City Council Reviews Budget May 20, 2015

Temple Ligon

 

COLUMBIA, SC – For fiscal year 2015-2016 the city’s budget in brief was presented Tuesday night at City Hall. Ms. Melisa Caughman, budget and program management director, reviewed the proposed budget.

 

FY 15/16 operating funds summary:

General fund (45%)             $130,727,558

Parking fund (2%)               $7,274,500

Water and sewer (46%)      $133,780,145

Storm water (2%)                $7,104,000

Hospitality fund (4%)          $10,655,603

Accommodations (1%)         $2,100,801

 

General fund highlights:

• The FY 15/16 general fund budget is $130,727,558, an increase of $3,263,468 or    2.6%.
• Reflects a 2-mill reduction in property taxes.
• Increases the franchise fee from 3% to 5%.
• Funding for public safety received top priority with a more than $2,600,000 increase in departmental funding.
• Replaces the transfer of $4,000,000 from Water & Sewer Fund with a Public Safety transfer of $2,675,605 (33% reduction).
• Reflects shifting of almost $1,600,000 in expenses from water and sewer that allows the proposed water and sewer rate increase to be reduced from the originally proposed 12.1% to a final recommendation of 9.5%.

 

All which put the coming fiscal year ‘s proposed budget in a favorable light, for the most part. Council member Cameron Runyan, however, had much to say about the presented budget, which he put into writing and made available to everyone present.

Some of Runyan’s laments follow, and the language quoted is entirely his:

“Adjusted for inflation, expenditures would have increased to approximately $66,500,000 or an increase of 54% from 1995 to 2015. Thus the actual growth of Columbia’s government is nearly 4x the rate of inflation and nearly 20x the rate of the population growth.”

“For FY 2014/15 and forward a unanimous request was made to the City Manager by the Budget Committee to produce a flat/no spending increase budget that would place a greater emphasis on public safety and basic services. That budget was never produced and thus Columbia’s government continues to grow at approximately twenty times the rate of the population of the city.”

“For FY 2015/16, three separate attempts were made to bring forth alternatives that would rein in the unsustainable growth rate of Columbia’s government, stop the transfer from the water and sewer system in the face of EPA mandates, and provide relief to citizens and business tax payers who are about to see their electricity bills raised by $5 Million and their water bills by 47%. Even the further discussion of such alternatives was not allowed as each motion was defeated (3-3, 4-3, 4-3).”

On the obverse of the same sheet distributed by Runyan, he lays out four complaints. Again, Runyan is quoted directly:

“(1) The Manger’s office did not produce a General Fund budget for consideration until April 14^th. Prior to that date, there was no budget for the Council or Budget Committee to consider.”

“(2) The same day that the Manager’s budget was produced, a previously  unannounced alternative budget was also introduced. No requests for assistance, discussion, input (or even notification of an impending alternative budget(s) were made or discussed with the Council or Budget Committee.”

“(3) The Budget Committee convened two days later on April 16^th to discuss part of the finally produced budget(s) and to explore ways to begin to rein in the continued explosive growth of fee, fine and tax burdens being placed on Columbia’s citizens and businesses.”

“(4) There are currently unfulfilled requests to the Manager’s office from the Budget Committee on the table. The most notable outstanding, unanimous request from the Budget Committee is for the Manager to produce a flat, no spending increase budget that places a greater emphasis on public safety and other basic services of the city. Had this unanimous request been fulfilled, there would be no need for the proposed massive revenue increases and the water and sewer transfer could have been eliminated in the proposed budget. On numerous occasions, it has been publicly stated that the Manager’s Office does not have to abide by the requests of the Budget Committee, thus we have yet to receive the requested flat budget and numerous other outstanding committee requests.”

 

.

.