Birmingham is more than a week into its fiscal year without a new operating budget as Mayor William Bell and the City Council continue to wrangle over the spending plan, how much should be cut and from where.

Tuesday's City Council meeting is likely to produce a dramatic illustration of the conflict when two competing budgets are put up for a vote.

Bell has placed on the agenda his modified budget plan, which saves most of the spending under his control, alongside the council's version, which slices millions from the budget.

While Bell's strategy of putting both documents on the agenda is extremely rare, neither side appears to have the majority of votes needed to pass the competing spending plan.

Council President Roderick Royal, who headed the group's budget process, called Bell's action a negative move that does nothing to promote meaningful debate or compromise.

"If the mayor really wanted to be a great mayor like Richard Arrington or George Seibels, he would be a compromiser and skillful negotiator," Royal said. "At no time do I believe that Richard Arrington, Seibels or any of the really good mayors that I've read about or have personally known would have attempted this kind of tactic."

A divided council last week endorsed its version of the fiscal 2013 budget that includes $3.9 million in cuts, rejecting the first compromise plan from Bell to stave off most of the reductions. Now Bell is placing his second attempt to save his own spending on Tuesday's agenda.

Repeated efforts to reach Bell and his chief of staff, Chuck Faush, for comment were unsuccessful. But Bell has called the council's proposed cuts "devastating" to economic development efforts and normal city functions.

Bell, in memos, responded to the proposed cuts, many of which dealt with new employees for the Crossplex at Fair Park and other spending under his direction and asked the council to restore the funding. As a compromise, Bell said he would fund much of the council's spending priorities that the group planned to pay for with $4 million from cuts to other funds and through reorganization of other spending.

While he seeks to appease the council's priorities, Bell also adds his own unanticipated spending, including more than $1.8 million for employee health insurance and workmen's compensation not included in his original budget.

To pay for it all, Bell wants to make cuts including delaying payment of $769,800 for a city bank loan previously obtained to help prop up city finances. Other cuts include $395,000 in money for matching police grants, $470,000 in equipment management, and $200,000 in savings through a hiring freeze.

The city's proposed fiscal 2013 budget anticipates $365.5 million in both spending and revenue collection. New to Bell's proposed budget is the addition of $400,000 of found money.

Royal called it troubling that the money appeared at the same time the council planned to cut some of the mayor's spending.

Bell, in his latest memo to the council, said the $400,000 comes from a projected prescription drug rebate that wasn't available until after his original budget presentation.

"Here's the real scoop on the budget," Royal said. "He wants $130,000 for personal marketing, notwithstanding (already) having an office of public information. He wants to hire eight people outside of the Crossplex budget, some with no titles and others with duplicating duties."

Council responds

Royal again assailed Bell's proposed budget "compromise" as the antithesis of real compromise, considering its extra spending from funding sources previously hidden to the council.

"All of this would be laughable if it were not so serious," Royal said. "I invite the mayor to come to the negotiating table in earnest."

While Bell's original budget included 5 percent employee pay raises, the council proposed adding an across-the-board cost of living adjustment, or COLA, to cover all employees, including many in the public works department who were ineligible for the general raise.

Bell's latest plan includes a 0.5 percent COLA, an amount Royal called insulting.

"Further, his budget slaps nearly 51 percent of the city's workforce by offering a half percent raise and giving others 5 percent," Royal said, underscoring the council's proposal that includes both cost of living and general raises.

Councilman Johnathan Austin disagreed with the council's spending plan, particularly the increase in council discretionary spending to fund outside groups and agencies already cut from the budget.

"It's disingenuous to say we're going to cut and certain council members want to put back in their pet projects," Austin said. "When we talk about cutting and we talk about tightening our belts we can't put in six or seven nonprofits or social service agencies."

With the council divided over which document -- if either -- to approve, Councilwoman Kim Rafferty could cast a deciding vote in the impasse. Rafferty, who abstained on endorsing the council's document last week, called both plans problematic.

For example, Rafferty said Bell's plan adds new spending and revenue collection without significant explanation. On the other hand, the council's plan does not include the new expenditures added by the mayor.

"I don't believe that either one of those budgets will pass. If neither passes, it's incumbent upon us to sit down, come back to the table and say, 'This is what we need as a city,'" Austin said. "The mayor and the council have to come together."

Join the conversation by clicking to comment or email Bryant at jbryant@bhamnews.com.