Lynchburg budget moves on after dispute

A last-minute attempt to alter the city budget led to a heated dispute Tuesday during what has traditionally been an uneventful vote.

City Council was slated Tuesday to do the first reading of the budget for the new fiscal year beginning July 1.

Council spends about two months each year vetting the budget before bringing it to a vote in May. The spending plan usually passes with ease, although individual members have been known to dissent in protest of tax rates or funding decisions.

This year, Councilman Jeff Helgeson made a surprising proposal to shift money from the school system to the public safety division in order to save police officers from an across-the-board pay cut included in the budget proposal.

Helgeson, Ward III, said he was basing his proposal on the police needs outlined in a May 11 staff memo submitted in response to questions from council.

“As I read this report, I see that crime is on the rise, violent crime,” he said. “I also see that turnover has been pretty tough with 20 percent of our sworn officers lost in the past two years.”

“We really need to take a look at what can be done. This (public safety) is a critical need,” he said. “… I appreciate all our city employees. I appreciate the librarian who shelves books. But, I’ll tell you, that’s nothing compared to a police officer who has to kick down a door and maybe get shot at.”

Helgeson, who had suggested reducing school funding during earlier budget deliberations but had not made this specific proposal, said he was sorry to be raising the issue late in the process, but noted the report was only delivered this week.

Other council members said the proposal was unfair to other city employees and would damage morale across the staff.

Councilman Ceasor Johnson, Ward II, said it was a “foolish thought” with no legitimacy.

“Everyone’s had to take a hit,” he said. “We’re not trying to single anyone out. Everyone’s had to. … To come here and try to pull something after 2½ months (of debate) and try to take money from the schools? Oh no.”

Helgeson’s motion died due to lack of a second.

The budget itself passed its first reading by a slim 4-3 vote. Helgeson dissented, as did councilmen Scott Garrett and Turner Perrow.

Garrett, At large, objected to the tax rate in the budget and the employee pay cuts. He expressed the same concerns during earlier deliberations and made several proposals to restore the pay rate for all employees, but each time failed to gain the support of council.

Perrow, Ward IV, renewed his objections to the property tax rate, which a majority of council voted to keep level after a reassessment raised city property values an average of 5 percent.

The narrow vote is unusual for the city, at least in recent history. Helgeson has voted against the budget each year he’s been in office, citing objections to the tax rate and spending levels.

Former councilman Joe Seiffert, now retired, was sometimes known to vote against the school budget due to disagreements with spending decisions in that document.