Special Board of Aldermen 6-13-2022 Page 15
You're welcome. Alderman Cathey?
Alderman Cathey
Thank you Madam Chair. | agree with Alderman Clemons. The grants should not be included. It does not make
sense to me that we would add them in as an expenditure and much to other Aldermen’s points about grants having
to be used. | know there is a lot of restrictions on a lot of grants. Some of them are time-based so we may lose it
after that year and never get it back. So to me, it doesn’t make any sense. If | had a house budget and then I’m
walking down the street and find a $100 bill, | could go home and add it to my budget if | want to and then spend it and
call it an expenditure or | can just take my wife out to dinner and my budget isn’t affected one bit at all. It just doesn’t
make any sense to me. So | would be in favor of at least taking care of the grant issue because it just makes no
sense to me.
In considering tonight’s meeting, I’m not really worried about solving the budget cap or worrying about the spending
cap. My main goal was to understand the cap because as an Alderman and a man who likes to do things correctly, |
don’t want to pass any budget without understanding everything | can about fiscal responsibilities of the City, and what
things our budget is subject to, and what things our budget is not subject to. Even if we’re 1000% under the cap, |
don’t care. | want to Know what the cap is, how it applies, how it does not apply because there is a lot of information
flying around. So if | call myself an Alderman who cares about the voters of this City, then I’m going to find out
everything | can about anything that has to do with the budget whether that’s spending cap, accounting Procedures. It
doesn’t matter so | can make the best decision come budget time. Yeah that might not have anything to do with the
cap, that’s fine. | still want to know what the cap is. | still want to know how it applies. Still helpful. So | think this
meeting is super beneficial at least to me. It was only beneficial to me. Sorry you're all here. | appreciate it.
The last comment I'll make or | have a question. Have we ever been over the cap in a significant way? Grants
notwithstanding but just in a regular budgetary proceedings? Have we ever when we had the cap back in the day is
anyone familiar with like we ever had an issue where we were way over the cap and we had to cut jobs, or cut funding
to City thing, or have we always been pretty under the cap considerations?
Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel
There have been years in the early 2000’s when the provisions to exclude principle and Interest on bonded debts
and/or capital expenditures. Those exclusions were applied in some years. Once those exclusions were applied, the
level of expenditures permitted is obviously higher. We've always been under that raised ceiling.
Alderman Cathey
So we've never really had a significant issue with the cap where we had to really rein in our spending as it were?
Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel
Well in order to get to that level that was under the cap, some hard choices occasionally had to be made. Some
employees went without an annual increase in compensation. Some desired expenditures were delayed. We got in
trouble one year with the Federal government over the number of English as a second language teachers was
inadequate. So there were struggles to meet those levels at times but no we were never over the resulting limitation
after exclusions were applied.
Alderman Cathey
Thank you.
Alderman Sullivan
Thank you Madam President. What would prevent us from just passing something on the Charter that would say that
the general fund could not be over a certain amount and just leave it to one line item and just be done with it?
Steve Bolton, Corporation Counsel
Well you can’t pass amendments to the Charter. It has to be done by...
Alderman Sullivan
