Alderwoman Jennifer Fuentes proposals for Kingstons 2012 budget

To: James Noble, Common Council president Please accept the following amendments to the 2012 Budget 1. I would like to restore $500,000 to the contingency fund. The plan to use $1.2 million dollars of our funds to keep our budget in line is a dangerous prospect and I believe not cost effective for the longterm. As we know, there are many "unexpected" expenses that come up and drain our contingency funds. We have already been made aware of the nightmare scenario that our safety net will present for the 2012 budget; we know that there are outstanding legal issues related to the King's Inn and the Firefighter's arbitration exposing the city for upwards of a million dollars; and we know that infrastructure improvements are desperately needed in all wards of the city (both identified and unexpected like flooding of graves, sewer collapses, and giant sinkholes to name a few). If we drain our contingency funds to zero over the next two budget cycles and are forced to borrow, then we will experience a much higher interest rate. In the end we are not saving the taxpayers anything, but raising the costs of providing city services for years to come. I don't believe the taxpayers would support mortgaging our future for the benefit of bridging our budget gap for one year. 2. I propose overriding the tax cap even if we do not need to exceed 2% after a thorough review of our budget. I think it is irresponsible NOT to send a message to the Governor that the 2% cap is reckless and a political gimmick without state mandate relief. Moreover, the arrogance of refusing to extend the minimal tax surcharge on the wealthiest New Yorkers to help us dig out of this economic downturn, while asking local municipalities and school districts to sacrifice essential services is beyond comprehension. Kingston is also in the unusual position of coping with the disproportionate safety net expense that we pay - more of which will be transferred to our budget next year. The state legislature had the opportunity to provide sensible and desperately needed property tax relief with the circuit breaker, but instead opted for the tax cap. To reward this behavior by simply going along with it is something I am unwilling to do. 3. I would like to move the funding from DPW back to Parks until an actual plan for coordinated services between these departments has been developed. No savings have been shown and the move "may bring" greater efficiencies for both departments under new management. I am not confident that this move will not rob Peter to pay Paul and I am unwilling to further erode the staffing of Parks and Rec.