Greenfield council fails to pass permanent appropriations ordinance

The city of Greenfield will not be able to issue any checks in 2011 unless legislation is passed at an emergency session, scheduled for next week, after the city failed to pass an ordinance establishing permanent appropriations for 2011. 

During its regular session Tuesday, council voted 3-1 to suspend the three-reading rules to consider passage of the emergency permanent appropriations ordinance. Council member Harvey Everhart voted against suspending the rules over what he called "glaring errors" in the legislation. When council member Brenda Losey, who was reading the ordinance and resolution items on the agenda, began to call for a vote for passage of the ordinance, Everhart said, "You can't," and pointed out that with his "no" vote council did not have enough votes to proceed.

A similar ordinance is passed each year by Greenfield, and other cities, so that business may continue into the next year. 

Council member Robert Bergstrom said that the city could either come up with a temporary appropriations ordinance or reconsider the current ordinance during an emergency session. Council president Betty Jackman was not in attendance at the meeting, as she was out of town. It was noted that she will be back in town for by Tuesday, Dec. 28, when council has scheduled an emergency session.  

Everhart had questioned finance director Karen Daniels on the matter prior to council's vote on the ordinance. He said that he had concerns that there were not enough funds to cover certain areas, particularly if the $579,050 would be enough for the police department, taking into consideration upcoming retirements and new officers, as well as $20,000 that had been appropriated for street paving. 

"I would like to state that this is a working document," Daniels said. "It's a template to move forward. I can't guarantee anything, but these are good conservative estimates. But things can change."

"So you have no assurances (that the city will have enough funds)," Everhart said. 

Daniels said, "I don't think any of us have assurances in anything that we do. But this has worked in the past, and we are proceeding conservatively." 

Council member William Redenbaugh said that he had concerns, as well, particularly in the area of paving, but this was a document that needed passage so the city could continue business. 

Addressing city manager Betty Bishop, Redenbaugh asked, "Betty, do you use this is a guideline on how to run the city?"

"Yes, I do," Bishop said. 

Bishop said that she would love to hire more people, particularly in the police department, because she receives calls every day from business owners with concerns over thefts and other crimes within the city. 

"If the economy would allow us to, I'd come back (to council) for more appropriations," Bishop said. "I want to put more people back to work. But if we do not get more money, then we won't get to."

Bishop said that initially in the permanent appropriations she had the city hiring new police officers incrementally throughout the year, but that was taken out in order to be more fiscally conservative. 

Following council's failure to pass the measure, Everhart said that it was his vote and his choice to make, but that he would vote in favor of its passage if the city would "fix the glaring errors. If you know you have glaring errors, I can't (vote for it)."

Everhart noted that in particular, he had concerns over the police pension fund. 

"Are you saying, Harvey, that if it doesn't suit your purposes you won't vote for it?" Redenbaugh asked. 

Everhart said it wasn't to suit his purposes, he just did not want to pass it with its current errors. 

Redenbaugh said the city had to pass the ordinance "to start the beginning of the year ... or our auditor can't legally issue a check. If you're saying this has to be perfect ..."

"I didn't say it had to be perfect," Everhart said. "I don't want a budget with glaring errors."

Redenbaugh said that last year the permanent appropriations were re-done "at least five different times," that the city uses it as a template, and that this budget will be reworked again, as well.

"Obviously there are some glaring errors," Redenbaugh said. "And you're right. You have your vote."