2010 Birmingham budget: Difference between revisions

From Bhamwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 9: Line 9:
Langford pledged to veto the council's revisions two days before the budget was set to take effect. At the Council's [[July 6]] budget workshop, newly-available financial data indicated that the city finished the past year with a $17 million deficit rather than the $13 million surplus Langford had earlier reported. Faced with the revised inputs, the Council rescinded its working budget and requested that the Mayor's staff submit a new budget accounting for the deficit and maintaining the city's policy of holding three months of operational funds in reserve. Langford has argued that the reserve policy is worthless. He later told the press that it was unlawful for him to use revenue projections developed after the May 20 date on which the first budget was submitted. He promised to return the same budget as he had the first time, only shifting more planned expenditures for the proposed [[domed stadium]] to future budgets, freeing that money for street paving and grants to non-profits.
Langford pledged to veto the council's revisions two days before the budget was set to take effect. At the Council's [[July 6]] budget workshop, newly-available financial data indicated that the city finished the past year with a $17 million deficit rather than the $13 million surplus Langford had earlier reported. Faced with the revised inputs, the Council rescinded its working budget and requested that the Mayor's staff submit a new budget accounting for the deficit and maintaining the city's policy of holding three months of operational funds in reserve. Langford has argued that the reserve policy is worthless. He later told the press that it was unlawful for him to use revenue projections developed after the May 20 date on which the first budget was submitted. He promised to return the same budget as he had the first time, only shifting more planned expenditures for the proposed [[domed stadium]] to future budgets, freeing that money for street paving and grants to non-profits.


On [[July 16]] the Mayor's office submitted a revised budget with some funding for non-profits not included in the earlier version and reduced funding for paving and sidewalks. The projections from the earlier budget were not changed.
On [[July 16]] the Mayor's office submitted a revised budget with some funding for non-profits not included in the earlier version and reduced funding for paving and sidewalks. The projections from the earlier budget were not changed, prompting the council to call for a forensic audit of city finances before proceeding. Smitherman compared Langford's demand that they accept the finance department's projections to "believing in unicorns."


==Operational budget==
==Operational budget==
Line 31: Line 31:
* Whitmire, Kyle (July 6, 2009) "Birmingham $17 million deficit revealed." ''Birmingham Weekly''
* Whitmire, Kyle (July 6, 2009) "Birmingham $17 million deficit revealed." ''Birmingham Weekly''
* Bryant, Joseph D. (July 7, 2009) "Birmingham, Alabama city council rescinds own budget, asks Mayor Langford for third version." ''Birmingham News''
* Bryant, Joseph D. (July 7, 2009) "Birmingham, Alabama city council rescinds own budget, asks Mayor Langford for third version." ''Birmingham News''
* Spencer, Thomas (July 16, 2009) "Birmingham City Council scheduled to consider Mayor Langford's latest budget proposal." ''Birmingham News''
* Spencer, Thomas (July 17, 2009) "Audit of city finances sought by Birmingham, Alabama council before making budget." ''Birmingham News''


==External links==
==External links==

Revision as of 08:50, 17 July 2009

The 2009-2010 Birmingham budget includes the operating budget for the City of Birmingham for the fiscal year July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010 as well as a capital projects budget for the five years from 2008 to 2013. The operating budget was submitted by the Mayor's office on May 19, 2009.

The 2010 budget as proposed projects $415,800,000.00 in revenues and expenditures over the course of the year. That figure represents a decrease of 3.05% over the 2009 Birmingham budget submitted the previous May.

At his presentation to the council, Langford acknowledged the "recent softness of the international economy" in explaining the overall reduction. He proposed to keep most departments funded at 2008 levels and to cut funding to some agencies, such as Operation New Birmingham and agencies receiving funding for assistance to citizens with HIV/AIDS. In those cases the mayor suggested that the agencies merge with others pursuing similar missions in order to increase overall efficiency.

The Birmingham City Council objected to the cuts in funding for non-profits and instead proposed 7% cuts for city departments and the elimination of city-funded scholarships to reach a budget of $389 million. Further, the council claimed that there was a $26 million discrepancy between projected revenues and planned spending in the mayor's budget. Langford said the difference was in funds left over from the current fiscal year. Council president Carole Smitherman countered that the amount in question was earmarked for revitalization of Fair Park and other projects still on the boards. Councilor Valerie Abbott agreed with Smitherman's calculation, saying that the money "is obviously not available for us to use unless you cancel the projects that it was allocated for."

Langford pledged to veto the council's revisions two days before the budget was set to take effect. At the Council's July 6 budget workshop, newly-available financial data indicated that the city finished the past year with a $17 million deficit rather than the $13 million surplus Langford had earlier reported. Faced with the revised inputs, the Council rescinded its working budget and requested that the Mayor's staff submit a new budget accounting for the deficit and maintaining the city's policy of holding three months of operational funds in reserve. Langford has argued that the reserve policy is worthless. He later told the press that it was unlawful for him to use revenue projections developed after the May 20 date on which the first budget was submitted. He promised to return the same budget as he had the first time, only shifting more planned expenditures for the proposed domed stadium to future budgets, freeing that money for street paving and grants to non-profits.

On July 16 the Mayor's office submitted a revised budget with some funding for non-profits not included in the earlier version and reduced funding for paving and sidewalks. The projections from the earlier budget were not changed, prompting the council to call for a forensic audit of city finances before proceeding. Smitherman compared Langford's demand that they accept the finance department's projections to "believing in unicorns."

Operational budget

Revenues

  • $415.8 million in projected revenues from property and business taxes, permits, fines, fees, intergovernmental collections, service charges and "other operating revenue", approximately 2% less than projected revenues from fiscal year 2009.
  • A surplus of $17.4 million was reported from the FY 2009 operating budget.
  • Included under "other operating revenue" is a "debt service reimbursement" of $7.36 million.

Expenditures

References

  • Bryant, Joseph D. (May 20, 2009) "Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford proposes leaner city budget, funding cuts to ONB, other agencies." Birmingham News
  • Bryant, Joseph D. (June 30, 2009) "Birmingham City Council set to OK draft budget with 7% for departments, but increases council office spending." Birmingham News
  • Whitmire, Kyle (July 6, 2009) "Birmingham $17 million deficit revealed." Birmingham Weekly
  • Bryant, Joseph D. (July 7, 2009) "Birmingham, Alabama city council rescinds own budget, asks Mayor Langford for third version." Birmingham News
  • Spencer, Thomas (July 17, 2009) "Audit of city finances sought by Birmingham, Alabama council before making budget." Birmingham News

External links