on its own.
Posted on October 6, 2008 12:09 PM
I will be curious what the N&R's position will be on these bonds. I hope the N&R comes down on the side of principle. Attaching the pool and the greenway to necessary bond items is politically manipulative and borders on dirty politics--if indeed we're not already there!
Posted on October 6, 2008 1:50 PM