Double doo-doo

The proposed budget released Thursday widens City Hall's already huge structural deficit -- and does so by design.

Mayor Brown's plan boosts spending by $16.7 million while cutting property tax revenues by $1 million, thanks to a small cut in the residential tax rate.

Something has to make up the difference, and that something is more state aid. It's up from $169 million in the current budget to $181.5 million, accounting for 42 percent of the city's operating revenues. (Basic aid is up from $142.3 million to $155 million, with the balance coming in the form of reimbursement for expenses the city incurs running programs on behalf of the state).

Basic aid is about double what it was a decade ago. Which is another way of saying that despite all the budget pain of the past decade, despite the imposition of a control board, the city is deeper in the hole than ever.

Brown and his people will argue otherwise. They talk about the city's recent budget "surplus" and the rainy day fund they've been able to build. But all that money has come from Albany.

Tony Masiello said back in 2001 that the city would be in "deep doo-doo," without state aid. Seven years later, we'd be in double doo-doo.

The point isn't just that the city can't pay its bills without Albany's help, but that the politicians in City Hall aren't even trying to do anything about it. The strategy, as city budget director Janet Penksa explained to me last week, is to intentionally not grow property tax revenues. As the city's tax base increases, the plan is to reduce tax rates so it comes out a wash. Brown went one step further with this proposed budget, cutting property tax rates to the point where total revenues drop.

So, the game plan is to grow increasingly dependent on the state. At a time when the state is facing fiscal problems of its own, and the prospect of cuts in aid to local government and school districts, which Tom Precious spells out in a story in today's paper. Brian Meyer has a story on the Common Council's reaction to the proposal, as well. 

No one is going to squawk about a property tax cut. But a lot more city home owners who I know complain about city services than they do city taxes, and the tax cuts work against improved city services.

Schools are the most pointed example. The mayor's proposed budget maintains school operating aid at $52.4 million. Perhaps not unreasonable, from one perspective, given the state's large increase in education aid to the district.

But the status quo represents a continuing retreat in City Hall's support of its public schools. A decade ago, the city provided schools with $64.1 million in operating aid, covering 12.3 percent of the district's expenses. City aid has since dropped, while district expenses have increased, and city assistance now accounts for only 6.6 percent of the School Board's budget. The state, meanwhile, picks up nearly three-quarters of the tab.

Between them, City Hall and the School Board are spending $1.2 billion dollars and the state is paying $755 million of that. That's three quarters of a billion dollars. And if Brown has his way, that number will only continue to climb.

Comments

[Barton Keyes]

There is a disconnect between becoming more and more dependent on Albany dollars while proclaiming we are becoming more and more financially healthy. The facts suggest otherwise.
And we also need to remember that power follows the money. The more money Albany supplies the more control over the City Albany will exercise. And the less relevant Mayor Brown will become.

[City Wants Just One Sigma Apparently]

Another informative post by James.

However, I disagree with his implication that spending increases necessarily would correspond to improved city or school service quality.

The Brown admin doesn't seem very focused on efficiency reforms and in taking on certain union opposition (work rules, etc.)Superintendant Williams has tried to make such changes in the school system and the BTF as expected fights it.

CityStat seems like a tool for public relations, spin, and theatrics against political targets of Brown/Casey.

By comparison, Chris Collins seems much more focused on pushing for better efficiency in services from county government without throwing more money at problems. James seems to be suggesting the best way to get better city services is to spend more.

[Bill]

This is an Albany problem and it is the reason that all NYS municipalities (other than NYC) struggle. The reality is that Albany treats upstate cities like England treated the colonies. They run the most un-efficient government in the country and instead of implementing structural reforms and ease mandated costs for local governments they do nothing but grow their budget and increase aid. Cities are forced to depend on state aid because Albany makes it that way. The Brown Administration, like the masiello administration before them has asked for reforms to Labor Laws, pension costs, health care, etc. that would cut local spending. They have asked for revenue generators (which make them less-dependant on state aid) such as the ability to adjudicate local traffic infractions, red light cameras etc. but rather than passing any of these measures, Albany gives aid. Where is the "outrage" towards Albany?

By the way, I have been impressed with the Brown administration's implementation of citi-stat and see it as a strong management tool. Televising it also opens up the government to the people by the way.

[Willis]

Televising CitiStat is fine as a concept, but the politicization is ridiculous. There have been instances in which the Brown-Casey administration has used televised CitiStat theatrics to target its political opponents. Also, the staging, spin, and playing to the cameras doesn't help.

CitiStat is better than nothing, but it isn't focused on developing efficiencies and making reforms in how the city does business.

[Willis]

Oh come on Bill, not seriously they haven't done that at all:

"The Brown Administration, like the masiello administration before them has asked for reforms to Labor Laws, pension costs, health care, etc. that would cut local spending."

Bill, are they seriously pushing for the state to change the "final year overtime" being used as the basis for pension payment amounts? No.

Bill, are they seriously pushing for the state to revoke the Wicks Law? No.

Bill, are they seriously pushing for the state to revoke the Taylor Law? No.

Bill, are they irresponsibly pushing the state to end the city's hard Control Board BEFORE getting serious contract concessions from city unions? Yes. That one they are doing, and it's exactly the opposite of fiscal responsibility.

Bill, were Masiello and Brown both state legislators for many years before being mayor, and had plenty of opportunity while in Albany to push for state-level reforms and chose not to? Yes.

[Bill]

Willis,

Pension/OT- YES,
Taylor Law reform- YES
Wicks- not sure but not a City issue.
There is no will to do any of these things in Albany which is exactly my initial point! I agree with you that these are all issues needing reform. I again ask, where is the outrage towards Albany?

[Willis]

Bill, When you say "yes", you must be speaking for yourself which is fine. I agree with you.

But Mayor Brown would say "No" to those serious reforms.

Yet you claimed in a previous comment that Brown and Masiello before him were pushing for Albany reforms:

"The Brown Administration, like the masiello administration before them has asked for reforms to Labor Laws, pension costs, health care, etc."

That was the b.s. you were called on.

Brown is not pushing for any serious reforms. He doesn't want to further anger unions, so he might have their support in future runs for higher office.

Brown is a negative, not a postive. Masiello was also terrible. They are very similar in policy.

They are both parts of the big problem. And again, both of them served in the state legislature and did ZERO to push for such reforms then either!

[Bill]

Willis you obviously have not been paying attention. Mayor Brown has pushed for reform. To say that he "doesn't want to further anger unions" is clearly uninformed when just 2 weeks ago one of the City unions protested at a Brown event because the contract he offered called for too many concessions in health care(according to the union). He negotiated a fire contract that the control board approved because it contained the necessary structural reforms it was looking for only to have the union rank and file not ratify it (after the leadership agreed to it). Clearly he has stood up to the unions. I also believe that it is a cheap shot to point out that the Mayor was in the state leg. First of all Byron was a democrat in the republican controlled senate, which means that he was lucky to even have a staff. I find his record as Mayor to be far more meaningful which has included 3 consecutive years of cutting property taxes, keeping budget growth within the margin of inflation, implementing a management accountability program, growing a surplus, creating a "rainy day fund" through fiscally-conservative budgeting, reducing crime, and looking damn good while doing it all in less than three years. You can use buzz words like "reform" all you want and I agree this state needs major reform, but your piling on a Mayor who has clearly taken positive steps since taking office seems a bit unfair. I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on this point.

[Willis]

Bill, I do pay attention. It's you who selectively don't pay attention to my wording.

I wrote this (note the word "serious" prior to "reforms", and "further" prior to "anger"):

"Brown is not pushing for any serious reforms. He doesn't want to further anger unions, so he might have their support in future runs for higher office."

I acknowledged that Brown (much like Masiello before him) has pushed for SOME reforms, and I understand both Brown and Masiello have angered unions. You should read what I write more carefully.

I listed previously some examples of what I'd consider *serious* state-level reforms which not only have Brown and Masiello not proposed and not pushed for (as mayor and in their time as state legislators) - but you know very well that they would oppose thiose serious reforms - on behalf of their union benefactors.

Whatever party a legislator belongs to, they're free to publicly propose and push for legislation that they believe in. Had Brown or Masiello proposed and pushed for any of the following few examples, I'd give them a lot of credit for it - even if their proposals were defeated by other legislators:

- Big changes to the "final year overtime" being used as basis for pension payments.

- Revoke the Wicks Law.

- Revoke the Taylor Law.

- Big cuts in state business taxes and income taxes to help create jobs.

Also, Brown is very irresponsibly pushing the state to end the city's hard Control Board BEFORE getting serious contract concessions from city unions. That's exactly the opposite of long term fiscal responsibility, and of course he's doing it to gain favor of unions for his future political prospects.

[Bill]

Willis, with all due respect "revoke the taylor law." Why not ask the mayor to end world hunger? He would have about as much of a chance. And how can you say on one hand that "He doesn't want to further anger unions" (essentially acknowleging that he has taken a tough stance) and then say "he's doing it to gain favor of unions for his future political prospects." That doesn't make any sense. Do I agree with Brown on everything? No, but on balance I believe he is doing an outstanding job of turning this City around. I am not selectively evaluating him as you seem to indicate, but am focusing on the things he has done within his control. You can minimize his accomplishments by using words like "some" and "serious" all you want, but I stand by my support for him, and judging by most of the people I talk to throughout this City, they agree. I again ask where is the outrage towards Albany? Name one local state rep who has pushed for the so called "serious reform" you speak of.

[Willis]

Bill, Those two statements are perfectly consistent and you know it:

1.) BB not wanting to further anger unions

2.) BB irresponsibly pushing for an end to the hard control board before contract concessions have been made.

You sound like a very intelligent guy despite your politics, but there's a pattern here of you misinterpreting simple English. You either don't read every word carefully or for some odd reason you pretend to misunderstand.

We can agree to disagree about whether the Brown and Masiello administrations have been good for Buffalo. If you seriously think an "outstanding job" is under way, then well I'd hate to see what shape most of this city would be in if it was merely an ordinary job.

But I think I've clearly shown the emptiness of your original assertion that "The Brown Administration, like the masiello administration before them has asked for reforms to Labor Laws, pension costs, health care, etc. that would cut local spending."

I disagree that either one made serious attempts at "asking" for large cuts to mandated local spending. You've given no specifics. Exactly what reforms are you talking about? I've cited several examples with big impacts on local spending that they've never "asked" to be removed.

You say the Taylor Law is impossible to overturn? Like ending world hunger, is it? Even though it costs Buffalo a lot of local money and it's much more pro-union than laws of many other states?

Ok, how about BB at least try "asking" for a massive scale back of its pro-union provisions?

Is that impossible for him to attempt too? Why?

Wicks Law, likewise? BB couldn't possibly start "asking" Albany for that to be eliminated or greatly scaled back because.... why again? BB can't advocate for ending the system of milking overtime for pension calculations because... why?

The answer to all of those questions is BB not wanting to further anger unions. Further. Further. Further.

I use those as examples because many readers will be familiar with them.

BB's stance on the control board is another familiar example, and there's other examples as well.

Outstanding job? Yeah, heckuva job, Brown!

[Lydia Bezou-Hojnacki]

WHOA! "...a continuing retreat in City Hall's support of its public schools. A decade ago, the city provided schools with $64.1 million in operating aid, covering 12.3 percent of the district's expenses. City aid has since dropped, while district expenses have increased, and city assistance now accounts for only 6.6 percent of the School Board's budget...."

Why have school operating expenses increased when enrollment has decreased?

Maybe the city is on target with reduced aid. Where is the control board for the Buffalo Public Schools?

[Willis]

Article in Sunday's Buffalo News proves my point. The Brown administration is opposing the Unshackle Upstate group's efforts to lobby for Albany reforms to make NY State less hostile to business growth.

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/343910.html

Other upstate mayors support the group's efforts, but Mayor Brown prefers a more soft, gentle approach when asking his former colleagues in Albany to please, please, pretty please with sugar on it, consider a few mild reforms - when convenient and if it's not too much trouble.

Checkmate, Bill.

BB = nice guy, good cheerleader.

BB politics = status quo, no major reforms, support 90+% of the union agenda in Albany and even on the other 10% don't push too hard.

[Willis]

Lydia's right. School spending is runaway. One major reason is NY State's Taylor Law which weighs collective bargaining so far in the BTF's favor that they have no reason to give cost saving concessions. Even when the Bd of Ed tries any aggressive steps to encourage them to do so, the courts usually rule in favor of the BTF because the letter of the Taylor law is on their side.

Similar problems happen with other city unions too, but not on as large a scale.