Most everyone who talked at a public hearing Monday evening agreed that last summer's city budget process was dysfunctional.
But they didn't agree on a solution.
Councilwoman Cyndi Lamm asked the council to delay any vote on putting her proposed fix before voters on the May ballot until the Jan. 9 council meeting, so she could work with the city's law department on the language.
Some people who testified like Lamm's proposed charter amendment that gives the council more time to study the mayor's budget proposal and would change the fallback position if the council and mayor cannot agree on a two-year budget.
Small towns need to have an executive with a lot of authority, said Russell Barger, a Lincoln attorney. But Lincoln is not a small town and the legislative branch, the City Council, should have more control over the purse strings, he said.
People are also reading…
Barger said he was disappointed that discussion of Lamm's proposal appears to be more "partisan bickering," rather than aimed at finding a solution.
But others said the council should first send Lamm's proposal to the charter revision commission, a group of private citizens who review charter changes, before being put on the citywide ballot.
It should not be easy to change the charter. And every change should be carefully considered, said Mary Boschult, with the local League of Women Voters.
And several of the Democrats on the council raised some of the problems listed in an eight-page memo from Mayor Chris Beutler's staff that was issued Monday afternoon.
The proposal needs more study, the Beutler administration said.
“At this point, the Administration simply does not have enough information to understand the proposal, let alone to be able to outline an accurate response as to how it would work in practice,†said the analysis by Rick Hoppe, chief of staff, and Don Herz, finance director.
Some of the potential problems relate to the fallback position. Currently the mayor’s proposed two-year budget becomes the city budget if the council and mayor don’t agree. Under Lamm’s plan, last year’s budget and last year’s revenues form the basis for the next budget when an impasse occurs.
That could lead to a tax levy cut or a tax increase, without a council vote or public hearing, according to the analysis by the Beutler administration.
That part of Lamm's proposal could hurt the city’s ability to meet financial obligations and harm the city’s triple-A bond rating. And public safety would not be exempt from cuts with this fallback provision, according to the analysis.
The fallback position included in Lamm's plan could require the mayor to make decisions on required spending cuts without public hearings and without council approval.
The proposed amendment doesn’t allow for new capital projects under the fallback plan, “greatly slowing our infrastructure development,†according to the analysis.
The earlier budget timeline outlined in the Lamm proposal -- the mayor would have to release his plan by May 1, not mid-July -- would require the administration to develop a plan before knowing what the property tax base will be and before any changes by the state Legislature are final.
The Lamm proposal appears to prohibit the mayor from making any amendments after submitting the budget, according to the analysis.
If approved by the council, the proposed city charter amendment will go on the city general election ballot in May.