Tunnel vision: Another budget done
When elected municipal officials debate budget issues — which is really much of what they do — they rarely do it in a way that would encourage effective debate, either among themselves or with the public.
Why is that?
They may have political considerations. For example, cutting funds for street repairs or police or volunteer firefighters rarely resonates with the public.
This comes to mind as Ford City Council in the last week of January approved a no-tax-increase budget after failing by one vote to overturn the mayor's veto of an earlier fiscal plan that required a 1.5-mill property tax increase. To save money necessary to stave off the increase, the fire company agreed that council could apply a half-mill of the fire equipment tax to the general fund and police agreed to forgo budget funds for a new police car.
Councilman Jerry Miklos offered the one “no” in the 5-1 vote; he contends more can be cut, although he provided no specifics.
So four weeks into the new budget year, council prepares a tentative budget for a Feb. 11 vote. But rarely during the whole year does council conduct discussions about how it will save taxpayers' money.
Council President Lou Vegari said Monday the town has no fiscal cushion in the 2013 budget. Will it be the same next December — or will council see the light and the end of an ever-longer tunnel?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.