Today's Paper Search Latest New app In the news Traffic #Gazette200 Drivetime Mahatma Listen Digital replica FAQ Weather Newsletters Obits Puzzles + Games Archive
ADVERTISEMENT
story.lead_photo.caption Little Rock Mayor Frank Scott is shown in this file photo. - Photo by Staton Breidenthal

Two words resurfaced again and again throughout a budget meeting at Little Rock's City Hall on Tuesday: tough choices.

That's what the city's leadership is facing, Mayor Frank Scott Jr. said when he convened the Board of Directors to discuss reducing the city's personnel budget and allocating funds for public safety initiatives.

Scott said the city needs to plan for its long-term future and have its budget reflect its priorities. He plans to introduce "sometime between now and June" an amendment to the $210.6 million budget that was passed for 2019 before he took office, he said.

"Many times when we're running for offices, it is expected that we use terms like fiscal responsibility and conservative budgeting because that's what people think they want to hear," he said. "However, it's funny though, because when you get elected all anybody wants to talk about is making sure their program is not only fully funded but growing, and truth be told, that's the reason that most of us, all of us, get into public service in the first place. ... There's just one problem: current funding doesn't cover the things that are already in the budget today."

City revenue has been declining for years amid stagnant job growth, and the city has relied on one-time funding to prop up some areas of the budget, but that's not a sustainable solution, the mayor said. In 2018, the city experienced a net loss of about $7 million, finance director Sara Lenehan said in a presentation to the board. And if there's no change to the adopted 2019 budget, the city's general fund balance for audit and bond rating purposes will decline 22.7 percent, she said, from $40,594,519 to $31,360,636.

Funding also must be "identified or reallocated" for the mayor's "safe city" initiatives, Lenehan said. Scott wants to add 100 police officers to the Little Rock force over the next five years. The estimated cost to add 20 officers in the first year is about $1.6 million, which doesn't include costs for vehicles and other equipment.

The city earlier this month also issued a request for proposals from vendors for body-worn cameras for its police officers, a move Scott pledged in his state of the city speech, but one the department has forgone because of the cost. Lenehan did not provide a cost estimate for the cameras -- she said it depends on the number of cameras purchased, and because of the costs of maintenance and data storage, the devices would be an ongoing expense that would need to be built into the operating budget. Assistant Little Rock Police Chief Alice Fulk told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette earlier this month that outfitting the department could cost at least $1 million.

Arkansas' capital city will face additional challenges in the coming years, Lenehan said, including an increase in the cost of its contract with the Pulaski County jail that could add $2 million to the annual budget, a new fire station opening on Stagecoach Road and about $918,000 to be set aside per court order for two civil suits the city is involved in that are on appeal.

The mayor is exploring three measures to identify potential cost savings in city spending, Lenehan said. He's requested preparation of a request for qualifications for an independent performance audit, directed departmental directors to look at their budgets, and is reviewing the possibility of a pilot run with a vendor that helps cities and receives a percentage of the cost savings it identifies.

"We have to strongly consider, to right-size our governmental expenditures and realign our resources and rethink what are our true priorities, to move forward toward a long future for our city, to maintain community trust," Scott said after Lenehan's half-hour presentation.

Ward 1 City Director Erma Hendrix said she agreed with the mayor that "some changes will have to be made." Other city board members had questions for Scott and Lenehan.

"Here's the elephant in the room: We have lived with reducing things, but we're now down to human capital and the euphemism 'to get our house in order' is we're going to let people off," At-large City Director Dean Kumpuris said. "So now I want to ask you the hard question: How many people are we going to let off and who are we going to let go in this situation?"

He pushed for Scott to take options back to the board for input, and he asked if city leaders were planning to pay back 2018's $7 million loss this year. Scott said that hadn't been decided yet and that he'd provide at least three options on how to "right-size" city government.

"To answer your question as it relates to human capital, I'll just, I'll be very frank. We have -- 75 percent of our general fund budget is personnel. We need to curb it back and right-size government and take steps and phases, and we don't know that journey yet, but a more manageable personnel cost should be around 65 percent," Scott said.

Ward 2 City Director Ken Richardson said the 75 percent of the budget going toward personnel troubled him. When asked by Ward 5 City Director Lance Hines about the 65 percent number, Scott said it wasn't a target but a figure to work toward based on his experience as a bank executive.

Hines, as well as Richardson, questioned Scott's proposed addition of officers to the police force. Richardson said he felt Scott had the right priorities about public safety but that the city needed to be "a little bit more creative" in its policing.

"Those parts of our city where they see 'patrol and control,' they don't want to see more police," Richardson said.

Hines said he didn't think the city had gotten a chance yet to see how much a fully staffed police force could reduce crime, with the department having recently filled its vacancies, adding that the city should look at what it had before adding more officers.

"If we're really serious about this, there can't be any ... sacred cows," Hines said.

Metro on 04/17/2019

Print Headline: Mayor, Little Rock board look at budget concerns, personnel cuts

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsor Content

You must be signed in to post comments

Comments

  • NoUserName
    April 17, 2019 at 7:04 a.m.

    That's rich, given that Scott hired his Chief of Staff at signifigantly higher pay than Stodola AND is funneling ALL media requests through his hourly-paid part time spokewoman who, incidentally, also worked on his campaign.
    .
    As for city costs, how about we dump the superfluous two-headed monster of a government that we have?
    .
    Regarding the police, as far as I recall, some of those unfilled positions are funded from the 2011 sales tax increase the city voted for. Of course, unused funding simply goes to gen rev which lowers the incentive to actually fill those positions.

  • MBAIV
    April 17, 2019 at 7:32 a.m.

    As the cost of living goes up, the city collects more. When I pay more for a shirt or a TV the city collects tax on that higher amount. The city's cost hasn't gone up any higher or faster than my costs yet they always whine about not having enough money. In 2011 they asked for and the voters (foolishly, I think) gave them another 1% sales tax to waste. Even with that increase above the cost of living they can't make do. POOR management and poor priorities.
    .
    It's past time that Little Rock city hall cut the fluff and feel good programs and properly funded based services like public safety, public works, parks.

  • Foghorn
    April 17, 2019 at 8:09 a.m.

    FINALLY. I and others have commented many times that 75% of the budget going to headcount is 20-25% too high and MUST be cut. 65% won’t meet the need; it needs to be at least 10% lower. I’m guessing Scott knows that but can’t say it out loud. The ARTimes article on this makes specific recommendations like no longer paying for CoC salaries, stop money going to the I30 gulch fiasco, and stop ‘Uber for Cops,’ which allows almost 200 cops living outside LR free cars, gas, maintenance, no tax liability. If people look closely, there are lots of places to cut.

  • Foghorn
    April 17, 2019 at 8:16 a.m.

    Also, ‘100 more cops’ is not the answer and simply unaffordable even if it were the answer. The city has to acquire and use much more technology, like CCTV and automated traffic cams resulting in tickets, in order to reduce crime as well as increase revenue. They also need to employ tech like BolaWrap in order to apprehend suspects rather than always shooting them.

  • hah406
    April 17, 2019 at 8:25 a.m.

    I respectfully agree and disagree with both Mr. Richardson and Foghorn. Right now, I believe more cops is an answer, but not the only answer. I am sick and tired of the crime in my neighborhood, and thankfully LRPD has stepped up patrols to answer the problem. But at what other neighborhood's expense.
    ...
    I would certainly like more CCTV and traffic cameras, but unfortunately the backwoods uneducated Arkansas State Legislature has passed a law that bans traffic cameras providing for traffic enforcement. A few red light cameras downtown would produce a ton of revenue if they were legal. I would be all for them if the ledge would change its position.

  • Skeptic1
    April 17, 2019 at 8:48 a.m.

    Will he be cutting loose all of his cronies he appointed?

  • adrink
    April 17, 2019 at 8:53 a.m.

    Look out for a city run school district. Just another way to skim money for the slush programs. The first law of personal economics is live on less than you make. Since taxes are all based on the cost of products, real estate, personal property, etc. the city’s income has built in revenue increases to go along with growth in the economy. ANY tax increase should be dealt with as a super serious matter. That is especially true when a new mayor has just taken over and has not yet demonstrated first principles.

  • Foghorn
    April 17, 2019 at 9:18 a.m.

    Scott needs to rebrand his ‘safe city’ initiative to ‘smart city = safe city,’ with a focus on technology. All the moaning about the cost of tech is completely misplaced. Tech doesn’t require healthcare, payroll or pensions, so it’s much less expensive - and more effective - in the longer term. We need surveillance, including drones and CCTV in high crime areas and video comms. Imagine if cops responding to reports of shots fired could view live drone footage of the scene while on the way, as well as identification of those in the area through biometric scans. We have got to stop being a backwater on this stuff. Greater security through technology would be a big draw for jobs.

  • Foghorn
    April 17, 2019 at 9:38 a.m.

    I’ve re-read the article several times and each time something else - the math - just jumps out. If it costs $1.6M just to HIRE 20 new cops, that means it would cost $8M to hire the 100 Scott wants. That doesn’t include healthcare, pensions, cars and all the other kit they’ll require. Factor all of that in and, what are we talking about? 5x? 10x? Yet we’re questioning spending just $1M of capex on body cams. It’s insanity not to explore and fund LE and public safety tech. Asa wants every kid in the state to learn how to code. Why isn’t he partnering w/Scott and other mayors to champion LE technology and their savings over very expensive feet on the street.

  • MBAIV
    April 17, 2019 at 10:12 a.m.

    IF governments bought and ran the red light/speed camera systems that might work. But in almost all cases, they contract with companies that make a fortune taking a percentage of the 'fines' for violations. And there is the question of being able to facing and questioning LE in court if desired. Ever try to question a camera? I'm not sure how other states get away with it.
    .
    The camera systems run by vendors are not law enforcement, they are revenue enhancements. It's kinda like speed traps on the highway run by small towns to boost income. We have laws to prohibit that, too. Just ask Damascus.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT