Read on Twitter
I'll be posting notes and observations as I read the City's official FY 2021-23 budget online tool. I do think we still need a hard, line by line copy of the budget for real transparency. At the moment I'm writing this, that's not available anywhere.
First of all, say goodbye to aspirations that the Mayor herself would incorporate some of the no-brainer Reimagining items. The IAD-Police Commission transfer's not in there, and right off the bat informing they will increase OT to Homelessness unit
WTH?
Comparing proposed OPD general purpose fund expenditure from '21-22 to proposed 19-20 budget. In '19-20, budgeted expenditure was $291 mil. Actual was $320 mil--a $29 mil over-spend. Schaaf seeks to normalize that over-expenditure in '21-22, increase it by another 8 mil in 22-23
The bottom line here, and it shouldn't be surprising with the Chekov's Shotgun proclamations of the Schaaf administration, is that the City seeks to fix OPD overspending by enlarging the police budget by the over-spending.
I must say, as well, there's nothing in the budget book website that has made reading the budget easier. In fact, it's a bit more of a challenge when adding the new format, and some of the weird dynamic formatting problems
Here's one of the glitches in the budget book platform. This table can't be altered in any way, most of the information is out of view
I was able to see the far right column by shrinking the view, but that now means the totals are not visible.
A frustrating issues w/OPD OT is projected vs actuals never confirm inclusions of "reimbursable" OT. OPD says OT in '19-20 was $41 mil while Finance Dept says it was 35 mil. With either, tho, Schaaf's '21-23 OT budget would still be an under-budget of OT vs historical expenditure
Using Schaaf Admin's reasoning about "right-sizing" OPD's budget to reflect historical spending, they still under-rightsized. New "right-sized" budget will still overspend in actual by 3 to 8 mil depending on how "reimbursed" amts are factored [& if they are actually reimbursed]
I'm not the only person who feels like the absence of a pdf budget limits the transparency and usefulness of the budget doc. I just saw an email by a staffer asking the mayor for the pdf budget. And yeah, I want it to. A searchable PDF is the "right-sized" dynamism for me, thanks
The other obvious problem with this is that during an internet outage, no one would be able to read the budget.
And unless they add it to budget item there won't be a physical record in the legislative history of the budget document that will be discussed. You'll have to open one of the report PDF's to find the link. In a few years, that will add up to a substantive lack of transparency
Also good luck trying to find out how the ARPA fund [2072] is being allocated in both years. This is the closest I've found, but it includes all types of transfers into the general fund, so difficult to say for sure without guessing
![Also good luck trying to find out how the ARPA fund [2072] is being allocated in both years. This is the closest I've found, but it includes all types of transfers into the general fund, so difficult to say for sure without guessing](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0z_y2SUYAEOs24.png "Also good luck trying to find out how the ARPA fund [2072] is being allocated in both years. This is the closest I've found, but it includes all types of transfers into the general fund, so difficult to say for sure without guessing")
![Also good luck trying to find out how the ARPA fund [2072] is being allocated in both years. This is the closest I've found, but it includes all types of transfers into the general fund, so difficult to say for sure without guessing](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E0z_2FrUUAMQzZW.png "Also good luck trying to find out how the ARPA fund [2072] is being allocated in both years. This is the closest I've found, but it includes all types of transfers into the general fund, so difficult to say for sure without guessing")
One thing to be wary of in the Mayor's letter. The "enhancement" spoken of here for Workplace and Employment standards is actually just filling SOME vacancies dept already had. Advocates say the department needs amplification even beyond the minimum staffing levels
More bullshit. This same dynamic happened in the last budget cycle and Schaaf smeared Council the entire time for turning in an unbalanced budget. But more than that, this "surging economy" was the same economy that Schaaf complained could not sustain SEIU and IFPTE raises. Wow
FYI on this specific bulky block party claim. I researched and also confirmed on the ground that the majority of Bulky Block Parties workers were people in justice system working off low-level jail sentences, not DPW
Another lie--one of big misinfos the City relies on, spouting the word "rainy day" all the time. There's 2 emergency funds. The larger is called Emergency Reserve, and it is for EMERGENCIES. Every decision of past year has been based on maintaining or restoring it. It's intact.
Just a note on how I calculate what Schaaf decided to add to the police budget vs the entire police budget. I only look at 1010, GPF. Adding false alarm fund, Measure Z, Insurance, etc, give you a false understanding of choices she's making, these aren't discretionary, nor fixed.
Because what's also missing from this is the fact that OPD will also get nearly 10% Measure KK facilities improvement funds for the 21-23 FY, or $17 million. 3rd highest by department, and that's higher than OFD.
Is this part of the "$41 million" that Schaaf's introductory letter and media say Schaaf added to budget for homeless? These are all pre-existing services like E-shelters, Cabins, Homebase, being funded with state and federal money that COUNCIL!!!! voted to accept a few weeks ago
Also includes Measure Q funding--which can't be allocated any other way. Here's the breakdown of 21 mil in funds, allocation last year, & predicted allocation this year. The way they've set it up is complex, due to varying nature of allowable expenditures, plus deadlines to spend
This would seem to be the "41 million". The least you should expect from a news source is that they can identify where in a budget they money they announce is in the budget came from. As its an online document, that would be fairly easy to do with a link and explanation
Another thing I'm feeling. Mid-cycle adjustment can totally alter 2nd budget year. Adding to that "actuals" for most preceding year--the mid-cycle year--isn't available during budgeting. Seems pointless to compare anything but actuals and first year projection, IMO. Am I wrong?
What explains the tripling of the non-departmental expenditures in the 21-22 budget vs actuals in the 19-20 budget? Anyone?
When you click non departmental through the magic of the interactivity of the budget book, it has the very helpful "citywide activities" explaining the bulk. Regardless, calculations of the % of total GPF have been doing it with this 80 million increase to "dept"
One of the problems with Friday's headlines that claimed police made up a smaller proportion of Schaaf's budget than previous is this budget has like 100 mil in additional funds being balanced due to ARPA. Budget is bigger, but its bigger in Non-Departmental expenditures
More importantly, as non-departmental is basically a way of showing what is being transferred from & into funds, almost assuredly, given past behavior, a large part of ARPA funds will be used to balance the budget in case of police over-spending--i.e., some ND will go to police
This feels like a scam. Oakland was treated to a ring-side seat of how City Administrator uses their own discretion to allocate OT, even when its over the OPD budget, and even when its over the entire budget. Doesn't seem like knocking "officially" designated OT is meaningful
Last tweet on this thread before today's Budget meeting. I did [caveat it's napkin math] math on the amount of Capital improvements $$ OPD is getting in FY 21-23 vs both Library & OPRYD. OPD with $18.2 mil vs OPRYD $9.39 mil and Library $4 mil. More than both put together.
