City of LB Proposed Annual Budget for Fiscal Year July 1st, 2012 – June 30th, 2013

I haven’t had a second to even look at this yet, but the City of Long Beach posted the Proposed Annual Budget for Fiscal Year July 1st, 2012 – June 30th, 2013.

Ok, I did take a quick peak and saw something about buckets. They all look like empty buckets.

Anyway, check out the document and let us know what you think. View the PDF here.

Thank you Citizens For Long Beach, NY for the link!

 

Please read the terms of service before you comment.

comments

19 thoughts on “City of LB Proposed Annual Budget for Fiscal Year July 1st, 2012 – June 30th, 2013”

  1. Right off the bat I see the Fed and State stiffed us for close to 5 mil. I paid close $500.00 in parking fines but someone’s slacking there also. And that’s from a cretin’s brief view.

  2. Why are we budgeting 1.5 mil federal emergency disaster aid in the new budget? Shouldn’t that money be used as “Inherited Budget Reduction” . Smoke and mirrors, that is what you learn in Harvard!

  3. The current administration was dealt a bad hand; however, they knew that coming in (perhaps not to the level they now understand). I applaud their recognition of the terrible fiscal condition of the City and some of the steps they have undertaken to rein in spending. Those steps, and most of the steps focused upon in the blueprint (I have not yet had time to review the 200 page proposed budget yet, but will), are not permanent in any respect and do nothing, so far as I can see, to tackle the structural problem created by years (dacades, more likely; we cannot fairly blame it all on the prior administration) of allowing the City payroll to grow to outsize the revenues (from any sources) the City can fairly generate and count upon, all the while, largely ignoring necessary infrastructure maintenance, improvements and replacements. To right this ship will require serious pain sharing by all – – City employees — via headcount, salary and benefit adjustments; residents — by some reduction/change in services and increased taxes; non-residents — by increased user fees; businesses, by contributing more to quality of life issues around their establishments and, perhaps, some service agreements with the City; and political machinery, that will need to stop using the City’s employment rolls for rewards and punishments. Citizens need to show up at City Hall and become active and demand that tough decisions be taken. This City and its residents need and deserve this from City management.

  4. Checked out the proposed budget and Tagney’s $185,000 salary jumped off the page. I don’t think Ray Kelly gets that much and he is in charge of the NYPD a 35,000 member police force. You gotta be kidding Tagney has a High School diploma and a mediocre police career and he is getting $185,000. So much for sharing the pain!

  5. NYC Police Commissioner, Ray Kelly only makes $175,000. How in the world can anyone justify paying $185,000 in LB? This is only one of serveral items where I think spending needs to be reined in. No wonder we are in this financial mess. Between the bloated salaries of the police department and their continued purchase of expensive, unnecessary vehicles, one would think LB was printing money.

  6. A 16% tax increase and no outrage, whats the deal are Jack and crew just going to get away with this? We have a Poice Commisioner that is in for a salary of $185,000 thats $ 10,000 more than Ray Kelly, NYPD Comm, is paid $175,000. There are lots of hidden gems inthe proposed budget like the $46,000 raise for the new Director of Youth Services. I thought the idea of getting new blood was that it would save money not costs more !

  7. Folks — read the proposed budget. The revenues do not meet the costs, and they have not for years. That is how we spent down the surplus/rainy day fund. The administration is seeking to balance this imbalance in 3 ways: (1) controls and cuts in overtime, cuts in discretionary spending, basically no new hires except ltd ones in the City mgt (ltd “exempt” (non-union employees)); (2) $7mm of City employee compensation costs (not defined, but can only come about through headcount and wage reductions and/or benefit contributions); and (3) tax raises. You can disagree with where the fixing of the imbalance occurs, but you cannot ignore the imbalance (unless, of course, you believe the numbers are a fiction; in which case, I would love for that to be the case and would appreciate a laying out of exactly what the fiction is). This is not a “this administration” or “that administration” issue. Every administration has layered on headcount. (Except the current one which has only been here a short time. Those are facts.) The culture needs to be changed; the cost structure needs to be corrected, no matter who is running the administration. So, please, let’s not get caught up in this nonsense about kicking these guys out. We have them for a couple more years no matter what. Let’s make them do what is the will of the taxpayers. And the same for the next administration, too.

    So, please review the budget and challenge it. I do not want my taxes going up. So I am pressing the administration to cut costs, both through these blog entries, direct communications and City Council meetings. Please join me in these efforts.

Comments are closed.