I will be voting to override the Mayor’s veto of the 2011 budget adopted by the City Council.

I believe
everyone involved in the budget process is trying to act in the best interests of the City.

Mayor Young’s veto message contains a reading of the City Charter which is not only inconsistent with the
Charter but is inconsistent with the Mayor and Corporation Counsel’s previous reading and application of
Charter provisions. Unfortunately, I believe the Mayor is not receiving accurate advice.

As early as November 22, 2010 the City’s Comptroller advised the Mayor that his budget estimate, which
had been delivered in November rather than September, as called for in the City Charter, significantly
underestimated expenses and significantly overestimated revenue. Further, that flawed estimate carried
with it an increase in the tax rate of 5.54%.

The City’s Board of Estimate and Contract held a public hearing on the Mayor’s estimate and made
modifications to correct those errors and reduce the amount of the tax increase. Due to the fact that the
Mayor’s estimate had been delivered two months late, there was little time to thoroughly review the Board
of Estimate and Contract’s changes, which later revealed some clerical errors.

After receiving the budget estimate from the Board of Estimate and Contract, the City Council held a
public hearing on that budget estimate. During the course of this public hearing, it was brought to our
attention that certain items, including several positions, had been left out of the budget estimate. As a
result of this input from the public and our further review of the estimate it was clear that, in fact, certain
positions had been inadvertently left out of the estimate as a result of additional clerical errors.

As has always been the practice of the City, and based upon previous advice of the Corporation Counsel’s
office, it was our understanding that the City Council could not add positions back into the estimate
without action of the Board of Estimate and Contract. As a result, the Board of Estimate and Contract met
and made these corrections.

The City Council, then adopted the corrected estimate which reflected both the original intention of the
Board of Estimate and Contract in its revision of the Mayor’s estimate, the comments made by the public
at our hearing, and the correction of the clerical errors.

Therefore, the statements that the budget approved by the City Council was not the result of a public
hearing process is erroneous and ignores the fact that the final changes made were a result of the direct
input of both the public and the Mayor.

I believe the budget we are adopting with this override of the Mayor’s veto is consistent with both the
letter and the spirit of the budget process as outlined by the City Charter. It is also consistent with past
practice followed by this Council, the current and past Mayors and past advice provided by the current
and past members of the Corporation Counsel’s Office.

This budget adds back positions that the Mayor himself requested be added and which we all acknowledge
were inadvertently left out through a clerical error. We have been able to accomplish this without
modifying the tax rate fixed by the Board of Estimate and Contract in the estimate it originally issued after
public hearing. This further demonstrates that this budget reflects the original intent of the Board of
Estimate and Contract and that the changes subsequently made to add back the positions inadvertently
excluded, were in fact to correct clerical errors. The annual estimate is 4.49%

Further, I believe that the vote to reduce the Inspector General’s salary does not violate any prior directive
of the courts. The Charter, section 69, specifically provides that the Board of Estimate and Contract shall
fix the Inspector General’s annual salary. As part of the budget process it is wholly appropriate for the
Board of Estimate and Contract to fix the Inspector General’s annual salary in accordance with the
specific authority granted by the City Charter. I understand that there is significant evidence that the
current Inspector General neither works full time nor has produced any substantive reports in the last
year. While I agree it is important to root out corruption and malfeasance in government, I also believe
that public employees should receive salaries that are consistent with the level of work they perform. To
pay someone in excess of $100,000 per year for what is essentially a part time job does as much to
undermine the public’s faith in government as at least some of the other activities the Inspector General is
supposed to be combating.

In all other respects the budget that will be adopted through this override of the Mayor’s veto provides for
levels of service consistent with the level of funding available to the City and without cutting essential
services or overburdening our taxpayers in these difficult times. The estimate I am voting for, unlike the
Mayor’s estimate, has been prepared with input from the City Comptroller who, as the City’s chief
financial officer, is in the best position to fully evaluate the appropriate levels of revenues and expenses in
developing the final budget estimate for the City.

There have been statements made that refer to a tax increase of 1.82%. Nothing outlining this estimate
was ever presented to the City Council or the public for a mandated hearing.

I am hopeful that with this vote we can put our differences aside and continue to work together to make
Mount Vernon a better place for us all to live and work.

Respectfully Submitted,

Karen Watts