Columbia Budget

The council passed the budget last night with a very quiet and quick 4-3 vote. Alderman Row was out of town, yeas were cast by Agne, Roessler, Ebersohl, & Niemietz while the nays were cast by Stumpf, Hejna, & Oberkfell.

The public comment period which took place before the meeting had a total of two people comment. Former Mayor Lester Schneider said he would prefer there be an itemized list for expenditures out of the capitol development fund. I was the other to comment and made the following statement.

First off I would like to thank Al and Linda for their time to prepare the budget.

I would however not use the term “worst case scenario” when describing either the revenue or disbursement side of this budget. The revenue side will not likely be what is shown in the budget right now. The arrearage money owed to the city will more than likely not be received from the state and it would seem more than likely that the state will miss 3-4 monthly payments over the next fiscal year. The state has not proven that they will be able to do any better than that. Depending on what months the state chooses to not pay, the city could be missing possibly over $250,000 in projected revenue.

These projected shortfalls in revenue can be made up with a few tweaks and not spending what is projected in only a few line items. If legal fees for Columbia Crossing, tourism, risk management, can stay near what they were last year a great amount of this can be made up. It will be difficult but it can be done.

In regards to disbursements I would like to see the council make an attempt at prioritizing the list of capitol expenditures for this year and the next few. While I feel that some of the items that are funded out of the capitol development fund are not truly capitol development items, this is only my viewpoint. I tend to classify road projects, new buildings or building upgrades/improvements along with other infrastructure improvements as true capitol development projects. It should have become very evident last week that while this year the city will be able to fund what they want to make projects with matching or other supplemental funds get done, this may not be possible in the next fiscal year. The capitol development fund will not be able to continue funding the number of projects the city would like to accomplish. Prioritizing projects can take away the strain of choosing which ones to do down the road.

I feel the alderman should engage in some sort of discussion before they vote no on something. Alderman Hejna gave her opinion that total disbursements should not exceed total revenues during the discussion period before the vote but Al Hudzik gave a rebuttal to her reasoning in that expenditures for the Old Town Bond were previously funded but that money is now being paid out. I really never had any indication while the council was discussing the budget either this week or last week that Oberkfell and Stumpf would vote no on the budget.

I had another paragraph prepared for the public comment portion of the meeting but chose not to speak it in fear it would be taken the wrong way by the council. Given now how it is evident they were split on the issue with little to no conversation or voicing of opinions over the budgeting process it seems I should have said what I planned to.

I would also encourage the council to discuss issues. The council must communicate and set aside their differences if the city is to succeed and prosper. It is not my intent to point blame on this issue, as you all must work to improve how you interact with each other on every issue including this budget.

Budget that was voted on. Coming.
Revisions made since last weeks committee meeting.