On Tuesday evening, December 15, the Lancaster City Council passed its 2010 budget with little fanfare. Due to rising benefit costs and sinking property tax revenues, the budget will cut police and fire services while raising property taxes 25%. City residents—attending in numbers at least twice that of an ordinary Council meeting—voiced their opposition and support for the measure, which, regardless of how warranted, will present new difficulties to private citizens in an already difficult time.

Kendra Saunders, Chair of the Finance Committee, weighed in on the budget as it was introduced for approval. “I really think none of us want to pass a budget like this one,” Saunders said, “But, unfortunately, I think it’s something we have to do [for] the long-term fiscal health of our City.” Saunders, who did not seek reelection for 2010, was later honored by members of Council for her four completed years of service. This was her final meeting as a member of City Council.

When members of the public began to address Council regarding the budget, tones were firm while opinions were mixed.

One Lancaster City woman asserted that, while public safety services will be cut, the City’s administrative personnel continue to be provided “large salaries.” The City of Philadelphia, she noted, has imposed 10-20% pay cuts among its administrative staff. “If larger cities can cut salaries, administrative personnel, and unnecessary spending, then so can Lancaster City,” she said.

R.B. Campbell, a current board member on the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority, observed that the City’s 2005 arrangement to free the Marriott Hotel of tax-paying status is “coming back to us now.” Campbell asserted that the hotel “should have been paying property tax like every other for-profit business in the city.”

City resident Randolph Carney expressed concern regarding the impact of reducing firefighters; however, having read the budget “line by line,” Carney affirmed that there was “no way to cut anywhere else.” Carney asked that the City keep the rebuilding of fire department staff as their “top priority” in the months and years to come.

Ron Harper, a resident of Downtown Stevens, said that police reductions could provide an ample opportunity for the department to evaluate it’s time management and analyze its procedures in terms of efficiency. For example, Harper noted, police officers in Lancaster City frequently respond to accusations from one party against another, but do not require the accuser to sign under penalty of law that their claims are true.

Matt Holden, a city resident who unsuccessfully ran for City Council in November’s election, asserted that, given the City’s dire economic circumstances, the budget should contain “little or no non-necessities.” As examples of nonessential spending, Holden cited $70,000 in discretionary funds for the Department of Economic Development and Neighborhood Revitalization and $7,000 for employee recognition funding—employee awards, holiday parties, etc.—allocated to the Bureau of Human Resources. Holden suggested that, if all such items were eliminated, at least two police officers could be retained.

Holden also charged that Mayor Gray intentionally delayed the progress of union negotiations to shield criticism during the recent elections.

The budget passed by Council did not contain the final figures for police and fire expenses since union negotiations are not yet completed. Gray later noted that the process may not conclude before the year’s end. He also asserted that any changes to the approved 2010 budget—drafted to encompass a “worst case scenario”—would have to be passed by Council.

Gray later told NewsLanc that Holden was “absolutely wrong” in his claim that the timing of union negotiations was politically motivated. “Frankly, negotiations would not have commenced until the budget was drawn up. It just wouldn’t have happened,” Gray said, noting that the budget itself was drafted according to “the same time table” as years past.

Many of the evening’s public comments focused on the hardship that a 25% property tax hike could bring to many city residents. One landlord described the predicament of individuals like himself, forced to either absorb the losses or raise their rent. “They can’t afford it,” he asserted, regarding many of his lower-income tenants.

While City officials have described the tax increase as five extra dollars each week for the average household, one resident sought to showcase the real-world value of such resources. Annual money lost to these additional taxes he said, would total about $260 a year for most families—enough to purchase 100 gallons of gasoline, 2.5 months worth of electricity, 874 diapers, or a month of groceries.