Councilors demand $1 million in budget cuts

 AUBURN — A split City Council demanded at least $1 million in cuts from the city side of the 2010-11 fiscal year budget Monday night.

Councilors voted 4-3 to demand the cuts at the end of a public hearing on the city and school budgets in Auburn Hall on Monday night. But the $1 million number was a compromise offered after several councilors demanded $2.5 million in cuts.

That was too much for City Manager Glenn Aho.

"It can't be done like this," Aho said. "It needs to be discussed. If you want to discuss this with department heads and figure out where we can cut, that's different. But I urge you to vote against this as it stands."

Councilors will continue their budget discussions Thursday night in Auburn Hall.

The city still faces a 9.18 percent increase in property taxes in the 2010-11 budget, according to Aho's draft budget. That amounts to an increase in property taxes of $1.68 per $1,000 of property value.  That's a $336 tax bill increase for homes valued at $200,000.

The increase comes from $2.7 million in state revenue cuts. State revenue sharing, from state property taxes, are down 40 percent, Aho said.  State excise taxes are down 15 percent and road assistance is down 24 percent.

The city would need to find $3.5 million worth of budget cuts, an additional $3.5 million in other revenue or $190 million in new property values to keep the property tax rate from increasing.

School Superintendent Tom Morrill presented the school department's proposed $34.2 million budget, which calls for a $30,000 spending decrease and level property taxes despite state aid cuts.

Roughly 50 people, including many Auburn teachers and parents, attended Monday's meeting to defend the school department's budget. But councilors said the school department budget was safe this year.

"The schools have done their work," Councilor Dan Herrick said. "But now it's time for the city to step up."

Councilor Mike Farrell said many people in the audience at Monday's meeting seemed to favor more spending, with one woman saying she was willing to have her taxes raised.

"But the people in this room, we're all better off than most people in this town," Farrell said. "If we have people saying they'd pay more, that's great. But that closes out those other people that don't have extra money. They can't afford to pay more."

Farrell and Herrick both called for $2.5 million in budget cuts, but not all councilors agreed. Councilor Eric Samson said he'd rather have councilors come up with the cuts.

"I'm willing to put in the work," he said. "But to just come up with a number off the tops of our heads, that's not the responsible thing to do."

Councilors Gerry, Farrell, David Young and Ray Berube all voted to require $1 million in cuts to Aho's draft budget. Councilors Samson and Robert Hayes voted against, saying they preferred councilor cuts. Councilor Herrick, who supported the steeper $2.5 million cut, also voted against it.

staylor@sunjournal.com

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

joe gray's picture
verified

Dave, please define "skyrocket"

I called our insurance agent today and asked how our insurance rate would be affected if we cut the number of firefighters in half in Auburn. It would not change he told me. The rate is not based on the number of firefighters, but the proximity to a fire department. I asked if the fire department shut two stations and the fire station remaining were approximately 2 more miles away. He told me approximately $3.00 a year if at all. He spent about 20 minutes researching it before coming back to me with the answers - so I kind of believe he DID the research and not just flippantly gave me answers.

So, if my insurance man is correct, I would pay approximately $3.00 more per year if we eliminated two fire stations in Auburn. Of course, if you are more distant than I your rate may increase more. Each residence would be slightly different.

So, again, I ask that the city council consider eliminating Engines 2 & 5, closing the stations on Route 4 and South Main St, and cut the attendent firefighters. This alone would add up to nearly the $1,000,000 savings the council seeks.

joe gray's picture
verified

Do you have figures?

I guess I don't understand why buying on credit, with the addition of interest, is better than using cash. And how is it more fair to taxpayers? $1,250,000 a year in interest charges seems like a decent savings to me. The council has demanded a $1,000,000 reduction - that is less than the interest payment.

As for the cost of insurance, I can't speak to that with any clear figures - I haven't researched that to any degree - yet. But if you're correct, then people in Durham or Turner or any town where the fire crew is voluntary now pay "skyrocketed" insurance rates.  So, why would anyone want to live in an area with a voluntary fire crew if it so adversely affects their insurance premium? Why is the insurance premium on our former home in Livermore roughly the same as our home here in Auburn? (Both homes are similarly assessed in value.) I did notice when I first registered a car here in Auburn that my car insurance skyrocketed. It wasn't due to the fire or police coverage, but to the number of accidents reported in the 04210 zip code.

Thank you for agreeing with #4. In your earlier post you stated you would pass the budget as presented, but you then agree that there are areas to cut. These are the things we need to address with our councilors. It takes work to research and find the cuts, but they are there and we need to find them. In my opinion, the savings in taxes will more than offset any increase in insurance - but I will research that and get back to you. Thanks for thinking this through. And let's keep the thinking moving forward.

Dave's picture

you're wrong

- You're wrong on capital improvement bonds.   It makes more financial sense to borrow money for such matters than paying cash.  In addition, its more fair to taxpayers. 

- You're wrong on consolidation.  It would cost more to consolidate than it would save.   Consolidate fire stations, and residents will see home insurance rates skyrocket.

- #4. I do agree with you about firefighters.  Too many.  And it's time to end the 24 hour shift scam.  We shouldn't pay anybody to sleep.   It seems like everytime I go to Hannafords, they are there, with the truck, buying groceries during their shift.   Time to end that practice.   In additional, too many layers of management in the fire department.   They are too often a legend in their own minds.

joe gray's picture
verified

Real cuts to our city budget

1. Stop buying things on credit. The capital improvement bonds are killing us. We spend 22% of our budget on debt service. We pay about $1,250,000 a year in interest alone. If you add the principle, we are nearing $7,000,000 a year just for past purchases.

2. Consolidate our departments and their buildings. We have to pay to heat and maintain three fire stations, a police station, city hall, the library, a number of schools, public works garage, Ingersol Arena, the parks and rec buildings, and lots of other buildings around town. Perhaps we could eliminate  even $400,000 a year in our utilities bills - which now total nearly $800,000 a year.

3. Ten percent pay cut for all department heads. Let's save $100,000 this year.

4. Close Engine 2 and Engine 5 fire stations. Closing these two stations would eliminate not only the immediate cost of maintaining and heating the buildings, it would allow the city to sell these buildings and get the property back on the tax logs. Plus it would eliminate the need to replace these buildings in the near future. The fire department has requested in the capital improvements budget major improvements and upgrades to these facilities. There is even a call to raze and rebuild these structures to meet current and future needs. The firemen state that the buildings are uncomfortable and aren't big enough for modern equipment.  Closing these stations and not manning them anymore would save the city the salaries of the attendent firemen as well as the heating, maintence and future costs.

The fire department costs taxpayers more than $3,000,000 a year in labor costs alone. Add the costs of equipment, equipment repairs, and training every year and we are up over $4,000,000 a year. THEN add the cost of capital improvements and we are really spending some money.

The truth of the matter is the fire protection is nice, but we can't afford it and we can live with far fewer firefighters. According to the March 19th weekly review the firefighters work 24 hours then have three consecutive 24 hour shifts off. Therefore if you follow that out, they "work" 8 days a month! Also in that weekly review it states the firefighters are "active" for 14 hours of the 24 hour shift. So, basically we are paying these guys 80 hours a month to sit around and watch tv, read a book or even sleep. Of course they will respond if there is a call.

Further, only about 3% of the emergency calls the fire department responds to are fires. Most are EMS calls. So if we redesign our system and hire EMS personel instead of firefighters, we will save money.

When I asked about this at the city council meeting, Chief Minkowsky answered that we needed a 4 minute response time. While this is admirable, it is not a law, just a would be nice. If we responded from central station our response time would not be greatly adversely affected. Further, if we cross train the police who are already out on the road to offer immediate first aid, our response time could conceivably get shorter.

Chief Minkowsky also uses a pumper truck to respond to most emergencies, including a report of a heart attack. I have asked fifteen different departments if they do something similar and they all, without exception, have laughed at Auburn's arrangement. Why are we sending a truck that gets 5-8 miles per gallon and requires $6,000 a year in repairs to every reported emergency in the city? Why can't we send a more economical, more properly suited vehicle to medical emergencies?

We don't know what was on the list the council presented. But they did state repeatedly that the list was only a guide and not in any way a commitment. It provided the city manager with some ideas about where to cut. The council needs our ideas to make good decisions.

I was heartened last night to see so many citizens at the meeting. But I was also disappointed when I found out they only cared about the school budget and not the municipal budget. If they really, truly cared, they would help the city council find cuts so there might be more money available next year when the school budget again comes up. We all need to share our ideas.

thinkingman's picture

Nope, I got it right the

Nope, I got it right the first time...your logic was "wow the last council in lewiston did not spend any money on maintaining roads" but today for logic is "only spend money on maintenance when the state is giving you lots of money. We all get the picture, more proof of how far off your observations are and what your true motives are. 

tron's picture

I cannot believe you're that dense

"wow the last council in lewiston did not spend any money on maintaining roads"  is correct because you guys spent the revenue sharing on operating expenses instead of road improvements.  Now the money isn't there for operating expenses the city either has to drastically cut services or raise taxes.  Plus the roads are bad.   That falls on YOU!!

tron's picture

Apparently

some do not understand my logic.  All operating expenses for the city should be paid for by property taxes.  Including school expenses.  Revenue sharing from the state should be used solely for capital improvement and infrastructure maintenance.  Therefore when times are tough, city services stay the same with minimal or no property tax increases.  Improvement and maintenance can generally be put off for a time.  What cities have been doing is relying on revenue sharing for on going expenses, so when that source trickles down we are left with the situation we're in.  Both cities have neglected improvement and maintenance in order to "keep the tax rate down."  Yes, they can claim to have done so, but should now be held accountable for the mess we're in. 

thinkingman's picture

On this one I have to give

On this one I have to give tron credit - while I disagree with his logic and decision, he does at least offer something as opposed to those who simply scream cut a million. I don't live in Auburn so I won't comment on what should be cut in your budget, but in lewiston i beleive department heads should be consolidated and deputy head positions should be eliminated as there are too many as hired and promoted by the previous administrator. Its time to think lean, less chiefs, more indians doing the work.

On the other hand, how is it just a few weeks ago tron was crying about road conditions and how the council in Lewiston didn't do enough for the roads, but today he says to not do any capital improvements until state funding improves?

 

tron's picture

because you perceive

that I have a "vendetta" you dismiss my suggestion out of hand.  Well I perceive that you have a vested interest in the police department therefore you don't want to see any savings in that area.  Makes as much sense as your accusations.

 

The biggest reason our city is in this situation, is because we've been using revenue sharing monies for on going expenses. If we had used only property tax revenues to finance city operations, we wouldn't have a big problem.  We could have used revenue sharing for big capital improvements while paying for day to day operations with property taxes.  Then when revenue sharing diminishes we would still have revenues to pay for daily expenses, and postpone capital improvements until state revenues improve. 

momof4's picture

tronny-one-note

Of course you would be expected to say  "cut police',  as your personal vendetta speaks for itself.  But  is there anything else you would suggest?  honestly curious, I am...

Dave's picture

I don't.

Pass the budget as presented.

tron's picture

Ok, Dave

how do YOU propose to cut one million dollars?

Dave's picture

Great idea Tron.  Let's make

Great idea Tron.  Let's make Auburn a less safe place to live.  That will encourage more people to move into town.

 

tron's picture

The has come

for councilors to tell people what cuts are to be made.  I am sick of these people saying cut one million, two million without ever saying what they want cut.  IF you're going to be so insisting on cuts, tell us where.  One idea, there are seventy police officers in this city. That is too many, considering they don't do anything anyway.  Get rid of twenty, saving of at least one million.  Drastic, yeah, but I least I gave you what I think should be gone, not just a phantom figure of one million.  Come on Councilors, have the guts to tell us what you think should be cut!

Phil's picture
verified

Police Staff

To be clear the Auburn Police Department has fifty sworn officers not seventy. We offer a ride-along program and I would encourage citizens to participate and learn what our dedicated staff do every day.

Auburn Police Chief Phil Crowell

Dave's picture

I am.

When will people in the city wake-up and understand that continuing to let the city erode will only cause more residents to flee, which will increase taxes on those who remain?  Sometimes you have to make the investments. 

I'm planning on leaving because the city residents don't back the schools.  I don't want my child attending the decrepit Edward Little High School.  Neither do many others - that's why the flight to the 'burbs like Turner, Poland, Durham continues to happen. 

Josh's picture

I hope

that the Sunjournal is filing the Freedom of Information requests for councilor e-mails. If I heard correctly, two them said that the cuts were as a result of several e-mails among councilors. Such much for transparency.

Gary52's picture
verified

Anyone in the room in favor

Anyone in the room in favor of raising taxes that IS NOT a public sector employee or a family member of one, please raise your hands.

Advertisement