November 17, 1998

I have spent a significant amount of time during the last six weeks studying the proposed budget for 1999, asking questions, receiving and reviewing the answers.

Before I go any further, I want to acknowledge the very apparent hard work by Sheila O’Grady to track down the answers to my questions as well as the efforts by Budget Director Barbara Lumpkin, Russ Carlson and other members of her staff, to explain many of the answers to my questions. While there are still some outstanding questions, all of which I look forward to following up on, most of my long standing requests for information have been responded.

I also want to acknowledge the Chairman of the Council’s Budget Committee, Ald. Dixon. I know this was a difficult time for her, and yet she was there every day for all of the department hearings. And while I might favor changes in our rules of procedure during budget hearings,  in the context of what we have, the hearings were well conducted.

Earlier this month, following the conclusions of the hearings, I prepared a limited list of concerns with this budget. While they did not encompass a resolution to all of the policy and budgetary differences I have, if accepted as changes, they would have allowed me to vote yes. 

The most important of these concerns is the level of our property tax levy. While it has been projected that we are returning $20 million to tax payers by lowering the property tax levy by $20 million,  we have in fact received $28.6 million dollars worth of savings from the state legislature in previously required property tax spending over the last year and a half.      

When the state legislature changed the formula for two of our pension funds, we realized a net gain of $24.9 million. When the state legislature changed the formula for city relief we realized a net gain of $3.7 million. Why are we not returning the full amount to property owners and renters?