His aides won't talk and even Mayor L. Douglas Wilder wouldn't come right out and say it -- Richmond started the fiscal year with his budget, not one approved by the City Council.

Asked directly if the city is operating under his budget or a competing council version Wilder has said is invalid, the mayor last night would only say: "What else could it be?"

City Council aides spent yesterday plowing through the city's accounting system to see what exactly the Wilder administration may have put in. One big difference -- Wilder's budget includes big administrative increases that were trimmed by the council.

One independent agency, the city's retirement system, said it is following the council budget and not the mayor's.

If city officials loaded the mayor's budget into City Hall's accounting systems, several council members have said they are ready to go to court -- again -- to force Wilder to comply with legislation they enacted.

"If his budget got loaded, I would think it is an unbalanced budget since we cut the [real estate] tax rate to $1.20 [per $100 of assessed value] and his budget is based on $1.23," said Councilwoman Kathy C. Graziano. "It puts us once again in the position of having to seek legal action."

The council prevailed in a 2007 suit against Wilder over who had the authority to hire and fire the council's staff; an appeal by Wilder is pending in the Virginia Supreme Court.

Council President William J. Pantele said he's concerned about the Wilder administration's unwillingness to say what it is doing about the budget.

"My patience is at an end with this foolishness," added Councilman Chris A. Hilbert. "Not only is our budget legal, but it is a better budget, unless the people of Richmond say they want higher administrative costs."

. . .

To run Richmond's finances, a budget had to be in City Hall computers by the July 1 start of the fiscal year.

The city's accounts payable manager, Frank Lomax, referred questions about whether the city is paying its bills to Wilder press secretary Linwood Norman, who did not respond. Asked about paying bills, Wilder responded, "When have we ever not?"

Chief Administrative Officer Sheila Hill-Christian and Chief Financial Officer Harry Black would not reply to repeated telephone calls about the budget and how the city was handling bill payments.

"I really feel sorry for some city officials. They're in a real bind," Pantele said.

He said that according to the city charter, officials, possibly including Hill-Christian and Black, could be liable for any funds improperly disbursed. Officials also could lose their jobs for such disbursements, he said.

. . .

Meanwhile, the head of the city's retirement system said it will go ahead and pay a 1.5 percent cost-of-living adjustment for retirees that the council voted but was not in the mayor's budget.

"The city attorney has rendered an opinion which rendered the City Council's adopted budget as valid and lawful," said Richmond Retirement System Executive Director Philip Langham.

Langham said that based upon the advice of the Retirement System Board of Trustees' legal adviser and the city attorney, the agency is obligated to obey the council action authorizing the 1.5 percent cost-of-living adjustment for retirees this year.

"As far as I'm concerned, we have a valid budget, and the city attorney has confirmed that," Council Finance Committee Chairwoman Ellen Robertson said.

Wilder has said his budget, with several double-digit increases for administrative spending, is valid because the City Council didn't meet a May 31 deadline for passing a balanced budget of its own.

The council, supported by the city attorney, disputes that.

The issue is two spending measures the council enacted one week after the May 31 deadline. They both cut the amount of spending in the just-completed fiscal year. Wilder argues that the spending cuts effectively were revenue for the fiscal year that started yesterday.

In a formal opinion, City Attorney Norman Sales said Wilder is wrong, because the spending cuts were for last fiscal year. The budget the council passed May 31 was legally balanced, because the revenue figures in it and the bank balances it estimated equaled its spending totals.

Contact David Ress at (804) 649-6051 or dress@timesdispatch.com.