The Courts Vs. Core Services--It's Not One Or The Other!--Isn't It?

During a recent Council discussion on the court project it became apparent that there is a difference of opinion regarding how to deal with our current financial difficulties and on City priorities. I had just agreed with Councilman Ellis that under the current economic situation no new funding should be provided, nor debt increased, for the court project this year and instead focus on core services--public safety, services, and education. At this point I was told by one of my collogues that I should stop implying that we can only either move the court project forward or maintain services. This came as a bit of a surprise for me.
As it has been reported, almost on a daily basis and in multi-media, localities will see significant reductions in state funding in all areas. One has only to look what local school districts are going through and they are now only dealing with state cuts. Funding at the local level is still up for discussion. Last night we authorized the use of our gas tax funds for snow removal expenses and to make up a $65,000 cut in our road maintenance budget from the state. Even when fully funded the state contribution doesn't cover the city's actual costs.
Local revenue is still lagging and last year the city used almost two million in reserves and the budget still came in lower than the previous year. So we start the coming year already in a hole. We were able to provide some additional funds to the schools last year by bring in designated reserves--a one-time expenditure. We don't have any to use this year.
We have seen the city workforce not only reduced due to attrition, but also no raises, the suspension of a retirement program, and increased benefit costs-- meaning actual salary reductions. We have deferred need maintenance on equipment and capital projects and have reduced funding to core services. And this year's budget will be worse than last years. So you can understand my surprise with the implication that we can both move forward with court project and maintain core services to residents.
My response to my colleague's remark was to ask the City Manager if there was some new funding sources that I was not aware of that could be used for the court project. I was told that bonds would have to be sold and new debt incurred. As previously reported the total cost of the new court facility will translate to 6 to 9 cents on the tax rate. So, to move the court project forward and maintain services will require additional tax increase in addition to those for the courts, and or further reductions in the budget outside of core services.
On the tax front I have already mentioned that sales and related taxes are down or flat. On the real estate side we are soon to go into another assessment cycle and as seen in Spotsylvania the residential market has not bounced back as much as we have hoped. During our last assessment we got in before the drop in the commercial market, which usually lags 12 to 18 months behind residential, so we are now looking at lower commercial values. Taking bets on whether the assessment will be deferred. So how much more can we raise taxes in an already depressed economy with high unemployment?
Although I consider myself a good Republican I do not subscribe to the "No Tax" mantra as stated in a number of previous posts. For me the deciding fact is the benefit of an expenditure in either the area of expanding the tax base and or bettering the quality of life of our residents. Frankly, for the cost involved, and based on the current economic conditions, I don't see any significant benefit in moving forward with the court project. It is my contention, which a majority of my colleagues disagree, that moving forward with the court at this time could be detrimental to our commercial base, services, and quality of life of our residents.
The majority response is that the courts are inadequate and it is our "moral obligation" to replace them. That to move forward now will mean we can get a better price due to the depressed economic conditions. As for our "moral obligation" I thought we owed that to city residents by providing them a good quality of life. As for costs benefits I would point out that you first have to have the money. Right now we don't have it unless we significantly raise taxes. And the argument for the price savings could also be made for deferred projects and infrastructure improvements that will have a more beneficial impact on the city than will a new court facility.
As for additional cuts outside of core services that is an decision which this Council has avoided for three years. Each year we talk about it and each year we give everybody who asks some level of funding. This after two years of telling such groups, or sending letters, advising them not to expect funding next year. And each year the Council says we will talk about budget priorities next year. The question of what services should local government be supporting is one that I have asked repeatedly, and posted on, and am still awaiting an answer. We do need to prioritize our expenditures and the court project should not be high in the list.
I have asked for a public presentation on the court project including an overview of the current city finances, a time line for the project, costs for the design, cost of the project, funding sources for it, and its implication on the budget. And now, based on the comments from some of my collogues, I would expect an explanation from them on how we move the court project forward without impacting core service. And also what do they see as the city's priorities. That presentation should come sooner rather than later.
Do you see the court project as a priority for the city? Are you willing to see services reduced further or pay higher taxes so this project can move forward?