A capacity crowd filled the city hall auditorium on March 27th for the final hearing before the council's vote to approve the 2008 budget. The budgetary process, consisting of at least a dozen meetings over the last three months, has suddenly piqued the publics interest. Many long and tedious hours had already been spent by the administration, council members and a few curious onlookers debating the viability and necessity of each department and division.

The current administration was forced to make tough decisions after inheriting a projected $4 million deficit. The State of Ohio Auditor's Office confirmed these numbers to be within 2%. Ohio Administrative Code prohibits cities from operating in the red.

Mayor FitzGerald's stance on the budget fulfilled the pledges made during his campaign. Spending has been drastically reduced, resources shifted and the staff trimmed. A police initiative adding four full time and up to ten part time officers promises to make the city a safer place.

During the past three months of ongoing debate, the fine points of those issues which came to a head on Thursday night were discussed, ad nauseam. At these discussions many details of the budget were worked out. The lack of public interest to this point led to flaring tempers throughout the evening of the final hearing.

The budget is divided into many parts. Most of the services that give Lakewood its personality such as police, fire, human services, refuse and public works operate out out of the general fund. Unfortunately, spending had outpaced revenue causing a structural imbalance.

Prior to the budget hearings all departments were asked to develop plans to increase the efficiency of their operations. Cuts exceeding $1.5 million presented by department heads to the administration fell far short of the $4 million needed to make the budget work. The administration and council were now faced with the difficult decision to determine what divisions supply “core services”. Those not defined as such would be reduced or eliminated to meet the $36 million mandatory budget cap put in place by the council earlier this month.

On March 18th, the council and administration listened to facts and feelings as division heads justified their department's existence. Acting upon actual and perceived changes in neighborhood safety, Mayor FitzGerald introduced his promised police initiative.

Changes include: an increase in police presence on the streets and in the parks, the hiring of four new officers to be liaisons to each city ward and an addition of up to ten new part time officers to do essential tasks, thus freeing full time Lakewood officers to patrol the streets. Chief Malley stated that during the first two months of 2008 the police have written 50% as many tickets as in the entire year of 2007. Additional revenue from stepped up law enforcement may help offset the $380,000 price tag of the initiative, which will not fully impact the bottom line until 2009.

Other initiatives such as partnering with the school system may prevent crime before it happens. New surveillance cameras in Lakewood Park will be added to compliment the those already installed in other locations around the city. The 70's era block watches seem to be experiencing a resurgence and will enjoy support from the ward officers.

Through creative staffing at the fire department's three stations, Chief Mroz estimates that over $500,000 in overtime pay will be eliminated. Although the reduction in total required fire personnel on duty at any given time will be reduced, effect will be minor on the fire department's ability to staff most of its equipment. This substantial cost saving is accomplished with no reduction in fire personnel and is a relief from excessive overtime costs which had contributed to the current budget crisis.

Although many departments have seen a decrease in spending, the administrative workers have faired better. Along with the police initiative, the following divisions received modest increases in funding for 2008: Courts, Mayor's Office, Law, Planning and Development, Income Tax and Civil Service.

Apprehension was visibly apparent as the public works department came under scrutiny. Acting Public Works Director Howard Strong sat stoically as the administration preceded to unveil their plans to potentially privatize each of the divisions under his oversight. Although savings can be obtained by contracting certain city services out to private companies, there was intense discussion regarding the functions of those employees. Some are cast contractually into one role but actually perform a myriad of tasks. The administration admitted that it is difficult to wrap a single Request for Proposal (RFP) around such broad based job descriptions.

Other services such as tree maintenance were also looked at as potential areas of outsourcing. Council members wondered how, in an event such as the recent ice storm, the city would cope with a reduced labor force. The administration stated that in these tough financial times there would have to be more interdepartmental coordination.

The threat of privatization is tempered by the city's contractual responsibility to negotiate with the unions, which specifically requires giving them the chance to match costs. The Mayor is currently in negotiations and contract law prohibits revealing the details of these discussions. The desired outcome would entail retaining jobs and services while bringing operating costs down to an acceptable level.

Many departments achieved cost savings by eliminating vacant positions. In some cases future positions that, according to department heads, would have had a great impact on all city departments were left unfilled. An example of this was a GIS tech to be added to the Information Systems budget. The Geographic Information System could have been used to better coordinate all city functions but sadly became a budget fatality.

The Human Services Department was hardest hit, having its budget slashed by an estimated $830,000. Divisions such as aging and youth provide a great number of services to a diverse group of individuals helping them remain independent and healthy. Funding cuts will have a varying impact on each division and issues are further complicated due to the fact that the city receives matching funds for many of the dollars spent. Impact from these cuts was fiercely debated.

The council and administration's rationale for taking these drastic reduction is informed by the Structural Balance Committee's recommendations as to what constitutes “core services” for the city. Human Services was reduced to a second tier service without input from the community that this division serves. Questions and controversy as to whether Cuyahoga County has the ability to absorb this population and provide these services in place of Lakewood dominated the conversation. Currently Lakewood outspends other suburbs in these areas and is considered this regions “gold standard” for human services.

Evidently, word had spread to the community served by Health and Human Services and they were well represented at the March 27th meeting. Tempers flared as citizens wishing to make comments sat by and watched as Councilman Summers asked, on behalf of council, for an additional $400,000 cut in these services in order to maintain funding for backyard garbage collection.

Debate shifted to the refuse department represented by acting director Carol Rothgary. The administration, in other meetings, had expressed the belief that refuse was “the last piece” in the budget puzzle. Mandatory recycling and a $400,000 reduction in funding would effectively end backyard garbage collection.

As the debate over refuse continued the audience grew more agitated.

“Trash is more important than people!” someone shouted strangely reminiscent of the film Soylent Green in which the government turned its citizens into crackers.

Frustration by all parties was evident and understandable. A heated exchange from an audience member wanting to address council was met by an appeal for patience from Council President Dever. Although council had worked for nearly three months on these issues, those potentially affected by these cuts may have just been informed of them.

Dever then introduced a motion to partially restore funding to Refuse but further reduce spending in Human Services, Courts and Public Works. The emotional debate continued.

Questions were now taken from the audience. The majority expressed concern that their lives would be adversely effected by these changes. Others questioned the logic behind cutting city funding for programs that receive matching funds leading to an unexpected and exponential loss of services. Still others felt that the council and administration were pitting Human Services against Refuse.

“If you cut human services too much you are harming a great amount of people” one admonished, “we vote...and remember that”.

Mayor FitzGerald stated other options would be cutting police, shutting down a fire station or selling one of our parks and that even after the cuts Lakewood will still have the biggest human services department of any suburb. Because of the sensitivity of both Refuse and Human Services he had reserved discussion on these items until the end of the budget process.

Further debated ensued concerning the balancing act between funding Human Services which helps the most vulnerable residents and Refuse which effects a greater number of people.

“The only other alternative is to pass a budget that wasn't balanced and have the state come in here and make the cuts for us,” stated FitzGerald.

When there were no more questions from the audience, Council President Dever introduced a motion to redistribute the $400,000 reduction in spending formerly slated for Refuse. Human Services would lose an additional $100,000, the Court had already pledged to reduce their budget by $76,000, Refuse would be down $75,000, Parks $24,000, Buildings and Facilities Fund $25,000 and a end of year balance would be adjusted to $100,000 down from $200,000.

When asked if these additional cuts would have an impact on those divisions affected by this change, each director without hesitation said that it would.

Mayor FitzGerald expressed the hope that if the city ends up operating more efficiently than anticipated money can be moved around to restore some of what has been lost.

He summed up the evening by saying, “We will live with those cuts....there's no more wiggle room.”