Council requests third budget proposal which would limit growth to $1 million

By Leah Shaffer

This year's city budget battles saw another twist Tuesday, as the Eden Prairie City Council passed a resolution  requesting a third budget proposal – one which would limit growth to $1 million, or approximately 2.5 percent.

In lending his support to the measure, Mayor Phil Young emphasized that he views this third budget only as “an analytical tool.”

Council member Jon Duckstad, who proposed the resolution, also noted that, “it’s only an alternative.”

It “directs the City Manager to prepare an alternative total proposed budget for 2008 not to exceed the sum of $40,261,313,” and for 2009, “not to exceed the sum of $41,261,333.”

That third budget would limit spending compared to the two other current budgets also being discussed. Early this spring, city staff came up with an original version of the budget with an increase of 9.3 percent, or a total budget of $42,254,786 for 2008.

This summer, the City Manager then proposed budget 2.0, which limits growth to 6.3  percent. This 2.0 budget included cuts to housing and human services, both in staff and the total amount available for charitable grants.

It was a move that has generated ongoing controversy within the community. A citizen group was formed to oppose the cuts. Citizens came forward to the open podium section of the meeting Tuesday night, to continue to voice support for maintaining the current level of social services.

John Urbanski presented signatures to the council in support of social services.

He offered reasons why the city should continue to fund charitable organizations such as PROP, one of those reasons being that cutting city grants gives a vote of no confidence to these organizations, he said.

“Cuts in funding could snowball into larger reductions.”

Oppose resolution

Council members Sherry Butcher and Kathy Nelson voted against the proposed resolution.

Butcher said she didn’t understand the need for the third proposal.

Bottom line “it’s an incredibly arbitrary number,” she said about the $1 million limit.

She said it puts a restriction on the budget.

“I am really not comfortable with this,” she said.

In an interview before the meeting, Duckstad noted that another reason for getting this proposal is to get input from each department.

“If there was a decision to try to slow the growth of city government, who would be in a better position to make that decision than the people running the departments themselves?” he said.

During the meeting, Duckstad said maybe staff will let them know that such cuts are impossible but, he added, in response to Butcher and Nelson’s opposition, a smaller budget shouldn’t be rejected until it has been reviewed.

“I’m only asking for the opportunity to see a smaller budget.”

Butcher warned against comparing budget increases from year to year, which “does not give you a picture of what has actually happened,” in the city, she said.

Speaking of a number computed to give the inflation rate of cities, she said at the most basic level there is an increase of 4.3 percent. With a 2.5 percent increase, “we do have to cut,” she warned.

During the course of their discussion, the council asked the City Manager what would be the cost of working on the third budget.

Scott Neal said he could provide them with the options.

Neal noted that the budgets are based on the council giving them direction on service levels, not on a certain percentage increase.

Going through the exercise of offering the third budget option “is not without cost,” he noted.

There is no way to hold out cuts to police and fire with such a budget, according to Neal.

“There’s an employee relations cost,” he said.