Eliminations hit many City departments; effect all
In a memo to Mayor Jim O'Neal and the Springfield City Council, City Manager Greg Burris indicated there are currently 101 vacant positions within City government. In addition, Burris noted another 46 temporary, seasonal and contract positions have been eliminated. All of the 147 positions have been either eliminated or are frozen.
Burris said there is a potential for further reductions in City services.
He warned the Council, they may begin receiving complaints about service delays or, about services that simply are no longer offered.
"No one should claim to be surprised by these service reductions -- especially the print media outlet and others who accused the City of "threats" when this information was shared publicly in January," Burris wrote.
The City Manager also warned the City Council that their own information requests, while they would continue to be addressed, could have the impact of further slowing existing City service functions. He encouraged the Council to carefully consider citizen-generated information requests before, "simply forwarding that request to us."
While it isn't directly stated, it might be hinted that, in the future, the public may be requested to more routinely fill out a formal Sunshine Law requests, rather than rely on informal email correspondence in seeking answers from the City government.
"I am providing updated guidance to departments on the process on how they should respond to requests for information to the Custodian of Records -- the City Clerk's Office," Burris wrote. "Our goal is to be consistent and fair in our application of these new guidelines."
Following are programs and services which have been eliminated from various departments:
Planning Department
> The Neighborhood Assessment Program
> The annual Neighborhood Trash Clean-up Program
> The Urban Neighborhood Alliance's low-interest home improvement loan program for low- and moderate-income citizens
> Support for Center City revitalization program through the Urban Neighborhood Alliance
> Support for the Urban Districts Alliance and the Downtown Springfield Community Improvement District
> Caring Communities neighborhood revitalization program through Community Partnership of the Ozarks
> Hardcopy "Front Porch" neighborhood newsletter
> Services to registered homeowner's associations
> Hardcopy Monthly Service Request reports to neighborhood presidents
> Support for downtown Wi-Fi
> Contract for downtown on-street parking enforcement
Police Department
> The Dare program
> Grant Beach sub-station staffing
> Commercial Street sub-station staffing
> Annual Police Citizen's Survey
> Car seat checks and other Traffic Safety Alliance programs
Fire Department
> Fireworks patrols
> Staffing at the Ozark Empire Fair
> Free smoke alarm program
Public Works
> All annual flower plantings
Health Department
> Phelps Grove and Rountree neighborhood rental registration program
> Multi-family housing inspections
> A number of employee health and wellness programs
Parks Department
> Firefall event
> Outdoor concert series
Human Resources Department
> All police and firefighter testing programs
> A variety of employee training sessions and workshops
> Supervisor training programs
> Employee exit interviews
> The Employee Referral program
> Participation in the Partners in Education school program
> Employee service recognition
The above listed items do not include a listing of the services which were reduced. The lists above only include programs or services which have been eliminated.
In addition to the above eliminations, the employees of the City of Springfield are not scheduled to receive cost of living or merit pay increases.
Other employee eliminated benefits include: no "thank you" picnic; no computer purchase incentives; no employee wellness program; no health risk assessments or wellness incentives and; no employee sick leave incentive.
Other topics of the memo will be addressed in a separate entry.
Source: Memo from City Manager Greg Burris to the Mayor and City Council dated July 15, 2009
Related: For information about how to fill out a formal Sunshine Law Request, complete with a "fill-in-the-blank" form, go to this page of the Missouri Attorney General's Web site.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Showing posts with label Springfield City Budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Springfield City Budget. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
City Council Began Budget Discussions Tuesday
Kicked around the best way to tackle the issue
"This is the first in a series of meetings," City Manager Burris said at the Council luncheon today. He asked the City Council to give him an idea of how many meetings they thought they would like to hold in order to discuss and possibly make changes to Springfield's 2009-10 proposed fiscal budget.
On Friday, May 1, as the City Charter requires, Burris delivered a copy of the proposed budget to each member of the City Council. Councilman Jerry Compton, of course, received his copy a little later.
Springfield's Finance Director Mary Mannix Decker went through the budget, hitting the highlights and answering a few questions from Council members.
The City also released a new document with the budget. This year they published a smaller document, a summary, which targets the differences between last year's budget and the newly proposed budget. The document is 38 pages in length.
Also released today: a document outlining the repercussions of budgeted City contribution cuts to the City's non-profit service-agency partners.
Councilman Doug Burlison didn't believe the City Council would be able to give Burris a good idea about how many meetings they might want to hold to discuss the budget until they'd had a week to look it over, forming questions and comments. Other Council members agreed with Burlison.
Councilman John Rush felt he needed more time to understand the budget. He said he had been trying to figure out a systematic way of looking at it and had been unable to do so.
Decker said, in the past, they have gone over it page by page. And, while it is up to the City Council to decide their procedure, Decker suggested time might be better spent by considering specific critical issues.
They casually decided they would begin their discussion at the next City Council luncheon by looking over the changes from last year to this year's proposed budget and they specifically asked to hear from Parks Director Jodie Adams and the Director of the Springfield-Greene County Health Department Kevin Gibson.
Councilman Scott Bailes said discussing priorities would be more helpful to him as a starting point. He wondered about the wisdom of cutting the parks department in a couple of the areas cited. Bailes felt by instituting cuts at Mediacom Ice Park and other potential sales tax generating sites, if the Department would not be, not only absorbing the initial general fund budget contribution loss but, lose revenue from sales tax receipts. He wondered if the parks budget was restored in those areas, what might be cut in their stead. Burris noted the Parks Department had decided for themselves the areas in which they cut their budget to deal with the cut in contributions from the City, as proposed in the new budget.
All of the budget workshops will be televised on TV23 and available for viewing at their Web site.
In other news, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Chiles said he had talked with Mayor Jim O'Neal's wife over the telephone. She had indicated the Mayor had come through his hip replacement surgery very well. She said they are estimating the Mayor could be released from the hospital on Thursday or Friday.
Related: Proposed Springfield budget full of cuts Springfield News-Leader
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This is the first in a series of meetings," City Manager Burris said at the Council luncheon today. He asked the City Council to give him an idea of how many meetings they thought they would like to hold in order to discuss and possibly make changes to Springfield's 2009-10 proposed fiscal budget.
On Friday, May 1, as the City Charter requires, Burris delivered a copy of the proposed budget to each member of the City Council. Councilman Jerry Compton, of course, received his copy a little later.
Springfield's Finance Director Mary Mannix Decker went through the budget, hitting the highlights and answering a few questions from Council members.
The City also released a new document with the budget. This year they published a smaller document, a summary, which targets the differences between last year's budget and the newly proposed budget. The document is 38 pages in length.
Also released today: a document outlining the repercussions of budgeted City contribution cuts to the City's non-profit service-agency partners.
Councilman Doug Burlison didn't believe the City Council would be able to give Burris a good idea about how many meetings they might want to hold to discuss the budget until they'd had a week to look it over, forming questions and comments. Other Council members agreed with Burlison.
Councilman John Rush felt he needed more time to understand the budget. He said he had been trying to figure out a systematic way of looking at it and had been unable to do so.
Decker said, in the past, they have gone over it page by page. And, while it is up to the City Council to decide their procedure, Decker suggested time might be better spent by considering specific critical issues.
They casually decided they would begin their discussion at the next City Council luncheon by looking over the changes from last year to this year's proposed budget and they specifically asked to hear from Parks Director Jodie Adams and the Director of the Springfield-Greene County Health Department Kevin Gibson.
Councilman Scott Bailes said discussing priorities would be more helpful to him as a starting point. He wondered about the wisdom of cutting the parks department in a couple of the areas cited. Bailes felt by instituting cuts at Mediacom Ice Park and other potential sales tax generating sites, if the Department would not be, not only absorbing the initial general fund budget contribution loss but, lose revenue from sales tax receipts. He wondered if the parks budget was restored in those areas, what might be cut in their stead. Burris noted the Parks Department had decided for themselves the areas in which they cut their budget to deal with the cut in contributions from the City, as proposed in the new budget.
All of the budget workshops will be televised on TV23 and available for viewing at their Web site.
In other news, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Chiles said he had talked with Mayor Jim O'Neal's wife over the telephone. She had indicated the Mayor had come through his hip replacement surgery very well. She said they are estimating the Mayor could be released from the hospital on Thursday or Friday.
Related: Proposed Springfield budget full of cuts Springfield News-Leader
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thursday, February 05, 2009
The Bleeding of the Pension Fund is not Enough?
Sacrificial Slaying of Core Services should be Carefully Weighed
There is one criticism to the suggestion the Springfield City Council deny City manager Burris' recommendation to make the full actuarial recommended contribution of over $13 million in fiscal 2009-10 to the pension plan which should be addressed. The criticism is that those who have criticized the City for not making a full contribution in 2005-2008 are now suggesting the City not make it in the next fiscal year. On the surface, that seems like a fair criticism. It would appear those who suggest the City not make the full contribution in the next fiscal year are taking a hypocritical stance. The difference is, the economic times are not the same today as they were in those previous years when the City failed to make the full contribution and there are other variables to be considered.
The City Council, certainly, should be seeking to contribute every single penny they are able to save in the next budget deliberation cycle to put into the police and firefighter's pension plan. That is a no brainer. They should severly cut the next fiscal budget but, there should be a requirement to exercize some common sense and make those drastic cuts selectively and responsibly.
One of the key questions the City management should be asking and the City Council should be considering in the next budget deliberation cycle is:
Is it going to do the City less damage in the future if the City continues a hiring freeze in the police and fire departments and continues its hold on the police and fire acadamies in order to make the full contribution in the next fiscal year, or would it do less harm to the City should they make as much of a contribution as possible but, not the full actuarial contribution, and not at the expense of continuing the hiring freeze in the police and fire departments and the hold on the academies?
At a Council luncheon in September 2008, a new City manager attended, I believe, his first Council luncheon in his official capacity as City manager. He led the Council in a brainstorming session designed to narrow the field of issues viewed by the City Council as "long term priority issues." You can view the list of long term priorities the Council came up with here.
To my knowledge, the Council and manager have not yet revisited the subject of long term priorities but, what was interesting to me was that Burris presented the Council with the most current Council resolution reaffirming the City Council's six priorities. Those six priorities were: Public Safety; Transportation/Traffic; Quality of Life and Economic Development; Communication with Citizens; Center City Revitalization; and Long-Range Planning/Vision 20/20 for next year.
The resolution (RES8721) (Bill 99-438) was passed in 1999 and, in the background information provided, it was noted the six priorities were not listed in priority order. The background also listed the "Action Step Priorities" for each of the six listed priorities.
If we consider the City's recent Citizen Survey report, in planning for the city's future, 98 percent of the respondents placed, "keeping the crime rate low" as their number one priority; the number two priority of the citizens who responded to the survey, by 93 percent, was ensuring quality public health services are available, and respondents felt the city should give the most emphasis to traffic flow, street and infrastructure maintenance, and the quality of police protection in the next two years.
It appears the citizens of Springfield and, at least, a past City Council recognized the importance and priority positions of street and infrastructure maintenance, traffic flow, and quality police protection. Though the City Council's 1999 resolution pointed out their priorities were not listed in the order of priority, one can't help but notice public safety and transportation/traffic are listed in the number one and two spots. Arguably, health department services address issues of public safety as much as the police and fire departments.
As the City manager makes recommendations for budget cuts in City departments, and as the City Council weighs those recommended budget cuts, consideration should be taken for the priorities of public safety, public health services and street and infrastructure maintence. That is, if the City manager and City Council are weighing what is best for the City rather than, solely, what is best for the police and fire pension plan, and certainly, getting the pension plan to solvency is in the best interest of the City, as well.
It may be, at this particular time in our City's history, that what would be in the best interest of the City, as a whole, would be for the City Council to approve making as much of a contribution to the police and fire pension plan as possible, reopening the police and fire academies, and ending the freeze on hiring in those departments. They might also want to consider cutting, where possible, in the health department while not jeopardizing the well being of the citizens of Springfield, and perhaps, they should consider ceasing new infrastructure projects and focus, instead, on maintaining the streets and infrastructure we currently have.
We are in a recession. Sales tax revenue receipts have not been coming in at the City's predicted rate in the recent past, and are not expected to reach the level expected by City staff for the foreseeable future. These are not the same economic times in which to make a full contribution to the police and fire pension plan as they were in 2005-2008.
It is the duty and obligation of the City manager to have a key focus on making recommendations which best serve the entire City and its residents, and it is the obligation of the City Council to implement policies and base their approval of fiscal budgets on criteria which will best serve the populace of the entire City. State law does not require the full contribution be made in the next four years.
The 1 percent sales tax to fund the police and fire pension plan was not approved Tuesday. Citizens spoke. There was a larger turnout at the polls than, historically, turn out for a February election. Burris has complained not enough people got out to vote. There have been no complaints on the part of the City, in the past, when there was a low voter turnout which resulted in the passage of a sales tax, why should there be complaint over low voter turnout when a tax is defeated? The City needs to simply accept the voice of the people and focus on the next fiscal budget at this time.
If the City chooses to place this tax before the voters again in June, they will be caught up in budget deliberations and a campaign to pass a 1-cent sales tax at the same time. To set themselves up to be so distracted, due to promoting a sales tax, that they cannot give adequate and proper consideration to the next fiscal budget does not seem wise.
So, in response to the criticizer of the "critics" (whoever they might be) who disagreed with past City Council's failure to make the full actuarial pension contribution in the past but, who believe the City should carefully weigh what is the best action for the City, as a whole, rather than the pension system, alone, in 2009:
We are not living in the past and today, we are in an economic recession. While making the full contribution would have been the best action from 2005-2008, today, there are other considerations. It might not be the best action for the City to make the full actuarial recommended contribution in 2009, and it is, certainly, worth careful consideration.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is one criticism to the suggestion the Springfield City Council deny City manager Burris' recommendation to make the full actuarial recommended contribution of over $13 million in fiscal 2009-10 to the pension plan which should be addressed. The criticism is that those who have criticized the City for not making a full contribution in 2005-2008 are now suggesting the City not make it in the next fiscal year. On the surface, that seems like a fair criticism. It would appear those who suggest the City not make the full contribution in the next fiscal year are taking a hypocritical stance. The difference is, the economic times are not the same today as they were in those previous years when the City failed to make the full contribution and there are other variables to be considered.
The City Council, certainly, should be seeking to contribute every single penny they are able to save in the next budget deliberation cycle to put into the police and firefighter's pension plan. That is a no brainer. They should severly cut the next fiscal budget but, there should be a requirement to exercize some common sense and make those drastic cuts selectively and responsibly.
One of the key questions the City management should be asking and the City Council should be considering in the next budget deliberation cycle is:
Is it going to do the City less damage in the future if the City continues a hiring freeze in the police and fire departments and continues its hold on the police and fire acadamies in order to make the full contribution in the next fiscal year, or would it do less harm to the City should they make as much of a contribution as possible but, not the full actuarial contribution, and not at the expense of continuing the hiring freeze in the police and fire departments and the hold on the academies?
At a Council luncheon in September 2008, a new City manager attended, I believe, his first Council luncheon in his official capacity as City manager. He led the Council in a brainstorming session designed to narrow the field of issues viewed by the City Council as "long term priority issues." You can view the list of long term priorities the Council came up with here.
To my knowledge, the Council and manager have not yet revisited the subject of long term priorities but, what was interesting to me was that Burris presented the Council with the most current Council resolution reaffirming the City Council's six priorities. Those six priorities were: Public Safety; Transportation/Traffic; Quality of Life and Economic Development; Communication with Citizens; Center City Revitalization; and Long-Range Planning/Vision 20/20 for next year.
The resolution (RES8721) (Bill 99-438) was passed in 1999 and, in the background information provided, it was noted the six priorities were not listed in priority order. The background also listed the "Action Step Priorities" for each of the six listed priorities.
If we consider the City's recent Citizen Survey report, in planning for the city's future, 98 percent of the respondents placed, "keeping the crime rate low" as their number one priority; the number two priority of the citizens who responded to the survey, by 93 percent, was ensuring quality public health services are available, and respondents felt the city should give the most emphasis to traffic flow, street and infrastructure maintenance, and the quality of police protection in the next two years.
It appears the citizens of Springfield and, at least, a past City Council recognized the importance and priority positions of street and infrastructure maintenance, traffic flow, and quality police protection. Though the City Council's 1999 resolution pointed out their priorities were not listed in the order of priority, one can't help but notice public safety and transportation/traffic are listed in the number one and two spots. Arguably, health department services address issues of public safety as much as the police and fire departments.
As the City manager makes recommendations for budget cuts in City departments, and as the City Council weighs those recommended budget cuts, consideration should be taken for the priorities of public safety, public health services and street and infrastructure maintence. That is, if the City manager and City Council are weighing what is best for the City rather than, solely, what is best for the police and fire pension plan, and certainly, getting the pension plan to solvency is in the best interest of the City, as well.
It may be, at this particular time in our City's history, that what would be in the best interest of the City, as a whole, would be for the City Council to approve making as much of a contribution to the police and fire pension plan as possible, reopening the police and fire academies, and ending the freeze on hiring in those departments. They might also want to consider cutting, where possible, in the health department while not jeopardizing the well being of the citizens of Springfield, and perhaps, they should consider ceasing new infrastructure projects and focus, instead, on maintaining the streets and infrastructure we currently have.
We are in a recession. Sales tax revenue receipts have not been coming in at the City's predicted rate in the recent past, and are not expected to reach the level expected by City staff for the foreseeable future. These are not the same economic times in which to make a full contribution to the police and fire pension plan as they were in 2005-2008.
It is the duty and obligation of the City manager to have a key focus on making recommendations which best serve the entire City and its residents, and it is the obligation of the City Council to implement policies and base their approval of fiscal budgets on criteria which will best serve the populace of the entire City. State law does not require the full contribution be made in the next four years.
The 1 percent sales tax to fund the police and fire pension plan was not approved Tuesday. Citizens spoke. There was a larger turnout at the polls than, historically, turn out for a February election. Burris has complained not enough people got out to vote. There have been no complaints on the part of the City, in the past, when there was a low voter turnout which resulted in the passage of a sales tax, why should there be complaint over low voter turnout when a tax is defeated? The City needs to simply accept the voice of the people and focus on the next fiscal budget at this time.
If the City chooses to place this tax before the voters again in June, they will be caught up in budget deliberations and a campaign to pass a 1-cent sales tax at the same time. To set themselves up to be so distracted, due to promoting a sales tax, that they cannot give adequate and proper consideration to the next fiscal budget does not seem wise.
So, in response to the criticizer of the "critics" (whoever they might be) who disagreed with past City Council's failure to make the full actuarial pension contribution in the past but, who believe the City should carefully weigh what is the best action for the City, as a whole, rather than the pension system, alone, in 2009:
We are not living in the past and today, we are in an economic recession. While making the full contribution would have been the best action from 2005-2008, today, there are other considerations. It might not be the best action for the City to make the full actuarial recommended contribution in 2009, and it is, certainly, worth careful consideration.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Wichmer: "These brochures contain factual statements on the status of the plan,"
however, potential cuts to city services if the sales tax measure fails are details of a worst case budget scenario, they are not "facts."
"The Springfield News-Leader's" Wes Johnson covered a story titled: "City swaying tax vote, citizen claims." The citizen cited is one of the members of the group formed to oppose the police/fire pension sales tax which will be on the ballot in February.
Steven Reed's claims might just be sour grapes but he does raise one interesting point when, as the article quotes him, he says:
I don't know whether literature outlining the services which will be cut, if citizens vote no on the pension sales tax measure next month, implies voters should vote yes but, I do believe it is misleading and doesn't qualify as a "fact."
Burris outlined a worst case budget scenario on January 6 at a City Council luncheon. Burris recommended severe cuts to the budget if the sales tax measure failed and sales tax revenues decreased at a rate of 1.5 percent for fiscal year 2008-09 and another 1.5 percent in fiscal 2009-10.
Burris' recommendations are just that. The city manager makes recommendations in the budget and the City Council enters into budget discussions. We need to keep in mind, however, the tentative and/or final budgets for fiscal 2009-10 have not even been presented to the Council, as yet. The City Council has some sway and input over what budget recommendations are accepted and may modify particular areas of the budget, if they choose.
Under the City Charter, next year's fiscal budget begins on the first day of July. Section 5.8 of the City Charter indicates the city manager has to submit a final budget with an explanatory message sixty days before the beginning of the new fiscal budget year. That would mean Burris must present his final budget no later than June 1. The budget is to, "provide a complete financial plan for the budget year." It is to include reasons for any major changes from the preceding year.
In the current fiscal year, the Council began budget discussions in March.
It needs to be kept in mind that Burris' worst case budget scenario is just that, and the Council has leeway in increasing or decreasing various budget items.
It needs to be kept in mind the City of Springfield satisfied the state's legislative mandate to make a full actuary recommended contribution at least once every five years in the last fiscal year. This year Burris is recommending the City make it again (and that may be the wise decision) but, it is not required or mandated the full actuary recommended contribution be made in the next fiscal year and the contribution is not a fixed expenditure.
There will be 9 members of City Council weighing in on the issue before the 2009-10 fiscal budget is adopted. Four of those Council members will be newly elected (in April). We can't know the outcome of those budget discussions and we don't, yet, have a tentative budget (as outlined in City Charter Section 5.7) and there has been no final budget presented to the Council at this point.
I haven't seen this "brochure," however, if, as Reed stated:
I don't see how such details can qualify as "facts," the way City attorney Dan Wichmer is quoted as describing the brochure in the News-Leader article. Wichmer said, "These brochures contain factual statements on the status of the plan."
Burris can recommend any budget cut he'd like to recommend to the City Council in his budget "scenarios," they are still scenarios and to include them in the brochure as though the cuts will be made and it is an established fact, in my opinion, is very misleading.
It ain't gonna be over till 9 Council members sing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Springfield News-Leader's" Wes Johnson covered a story titled: "City swaying tax vote, citizen claims." The citizen cited is one of the members of the group formed to oppose the police/fire pension sales tax which will be on the ballot in February.
Steven Reed's claims might just be sour grapes but he does raise one interesting point when, as the article quotes him, he says:
"The current literature supporting the one-cent sales tax has a 'what if it fails, what services will be cut.' That is clearly implying vote yes."
I don't know whether literature outlining the services which will be cut, if citizens vote no on the pension sales tax measure next month, implies voters should vote yes but, I do believe it is misleading and doesn't qualify as a "fact."
Burris outlined a worst case budget scenario on January 6 at a City Council luncheon. Burris recommended severe cuts to the budget if the sales tax measure failed and sales tax revenues decreased at a rate of 1.5 percent for fiscal year 2008-09 and another 1.5 percent in fiscal 2009-10.
Burris' recommendations are just that. The city manager makes recommendations in the budget and the City Council enters into budget discussions. We need to keep in mind, however, the tentative and/or final budgets for fiscal 2009-10 have not even been presented to the Council, as yet. The City Council has some sway and input over what budget recommendations are accepted and may modify particular areas of the budget, if they choose.
Under the City Charter, next year's fiscal budget begins on the first day of July. Section 5.8 of the City Charter indicates the city manager has to submit a final budget with an explanatory message sixty days before the beginning of the new fiscal budget year. That would mean Burris must present his final budget no later than June 1. The budget is to, "provide a complete financial plan for the budget year." It is to include reasons for any major changes from the preceding year.
Section 5.11:
"After the conclusion of such public hearing or hearings, (see City Charter Section 5.10, find it in my "links") the council may insert new items or may increase or decrease the various items of the budget, except for specified fixed expenditures. If it shall increase the total proposed expenditures, the council shall also increase the total anticipated revenue to at least equal such total proposed expenditures. The budget shall be adopted by the favorable vote of not less than a majority of the entire council, not later than the last Monday of the month preceding the first month of the budget year for which the budget is intended. Should the council take no final action on or prior to that date, the budget as submitted shall be effective without council action."
In the current fiscal year, the Council began budget discussions in March.
It needs to be kept in mind that Burris' worst case budget scenario is just that, and the Council has leeway in increasing or decreasing various budget items.
It needs to be kept in mind the City of Springfield satisfied the state's legislative mandate to make a full actuary recommended contribution at least once every five years in the last fiscal year. This year Burris is recommending the City make it again (and that may be the wise decision) but, it is not required or mandated the full actuary recommended contribution be made in the next fiscal year and the contribution is not a fixed expenditure.
There will be 9 members of City Council weighing in on the issue before the 2009-10 fiscal budget is adopted. Four of those Council members will be newly elected (in April). We can't know the outcome of those budget discussions and we don't, yet, have a tentative budget (as outlined in City Charter Section 5.7) and there has been no final budget presented to the Council at this point.
I haven't seen this "brochure," however, if, as Reed stated:
"The current literature supporting the one-cent sales tax has a 'what if it fails, what services will be cut.'"
I don't see how such details can qualify as "facts," the way City attorney Dan Wichmer is quoted as describing the brochure in the News-Leader article. Wichmer said, "These brochures contain factual statements on the status of the plan."
Burris can recommend any budget cut he'd like to recommend to the City Council in his budget "scenarios," they are still scenarios and to include them in the brochure as though the cuts will be made and it is an established fact, in my opinion, is very misleading.
It ain't gonna be over till 9 Council members sing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Community Free Press Available
After a Holiday Break
You can read the new issue of the Community Free Press online. At this time, I have been unable to access the supplements to the print edition but, I'm sure they'll be online soon.
Featured in this issue is information about the Mayor and City Council candidates. I asked them about their thoughts on the pension sales tax and pension plan and Brian Brown took a look at General Seat A and General Seat B candidates, with the promise to focus on the Zone 1 and Mayor candidates in the January 28 issue. Hopefully, our efforts will give people useful information as they decide who they will support in the primary election on February 3.
Brian Brown also took another look at Park Central Square, its history of change and what is happening today with the renovation of the perimeter of the square. That article can be found on page 1, under the heading, "Change is Part of Square’s Rich History."
In a guest column, City Council General Seat A candidate Robert Stephens, explored his "Concerns About CFP’s Fairness and Policies." I have only one comment regarding Mr. Stephen's concerns: The fact that Mr. Stephen's guest column was published speaks volumes to me but, you can read about his concerns for yourself on page 5 and make your own determination as to whether he has legitimate cause for concern.
Mr. Mace must have found it to be a slow news cycle and that's all I'll say about that. ;)
On page 7, you'll find the first quarter calendars for City Council meetings and City Council luncheon meetings along with Council notes on the recent release of the 2008 Springfield Citizen Survey. There is also information about the worst case budget scenario City Manager Greg Burris shared at a recent Council lunch meeting. Councilman Denny Whayne shared some of his concerns with CFP regarding the hold on police and fire academies and Burris' idea to remove PAR and COP officers from neighborhoods and install them "on the street," instead.
Other headlines include: "Rock Star to Rabbi," page 9; "A Healthier Approach to Pizza," page 11; "Don’t Give Your Money to the Gold Bugs," page 12; "Students Are Taking Over the Air Waves," page 13 and; MERT SEATON has a, "A ‘Pukin’ Good Time" on page 17.
There's a lot more, check it out at the Web site and pick up a copy at one of the many carriers of the paper!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can read the new issue of the Community Free Press online. At this time, I have been unable to access the supplements to the print edition but, I'm sure they'll be online soon.
Featured in this issue is information about the Mayor and City Council candidates. I asked them about their thoughts on the pension sales tax and pension plan and Brian Brown took a look at General Seat A and General Seat B candidates, with the promise to focus on the Zone 1 and Mayor candidates in the January 28 issue. Hopefully, our efforts will give people useful information as they decide who they will support in the primary election on February 3.
Brian Brown also took another look at Park Central Square, its history of change and what is happening today with the renovation of the perimeter of the square. That article can be found on page 1, under the heading, "Change is Part of Square’s Rich History."
In a guest column, City Council General Seat A candidate Robert Stephens, explored his "Concerns About CFP’s Fairness and Policies." I have only one comment regarding Mr. Stephen's concerns: The fact that Mr. Stephen's guest column was published speaks volumes to me but, you can read about his concerns for yourself on page 5 and make your own determination as to whether he has legitimate cause for concern.
Mr. Mace must have found it to be a slow news cycle and that's all I'll say about that. ;)
On page 7, you'll find the first quarter calendars for City Council meetings and City Council luncheon meetings along with Council notes on the recent release of the 2008 Springfield Citizen Survey. There is also information about the worst case budget scenario City Manager Greg Burris shared at a recent Council lunch meeting. Councilman Denny Whayne shared some of his concerns with CFP regarding the hold on police and fire academies and Burris' idea to remove PAR and COP officers from neighborhoods and install them "on the street," instead.
Other headlines include: "Rock Star to Rabbi," page 9; "A Healthier Approach to Pizza," page 11; "Don’t Give Your Money to the Gold Bugs," page 12; "Students Are Taking Over the Air Waves," page 13 and; MERT SEATON has a, "A ‘Pukin’ Good Time" on page 17.
There's a lot more, check it out at the Web site and pick up a copy at one of the many carriers of the paper!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Park Board take over of the Springfield Skatepark
It was planned to be a done deal
When I wrote "The Stage is Set for Springfield-Greene County Parks to Take Over the Skatepark" back in May, I didn't know how right I was. I don't know the exact date the Park Board, or Parks Director Jodie Adams decided not to renew the agreement with the Springfield Skatepark Association but what I do know is the Springfield City Charter, in Section 5.6 states:
So, when I was doing some unrelated research tonight, I was a bit surprised to learn that in 2007, no later than June 30, 2007, the Park Board requested budgeting and budgeting was included for the running of the skatepark:
Public Parks Sales Tax Fund--2001 Parks Sales Tax Priority Number 1:
June 4, 2008, as the city and City Council were budget crunching for fiscal year 2008-09, I wrote, "Springfield Skatepark Association/Springfield-Greene County Parks Mitigation: Example of Open and Transparent Government." In that entry, I quoted from Jason Wert's blog, "Life of Jason,*" an update in which he quoted, in part, Public Information Director Louise Whall as making this statement:
We all know now that the city ended up filing suit to try to take ownership of the skatepark.
This story just gets more and more wicked.
We're supposed to believe the city and Park Board were seriously trying to negotiate and work with "these guys" in January, 2008, when they'd already budgeted to take over management of the skatepark 4 months before the agreement was even due for renewal and had stated outright the Skatepark Association was, "expected to cease operations and management of this facility in October 2007" in the budget document for fiscal year 2007-08?
I wonder what happened to that estimated $339,405 that was budgeted for running the Springfield Skatepark last year? Hmmm.
Update: The bus rode around the block on this one:"TWO PLUS TWO MAKES FIVE!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*The author (Jason Wert) gives permission for electronic, print or broadcast media to use information from any posting ONLY if a link to this blog site is provided and printed identification of the location of the information provided or the full web address of the site, www.lifeofjason.com, is mentioned as the source of the information."
When I wrote "The Stage is Set for Springfield-Greene County Parks to Take Over the Skatepark" back in May, I didn't know how right I was. I don't know the exact date the Park Board, or Parks Director Jodie Adams decided not to renew the agreement with the Springfield Skatepark Association but what I do know is the Springfield City Charter, in Section 5.6 states:
"The fiscal year of the City of Springfield unless otherwise provided by ordinance, shall begin on the first day of July and shall end on the last day of June of each calendar year...."
So, when I was doing some unrelated research tonight, I was a bit surprised to learn that in 2007, no later than June 30, 2007, the Park Board requested budgeting and budgeting was included for the running of the skatepark:
Public Parks Sales Tax Fund--2001 Parks Sales Tax Priority Number 1:
"NEW PARK OPERATIONS-SPRINGFIELD SKATEPARK-- Springfield Skatepark Association, Inc., is the organization currently operating the Springfield Skatepark. They are expected to cease operations and management of this facility in October 2007. As a result, the Springfield-Greene County Park Board anticipates operating the facility at that time. To operate this facility, three full time positions are necessary to cover this seven day per week operation and includes the following: (FTE) Community Recreational Coordinator, and two full-time contractual supervisors. To operate this facility, requests for all necessary, operational budget items are included within the budget necessary to begin operating the facility effective October 1, 2007. Total budget for operating this new facility is funded from operating revenues and the 2001 Parks Sales Tax revenues.
Estimated Costs: $339,405. This priority is funded in the 2007-08 budget." - [PDF] CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MO 2007 - 2008 ADOPTED BUDGET
June 4, 2008, as the city and City Council were budget crunching for fiscal year 2008-09, I wrote, "Springfield Skatepark Association/Springfield-Greene County Parks Mitigation: Example of Open and Transparent Government." In that entry, I quoted from Jason Wert's blog, "Life of Jason,*" an update in which he quoted, in part, Public Information Director Louise Whall as making this statement:
"We have another round of mediation scheduled for January 8 (2008) and we are hopeful this matter can still settle. We want to work with these guys if at all possible. But we don’t feel its appropriate to air any details on the matter until we make this further attempt at mediation. After the January 8 meeting we should be in a position to discuss it more fully.”
We all know now that the city ended up filing suit to try to take ownership of the skatepark.
This story just gets more and more wicked.
We're supposed to believe the city and Park Board were seriously trying to negotiate and work with "these guys" in January, 2008, when they'd already budgeted to take over management of the skatepark 4 months before the agreement was even due for renewal and had stated outright the Skatepark Association was, "expected to cease operations and management of this facility in October 2007" in the budget document for fiscal year 2007-08?
I wonder what happened to that estimated $339,405 that was budgeted for running the Springfield Skatepark last year? Hmmm.
Update: The bus rode around the block on this one:"TWO PLUS TWO MAKES FIVE!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*The author (Jason Wert) gives permission for electronic, print or broadcast media to use information from any posting ONLY if a link to this blog site is provided and printed identification of the location of the information provided or the full web address of the site, www.lifeofjason.com, is mentioned as the source of the information."
Monday, May 19, 2008
Yes, the budget is a living breathing document
Okay, Councilman Wylie, I know the budget is a living document, after all it gets amended over and over throughout the year.
It still concerns me when I read something like this:
When a department head is so flippant about the fact that a program has "often gone over budget," it makes me wonder how many other programs go over budget. What is the process for going over budget? Does the Council approve it? Are the funds taken from somewhere else?
The budget is supposed to be balanced and if it is balanced, allowing a certain amount for such a program (or any number of others) and it (and any number of others) goes over budget, then where does that money come from? It has to come from somewhere.
It still concerns me when I read something like this:
"Maerz said in years past the program has often gone over budget, so the cuts proposed will be more dramatic than they appear."
When a department head is so flippant about the fact that a program has "often gone over budget," it makes me wonder how many other programs go over budget. What is the process for going over budget? Does the Council approve it? Are the funds taken from somewhere else?
The budget is supposed to be balanced and if it is balanced, allowing a certain amount for such a program (or any number of others) and it (and any number of others) goes over budget, then where does that money come from? It has to come from somewhere.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
City Budget: A "living, breathing document?"
In: Pay for learning worth tweaking, The News-Leader's "Our Voice" column supports reimbursing city employees for college credits. I was interested to read this section:
Question: If city departments are allowed to go over budget anyway, then why bother having a budget and why bother going to all the trouble of having the City Council approve it?
It appears it's just a piece of paper and departments can go over budget on programs anyway.
Give me a break.
*emphasis mine
"City Human Resources Director Sheila Maerz speaks with passion about the program, saying, "Developing a person is far better than developing job skills." She said employees in the past have trained outside their job requirements and gone on to bigger, more important roles within city government.
Maerz said in years past the program has often gone over budget, so the cuts proposed will be more dramatic than they appear. For instance, she said the program spent $194,000 in the last year for which she had figures."*
Question: If city departments are allowed to go over budget anyway, then why bother having a budget and why bother going to all the trouble of having the City Council approve it?
It appears it's just a piece of paper and departments can go over budget on programs anyway.
"The cuts proposed will be more dramatic than they appear."
Give me a break.
*emphasis mine
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Unsolicited advice
As the City Council continues budget discussions, and practically on the eve of the final budget being submitted to them, I felt it might be a good time to post this letter from Benjamin Franklin to Madame Brillon. Hat tip to Momma Twoop (yes, I kept the whistle)
The Whistle
by Benjamin Franklin
To Madame Brillon
I received my dear friend’s two letters, one for Wednesday and one for Saturday. This is again Wednesday. I do not deserve one for today, because I have not answered the former. But, indolent as I am, and averse to writing, the fear of having no more of your pleasing epistles, if I do not contribute to the correspondence, obliges me to take up my pen; and as Mr.B. has kindly sent me word that he sets out tomorrow to see you, instead of spending this Wednesday evening, as I have done its namesakes, in your delightful company, I sit down to spend it in thinking of you, in writing to you, and in reading over and over again your letters.
I am charmed with your description of Paradise, and with your plan of living there; and I approve much of your conclusion, that, in the meantime, we should draw all the good we can from this world. In my opinion we might all draw more good from it than we do, and suffer less evil, if we would take care not to give too much for whistles. For to me it seems that most of the unhappy people we meet with are become so by neglect of that caution.
You ask what I mean? You love stories, and will excuse my telling one of myself.
When I was a child of seven years old, my friends, on a holiday, filled my pocket with coppers. I went directly to a shop where they sold toys for children; and being charmed with the sound of a whistle, that I met by the way in the hands of another boy, I voluntarily offered and gave all my money for one. I then came home, and went whistling all over the house, much pleased with my whistle, but disturbing all the family. My brothers, and sisters, and cousins, understanding the bargain I had made, told me I had given four times as much for it as it was worth; put me in mind what good things I might have bought with the rest of the money; and laughed at me so much for my folly, that I cried with vexation; and the reflection gave me more chagrin than the whistle gave me pleasure. This, however, was afterwards of use to me, the impression continuing on my mind; so that often, when I was tempted to buy some unnecessary thing, I said to myself, Don’t give too much for the whistle; and I saved my money.
As I grew up, came into the world, and observed the actions of men, I thought I met with many, very many, who gave too much for the whistle.
When I saw one too ambitious of court favor, sacrificing his time in attendance on levees, his repose, his liberty, his virtue, and perhaps his friends, to attain it, I have said to myself, This man gives too much for his whistle.
When I saw another fond of popularity, constantly employing himself in political bustles, neglecting his own affairs, and ruining them by that neglect, He pays, indeed, said I, too much for his whistle.
If I knew a miser, who gave up every kind of comfortable living, all the pleasure of doing good to others, all the esteem of his fellow-citizens, and the joys of benevolent friendship, for the sake of accumulating wealth, Poor man, said I, you pay too much for your whistle.
When I met with a man of pleasure, sacrificing every laudable improvement of the mind, or of his fortune, to mere corporeal sensations, and ruining his health in their pursuit, Mistaken man, said I, you are providing pain for yourself, instead of pleasure; you give too much for your whistle.
If I see one fond of appearance, or fine clothes, fine houses, fine furniture, fine equipages, all above his fortune, for which he contracts debts, and ends his career in a prison, Alas! say I, he has paid dear, very dear, for his whistle.
When I see a beautiful sweet-tempered girl married to an ill-natured brute of a husband, What a pity, say I, that she should pay so much for a whistle!
In short, I conceive that great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by the false estimates they have made of the value of things, and by their giving too much for their whistles.
Yet I ought to have charity for these unhappy people, when I consider that, with all this wisdom of which I am boasting, there are certain things in the world so tempting, for example, the apples of King John, which happily are not to be bought; for if they were put to sale by auction, I might very easily be led to ruin myself in the purchase, and find that I had once more given too much for the whistle.
Adieu, my dear friend, and believe me ever yours very sincerely and with unalterable affection.
The End
Monday, April 14, 2008
Recommended Reading 11 - More on earnings taxes
From Show-Me Institute
Lest We Think 1 Percent Is Small
The article goes on to point out that if median income families saved the $350 a year by moving outside of a city that collects a 1% earnings tax, in 40 years they would have $80,000 more in household wealth than if they had lived in a 1% earnings tax city. Think of that, a potential $80,000 over the course of 40 years to go into your retirement if you simply chose to move to the suburbs rather than live in an earnings taxed city! Both St. Louis and Kansas City collect a 1% earnings tax. The median income of $35,000 per year would require $350 annually to pay the earnings tax.
This recommended article concludes:
Lest We Think 1 Percent Is Small
"Earnings taxes are not unique — about 25 percent of the nation’s largest cities collect them — but they have become increasingly rare in recent decades. One reason for their decline is that earnings taxes are particularly damaging to cities with significant suburban populations and small urban cores, such as Saint Louis and Kansas City, because they encourage businesses and residents to relocate out of town. Because suburban districts offer a similar range of cultural and employment opportunities as the city itself, households and businesses have little incentive to pay higher taxes solely for the benefit of a city street address...." (emphasis mine)
The article goes on to point out that if median income families saved the $350 a year by moving outside of a city that collects a 1% earnings tax, in 40 years they would have $80,000 more in household wealth than if they had lived in a 1% earnings tax city. Think of that, a potential $80,000 over the course of 40 years to go into your retirement if you simply chose to move to the suburbs rather than live in an earnings taxed city! Both St. Louis and Kansas City collect a 1% earnings tax. The median income of $35,000 per year would require $350 annually to pay the earnings tax.
This recommended article concludes:
"Taxes are a necessary part of urban living, but it’s important that cities adopt tax policies that encourage growth rather than driving it out of town. Earnings taxes can significantly impact a household’s lifetime earnings. In many cases, residents have chosen to “vote with their feet,” relocating to suburbs and lower tax rates. In fact, to help illustrate the incentives that varying tax rates provide, the Show-Me Institute recently released an estimator that helps Missourians compare their relative tax burdens across the state.
While Saint Louis’ and Kansas City’s metropolitan areas have continued to grow over the years, their urban cores have stagnated. Is the earnings tax really so insignificant?"
Recommended Reading 10 ~ On Earnings Tax
From Show-Me Institute
How an Earnings Tax Harms Cities Like Saint Louis and Kansas City
From the Four Page Policy Briefing linked at the above article:
How an Earnings Tax Harms Cities Like Saint Louis and Kansas City
"The economics is quite straightforward. By adopting an earnings tax, a city gives businesses and residents an incentive to locate production outside the city. People go where they will obtain the highest after-tax return on their labor or investments."
From the Four Page Policy Briefing linked at the above article:
"An earnings tax is systematically associated with lower city percapita income relative to the surrounding suburbs."
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Dan Chiles: Conflict of Interest or Simple Budget Discussions?
Tomorrow, one thing that is on the slate at the City Council luncheon will be delivery of a draft prepared by Springfield City Attorney Dan Wichmer outlining what course of action could or should be made regarding an ethics question that was raised after comments made by City Councilman Dan Chiles regarding non-profit organizations and other issues during ongoing budget discussions.
Following is the transcript of his comments from that March 18 City Council luncheon that spawned the ethics questions, you be the judge whether these comments were a conflict or a part of ongoing budget discussions. Councilman Chiles is a board member of the Watershed Committee of the Ozarks:
"Mayor, I was alarmed by the size of the cuts to the non-profits at our meeting last night. I think that, if we have to put some perspective on this, instead of just treating it like second class citizens and saying you're just a non-profit, we're going to take 50 percent of your budget, we ought to view them the way they view themselves.
These organizations actually attract money, like the Watershed Committee attracts $7 for every dollar we give them. Melissa Haddow testified that the wonderful work she does for the Community Partnership of the Ozarks. She attracts $17 for every dollar that we give her and to whack their budgets by 50 percent will mean people will lose their jobs and the integrity of some of these organizations will fail..."
(Mayor Carlson interjects: "Just to be clear, we're not whacking their budgets, we're whacking our contributions to their budgets, that's quite a bit different.")
"...but, I note that what we did, and I asked the clerk to look this up, on December 17 we had proceeds from the telecom settlement, we took $300,000 after we had made other payments and we, it looked like we weren't exactly sure what we could do with the $300,000, so we made an unscheduled pay raise to city employees and I'm not saying they're not worth it because city employees work hard and maybe we should have given them a pay raise, but the fact that three months later we find ourselves in the depths of a terrible budget crises, where that $300,000 would have been extremely useful to preserve exactly these non-profits that we're talking about here today makes me wonder. Where is the vision that three months ago should have recognized $300,000 would have come in handy? And today, we're in a budget crises ready to cut these organizations by 50 percent.
To me it's just alarming and I would propose an alternative that whatever it is that we cut city departments by, in total, whether it's 5 percent solution or 7 percent solution or whatever it is, we cut the non-profits by the same percentage. I'm not saying they shouldn't suffer it's just, I say everybody should suffer, but given their value....
Like we were just at the Watershed meeting the other day and if there is any priority for this community, and I know that police and fire is one, but so is water. We were told about a great pharmaceutical experiment that Americans are imposing on themselves which is, let's take a witch's brew of pharmaceuticals and let's add them into the water supply and let's give them to our children. Well, this is happening all across America and we need a better vision, a better understanding about how to protect ourselves against these things and whacking this budget at this time means that we're not setting two priorities so, not everything in that list of non-profit's is the same priority, I'll admit, but certainly a water supply is something we can't live for three days without so that's why I think we need a more systematic and more policy driven discussion of which one of these should suffer and which one of these should, maybe, be added to and I don't think we saw that last night and I recognize that the first take on this was just an overview, a suggestion, but I think now it's time, within this time limit that was just adopted, which is very short, to take a look at these community priorities and to say, these people are doing great work and attracting money that is leveraging what we give them with the volunteer support of all these boards and volunteers that work in these organizations and they are worth the expense.
So, it means we're going to have to find cuts in other places that we did not see last night and I would support that and I just mentioned a few off the top of my mind which came from the auditor's report, which was the 400 cars. Now, maybe we're addressing that, okay, but it does make you wonder and I think the citizens of Springfield need to know that was such an egregious example of cars only driven for a thousand miles a year that apparently are not of great use and I'd like to know that those kind of cuts, in addition to memberships and trips to meetings and whatever it is that normal businesses in tight financial times find ways to cut, if we can cut some of those things, maybe we can preserve some of the non-profits and I would support that.
And finally, I would say, and perhaps this is a question to your question of the process, but inside of Springfield, Missouri are people who know how to trim budgets, the most famous is Jack Stack with SRC, these people live lives on tight budgets and if we had the time and if we have the means we could impanel a volunteer group of people who could put together an outside view of this budget and I guarantee we'd be counting toilet paper in Springfield, Missouri and maybe that's what we need to do. We'd be looking and every single nut and bolt and dollar in this town and maybe that's what we need to do before we agree on a budget and so, before we do any more discussions of taking the legs out from under these non-profits, I would support an outside view, a volunteer citizen panel if they would agree to do it, no expense to the city, and see if we can't find additional cuts. Thanks."
---end March 18 comments---
"I think it falls in that category of setting priorities and deciding what we're going to do and all this ethics, conflict of interest stuff has really been a distraction, I think." - Councilman Dan Chiles, March 31, 2008
Following is the transcript of his comments from that March 18 City Council luncheon that spawned the ethics questions, you be the judge whether these comments were a conflict or a part of ongoing budget discussions. Councilman Chiles is a board member of the Watershed Committee of the Ozarks:
"Mayor, I was alarmed by the size of the cuts to the non-profits at our meeting last night. I think that, if we have to put some perspective on this, instead of just treating it like second class citizens and saying you're just a non-profit, we're going to take 50 percent of your budget, we ought to view them the way they view themselves.
These organizations actually attract money, like the Watershed Committee attracts $7 for every dollar we give them. Melissa Haddow testified that the wonderful work she does for the Community Partnership of the Ozarks. She attracts $17 for every dollar that we give her and to whack their budgets by 50 percent will mean people will lose their jobs and the integrity of some of these organizations will fail..."
(Mayor Carlson interjects: "Just to be clear, we're not whacking their budgets, we're whacking our contributions to their budgets, that's quite a bit different.")
"...but, I note that what we did, and I asked the clerk to look this up, on December 17 we had proceeds from the telecom settlement, we took $300,000 after we had made other payments and we, it looked like we weren't exactly sure what we could do with the $300,000, so we made an unscheduled pay raise to city employees and I'm not saying they're not worth it because city employees work hard and maybe we should have given them a pay raise, but the fact that three months later we find ourselves in the depths of a terrible budget crises, where that $300,000 would have been extremely useful to preserve exactly these non-profits that we're talking about here today makes me wonder. Where is the vision that three months ago should have recognized $300,000 would have come in handy? And today, we're in a budget crises ready to cut these organizations by 50 percent.
To me it's just alarming and I would propose an alternative that whatever it is that we cut city departments by, in total, whether it's 5 percent solution or 7 percent solution or whatever it is, we cut the non-profits by the same percentage. I'm not saying they shouldn't suffer it's just, I say everybody should suffer, but given their value....
Like we were just at the Watershed meeting the other day and if there is any priority for this community, and I know that police and fire is one, but so is water. We were told about a great pharmaceutical experiment that Americans are imposing on themselves which is, let's take a witch's brew of pharmaceuticals and let's add them into the water supply and let's give them to our children. Well, this is happening all across America and we need a better vision, a better understanding about how to protect ourselves against these things and whacking this budget at this time means that we're not setting two priorities so, not everything in that list of non-profit's is the same priority, I'll admit, but certainly a water supply is something we can't live for three days without so that's why I think we need a more systematic and more policy driven discussion of which one of these should suffer and which one of these should, maybe, be added to and I don't think we saw that last night and I recognize that the first take on this was just an overview, a suggestion, but I think now it's time, within this time limit that was just adopted, which is very short, to take a look at these community priorities and to say, these people are doing great work and attracting money that is leveraging what we give them with the volunteer support of all these boards and volunteers that work in these organizations and they are worth the expense.
So, it means we're going to have to find cuts in other places that we did not see last night and I would support that and I just mentioned a few off the top of my mind which came from the auditor's report, which was the 400 cars. Now, maybe we're addressing that, okay, but it does make you wonder and I think the citizens of Springfield need to know that was such an egregious example of cars only driven for a thousand miles a year that apparently are not of great use and I'd like to know that those kind of cuts, in addition to memberships and trips to meetings and whatever it is that normal businesses in tight financial times find ways to cut, if we can cut some of those things, maybe we can preserve some of the non-profits and I would support that.
And finally, I would say, and perhaps this is a question to your question of the process, but inside of Springfield, Missouri are people who know how to trim budgets, the most famous is Jack Stack with SRC, these people live lives on tight budgets and if we had the time and if we have the means we could impanel a volunteer group of people who could put together an outside view of this budget and I guarantee we'd be counting toilet paper in Springfield, Missouri and maybe that's what we need to do. We'd be looking and every single nut and bolt and dollar in this town and maybe that's what we need to do before we agree on a budget and so, before we do any more discussions of taking the legs out from under these non-profits, I would support an outside view, a volunteer citizen panel if they would agree to do it, no expense to the city, and see if we can't find additional cuts. Thanks."
---end March 18 comments---
"I think it falls in that category of setting priorities and deciding what we're going to do and all this ethics, conflict of interest stuff has really been a distraction, I think." - Councilman Dan Chiles, March 31, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
City Connect Provides Valuable Research Links
City Connect, the city's semi-blog,* has provided the following links at their website under the heading of "Talk to Council About the Budget on March 31" :
> Video link of the meeting today at the Council luncheon
> The city email address that citizens can use to communicate their ideas on the budget
> The budget discussion schedule
> The current year's budget
> Links to specific pages in the current year's budget that will be helpful to the public
These are the tools you need to comment or make recommendations for the future budget. You have 13 days to prepare to address Council at the March 31 meeting at Council Chambers from 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. if that is the way you choose to share your ideas. You know what to do. :)
* I consider it only sort of a blog because readers cannot post comments there. Readers can privately email questions and comments but there is no comment section. What's a blog without a comment section!?? :0
Public Input Invited on City Budget
The public will have an opportunity to address council about the city's budget process and offer input on Monday, March 31 from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
