Budget vote devolves into Stormwater debate
A vote Tuesday on the proposed 2010 budget unraveled into a debate among a divided City Council about the wisdom of eliminating the controversial Stormwater Enterprise over two years instead of immediately.
The council voted 5-4 to give preliminary approval to next year’s spending plan, which now calls for reducing all employees’ leave accruals by 24 vacation hours rather than implementing 10 days of unpaid furloughs for civilian workers only.
The budget proposal includes a long list of cuts, from layoffs to closing pools and eliminating night and weekend bus service.
Although council members talked about the difficult choices that had to be made, the final vote was tied to a decision the day before on the future of the Stormwater Enterprise.
Council members Tom Gallagher, Darryl Glenn, Jan Martin and Randy Purvis, who voted against the proposed budget, had opposed Monday’s decision to phase out the enterprise over two years.
Each of the four had advocated ending the enterprise right away after the passage Nov. 3 of Issue 300, a two-sentence ballot initiative that has varying interpretations and is likely to end up in court.
“We need to find a starting place where we can move forward as a community, and I think dragging out the Stormwater Enterprise for two years lengthens the time before we will find that new starting place,” Martin said. “As difficult as it will be for me, I’m not going to be able to support the budget with a two-year timeline for the enterprise.”
Glenn, who has shelved plans to try to create a voter-approved stormwater authority because of the council majority’s decision in favor of a two-year phaseout, said an immediate end to the enterprise was “critical” to rebuilding trust between elected officials and the community.
“It’s going to drive a deeper wedge in this community, and it’s going to derail us from actually highlighting the benefits of having a way to address stormwater in the future,” he said.
“I have to draw a line in the sand, and the stormwater is mine,” Glenn added.
Phasing out the enterprise over two years allows the city to finish projects under construction as well as to reconstruct a levee that doesn’t meet Federal Emergency Management Agency certification, which would force some homeowners to buy flood insurance if the city doesn’t rebuild it.
Douglas Bruce, who authored Issue 300 and continues to maintain that it calls for an immediate end to the enterprise, told the council it had made a “big mistake” by opting for a two-year phaseout.
“This is not a situation where you can play ‘Let’s Make A Deal’ or ‘Deal or No Deal,’” he said.
Councilman Bernie Herpin, who voted with the council majority on the 2010 spending plan, said a two-year phaseout was a “reasonable compromise,” especially since stormwater fees will decrease during the next two years.
“It makes no sense to me to have critical projects that are near completion (and then) say, ‘Pack up your shovels and go home.’ What kind of responsibility is that to our citizens?” he asked.
—
Call the writer at 476-1623.
