Her chief objection is that tying up 3 percent of the city's budget for any purpose, no matter how laudable, is bad fiscal policy. It would force future mayors (she, by virtue of deciding not to run for re-election, won't have to deal with this one way or the other) to cut more deeply into other programs and priorities in times of fiscal stress, and it could set back the city's efforts to improve its bond ratings. If that happens, the increased borrowing costs that would come as a consequence might do as much to hurt the city as this fund would do to help. Baltimore frequently finds itself in budget troubles (including a projected $75 million deficit for next year), and its finances are complicated at the moment by the impact of its tax incentive policies on state school funding. Because the city has been successful in attracting new development in recent years, it looks less poor as far as state education funding formulas go and thus deserving of less state aid, even though much of that new paper wealth is exempted for the time being from paying full property taxes. State lawmakers are seeking a solution, but city officials can't ignore the possibility that they may soon need to start contributing a larger share of the costs of K-12 education.