Days before he was elected mayor in February, Rahm Emanuel said City Hall’s “day of reckoning” had arrived after years of living beyond its means. At the time, though, Emanuel offered only a rough outline of how he would close the city’s perennial budget gaps.
Now, Emanuel’s first real moment of reckoning as mayor has come, as he prepares to present aldermen with his detailed proposal for a balanced budget in 2012. Emanuel is expected to release his plans Wednesday, when he gives a speech to the City Council, but mayoral aides also have scheduled closed-door budget briefings with the aldermen on Tuesday.
Emanuel spent much of the campaign and his first months in office emphasizing the need for change in the city’s spending patterns. The budget proposal will form the first specific, comprehensive look at how Emanuel plans to confront the fiscal problems that he inherited from former Mayor Richard M. Daley.
“The economy and the tone he set from the campaign forward have prepared the City Council for what I think will be seen as innovative,” said Ald. Patrick O’Connor (40th Ward), Emanuel’s council floor leader. “I think we will see some moves that in previous years would not have been contemplated. Even if they were contemplated, they would not have been welcomed.”
According to the latest publicly released estimates, officials projected that spending would outstrip available revenues by more than $635 million in 2012. The city’s total annual spending this year was about $6 billion.
The budget math dictates that “any pain has to be substantial,” said Ald. George Cardenas (12th), who has suggested closing police and fire stations and consolidating other city facilities to save money.
When the economy was strong, and tax revenues at all-time highs, Daley could afford to promise wage increases to city workers and provide aldermen with new schools, fire houses, police stations and libraries that they could point to proudly in their re-election campaigns.
Emanuel has said that there will be no sacred cows as he seeks to reform city government, and even the Chicago Public Library system, still directed by long-time Daley favorite Mary Dempsey, could face cuts in the new administration.
On Monday, O’Connor said city officials have discussed the possibility of closing library branches. But he added that he did not expect that such a move would be part of Emanuel’s budget proposal after all.
Employee layoffs almost certainly will be part of the 2012 plan. Personnel costs make up the vast majority of the city budget, and about 90 percent of the city’s workforce of about 35,000 people is unionized.
Union leaders have rebuffed Emanuel’s calls for concessions such as work-rule changes, insisting that the new mayor abide by the 10-year contracts that Daley signed in 2007 with labor groups representing many city workers.
Emanuel already has broken with Daley’s history of promising to expand the ranks of police officers, who form the largest department in city government.
The new mayor says he has increased the number of police officers on the streets through transfers of police department employees. But Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said recently he would not hire new officers until the department shows that it was operating with greater efficiency.
Police and fire department employees combined make up the bulk of the city’s payroll costs.
They were exempted from Daley-era cost-cutting measures such as wage freezes and furlough days.
As for the revenue side of the ledger, which has seen major declines in recent years, Emanuel has ruled out a property tax increase. But that does not cover the possibility of other fee increases.
After Emanuel presents his budget, aldermen will hold a series of hearings to discuss the budget plans for each department in city government. A final vote on the 2012 fiscal plan would come in December.
To win at least 26 votes in the 50-member council, Cardenas said Emanuel first will have to overcome the “fear factor” that comes with budget cuts. Through better management, Cardenas said, diminished resources – and fewer city employees – may not necessarily translate into poorer delivery of city services.