Court Opinion

ID: 9850911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:04:06.857736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:45.383028
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion that affirms the reasoning of the *685Court of Appeals and holds that city council approval is required before specific budget appropriations can be reduced.
Where I differ from the majority is in its conclusion that despite the recognition that § 17 of the ubaa "unambiguously requires legislative approval for any budget deviation or alteration of appropriations” (ante at 683) "the mayor nevertheless has the power and duty to take measures to avoid exacerbating a projected budget shortfall.” Id. at 683-684. Despite the majority’s further recognition that the executive branch cannot unilaterally modify the city’s budget and appropriations, apparently in times of financial crisis the majority would give the mayor exactly that power, pending council approval. This remedy circumnavigates the clear intent of the ubaa and principles of separation of powers. For those reasons I do not join in part ii(b) of the majority opinion, and would affirm the result of the Court of Appeals.
Riley, J., concurred with Weaver, J.