SCHENECTADY Despite calling the 2009 budget unachievable and irresponsible, the mayor signed it Monday and said he would make it work.
“The [City Council] exercised their role. Now I have to exercise my role and do whatever I can to live within that budget,” Mayor Brian U. Stratton said. “I think it’s going to be tough.”
He said he signed the $75.7 million budget because it was clear the council would override him if he vetoed it.
“It wouldn’t serve any purpose. The vote was 6 to 1,” Stratton said, referring to the council’s budget adoption a week ago.
The spending plan they sent to his desk was $1 million below the budget he proposed a month ago, and includes no tax increase. Stratton’s budget had a 2.9 percent tax increase.
Among the cuts approved by the council to eliminate the tax increase were many items that have gone unspent each year, but department heads argued those budget lines would be critical if they needed extra cash next year.
Stratton agreed, saying Monday that the council had eliminated the city’s safety net.
“They were generally valid [cuts] but we built in flexibility in our budget to have the room to maneuver,” Stratton said. “Maybe we’ve performed so well the council, in its wisdom, has said we’ve proven we don’t need it.”
He took particular exception to two changes in the budget — a reduction in spending at the assessor’s office and an increase over his projected revenue in building permits.
Stratton said the assessment office cut will hurt the city’s ability to finish the property revaluation “efficiently and effectively.”
The cut would allow a consultant to work until July 1, as the assessor had planned, rather than funding the position for an entire year in case more work is needed.
Finance Committee Chairman Mark Blanchfield said the position never should have been proposed for full-year funding.
“On its best day, it was only supposed to be for a half-year,” he said. “If July first comes and goes and the work of the consultant hasn’t finished, I’d be more than willing to look at another unfilled position and look at where the need is.”
He stressed that he proposed the cut after discussing it with Assessor Patrick Mastro. “It was not done in haste,” he said.
As for the building permit revenue, Blanchfield argued that he’d reduced the projected revenue by $40,000, as compared to the earnings in 2008.
But the revenue projection is $25,000 higher than Stratton had proposed.
“That represents $25 million in building value,” Stratton said. “I think next year is going to be a soft year.”
Blanchfield countered by saying that Building Inspector Keith Lamp had approved the new projection.
Work on the budget may not be over yet. On Nov. 18, the state Legislature will meet to cut $2 billion from its 2008 budget in response to the growing deficit. Among the cuts may be aid to municipalities.
Stratton has joined a group of mayors fighting that prospect, but he said he doesn’t expect to win.
“My guess is we’ll be back at the chopping block soon,” he said.
10:20 a.m. [ Suggest removal ]
I have what might seem to be a crazy idea with respect to the budget and Schenectady's high tax problem. I believe a great portion of the city's spending goes towards social services. I realize that some people really need these services for short periods of time. I am, however, not ignorant to the fact that alot of individuals currently collecting money from social services are drug and/or alcohol addicts who use this tax payer funded money to support their habits.
Most decent jobs require that a prospective employee be able to pass a drug screening prior to being offered a position of employment.
My proposal is as follows: If the money from social services comes from tax payers that have passed a drug screening in order to make the money to contribute to the tax pool that social services is drawing from, why then are we not also drug testing social services recipients before cashing these checks?
Simply put, can we please start drug testing individuals who are collecting any money from the city in order to survive? For those individuals who fail to pass the drug screen, they should be issued a "meal ticket" to be taken to the city mission so that they may feed themselves and their children.
I think it's time to implement "sink or swim" initiatives in this city. We need to make it so that everyone who CAN work DOES work. The only exception should be if someone is proven to be completely incapable of performing basic tasks required of basic jobs. We need to cut off those individuals who are claiming ridiculous disabilities in order to collect a check. Same thing for those individuals who think they they can have a litter of babies on the tax payer dime. Sink or Swim! Either you can and will work, or you need to find another place to live because the working people of Schenectady can no longer afford to carry this extra weight. We have our own families to look out for.