Tuesday, March 8, 2011

SPENDING. LET’S GET SERIOUS.

Posted per email request.
As we watch and read about the price of gas and food on the rise, the media not giving you the true numbers of unemployment which is really at 22%, cities and states fighting to keep their heads above water, the Federal Reserve advising our government to raise the debt ceiling. How much more can the taxpayer absorb? However, all I hear from our Mayor is he wants to reduce the pay of the Council for laptops. Where is the rest of his proposed reduced spending list?
It was obvious in the recent election that spending was at the top of most people’s list. While many of us have had to already tighten our belts the city continues to act as if we will not be affected by this economy. When are we going to plan for the bumps in the road? When are we going to trim some fat?
One of the issues the Mayor campaigned on and proceeded to recommend, at the January meeting, to cut the Council’s pay by 25%. We heard the Council’s arguments and then the Mayor claimed he wanted to use it for laptops. Laptops! The motion was not seconded. I voted for him because I thought he was serious about reduced spending. In February he brought it up again because Councilmember King said at the January meeting, which the Mayor did not hear, he would agree to a 10% reduction in 2011 and another 10% in 2012 if it paid down City debt and not for additional spending. According to Dallas Larson this amount would not pay down any significant debt. It was then suggested to do a cost comparison of laptops vs. paper copies. If the numbers come back that laptops are more cost effective, would this not become an annual operating cost? Why wasn’t this looked at as a cost-cutting factor in the first place? However, don’t we still have to retain a copier for other document copying?
The Mayor thinks our Council is getting paid too much according to other cities. I feel many councils are getting paid too much because they don’t represent the people anymore. He also commented that years ago some members of committees and council members did not get paid and if they did, it was very little. He claimed they wanted to serve the community. Well, we have heard that line before. I seem to remember that we called those the “good old boys”. Weren’t some of these owners of rather large parcels of land and were rewarded in the end because of the input on how this City was developed to their advantage? Isn’t this part of the reason our taxes are so high because they concentrated too much on houses rather than attracting more businesses to relieve us of this tax burden we have had for years? It can be dangerous to a community when only people with self-interests or comfortable financial means are in charge of your future. Their visions can be totally different than that of the hard-working citizens that they are supposed to represent. Isn’t this the same thing that has been going on in this city in the last few years? People in office with no financial worries. Only their visions. History repeats itself.
I knew Steve would have to quit a 3rd job if he was elected and possibly even have to take that 25% reduction. Our budget is tight now, but we were willing to take that hit because we felt the need for him to run so finally the people had a voice at City Hall. However, I resent the fact that the Mayor wants to reduce his pay and then turn around and vote for $5,500 for Fete de Lacs. Are you serious? If there is to be a reduction in pay, I want my tax dollars to go back to the community in the form of education such as a constitutional seminar or community gardens (we certainly have enough parks for gardens) not laptops. We may be looking at rough times ahead and I want my tax dollars to be used that will give a lasting affect on the citizens of this city not some one-day party. If food prices keep going up, there may be some elderly or families in this community that are going to need the extra help. Mayor you took an oath to the Constitution and you are supposed to spend the taxpayer money wisely. If you want a laptop, then buy it yourself. Better yet donate your pay for Fete de Lacs since you think you are being overpaid. 

By Donna King

9 comments:

LyNae Marshall said...

I'm all for cutting spending - and in a BIG way! Why? Because we MUST or we are in BIG trouble. Trouble measured by an ever-increasing tax burden on residents and an exploding debt. (Our town deficit has more than doubled in 6 years). The City will not be able to sustain this deficit.

I voted for Mayor Wilharber as well. I've lived in this town since '95 and have seen Mr. Wilharber "in action" as he served other times. (Please note that I do not know him personally). I have always believed and continue to believe that he IS a "man of the people". Your husband and Mr. Wilharber are just 'out of the starting gate' with this council. Perhaps your judgement of the Mayor is premature. Sure, cutting council's pay is not a big budget reducer, but I saw this action of Mayor Wilharber's as something more. As if he was saying; "Listen, if we are going to turn things around and climb out of this debt let's begin by being good examples ourselves." Good leadership is exemplified by being a good example; a 'servant' if you will. Just look at how those in Washington continually exempt themselves from the very laws they pass on us; NOT good leadership and certainly NOT serving nor representing the people. The Mayor's motion to cut his and council's own pay AND the fact that he revisited his motion with council in February IS indeed evidence of his being a good servant and representative of the people.

Please hear me, (because I think we are on the same side when it comes to deep cuts in spending & government abiding by the Constitution), I empathize with your husband's situation and I am not making a judgement on his decision to run for office. But I am wondering, is it not the same to say that I don't want (or cannot afford) a cut in pay so I'll keep the cash & the council saying I don't want a cut in pay so how about a laptop? Again, I am only referring here to the cuts in council's pay. I understand how Councilman King voted for other cuts (i.e. Fete de lacs, which I would concur) that the Mayor & council did not. That too speaks for itself.

Whether it's a 10% cut in council's pay your husband supported or 25% that the Mayor suggested, I would like to see (I think along with many others) those cuts applied to paying down the deficit and NOT to other 'programs' for the community.

One more thing, the city consistenly reports that businesses are needed in town to defer the tax burden on residents. That may true today, but that was NOT the case just a few years ago! This need of more businesses is, in my opinion, a hardship of the previous (some current) council's own making.

In the end, I just hope that your husband, along with the Mayor and the other councilmen can get on board together and make those deep cuts needed to pay down our deficit and get us out of this BIG trouble!

Respectfully,
LyNae Marshall

Jake from Centerville said...

What is the "BIG TROUBLE" LyNae is referring to? As I understand it, our debt did increase, but that is due to recent road projects. I, for one, am supportive of road projects. Not only do they maintain the access we all need to get about, but they also create jobs. What am I missing? Is money being spent somewhere else that I am not aware of?

Anonymous said...

Ha! That's pretty funny, Jake. Our debt has increased by MILLIONS of dollars since 2005 and it's not due to road projects. Consider the second public works building we just had to have for the bargain price of 1.2 million dollars. Meanwhile, we still own the original building that's currently (I believe) being used for storage. There are also the 5 or 6 parks we now own and must maintain in our little 2.2 square mile town. That land was not free. Our colored concrete that's starting to fall apart on main street coupled with the ridiculous amount of lights cost us about half a million. I could go on and on.
As far as the recent road project, the residents were assessed by degree of repair and frontage feet. This debt is currently being collected by the city and the residents that could not afford to pay the lump sum are being charged interest.
Do a little research. Unfortunately, you'll discover that there you are definitely not aware.

Julie from Centerville said...

Just copied from old posts

CENTERVILLE’S DEBT
2004 $5,710,000
2009 $ 11,272,000
A 97% INCREASE IN FIVE YEARS!

Just scroll down the page.

Downtown bike trail to feature two new parks
Two new city parks are planned for summer construction that will coincide with completion of a downtown bike trail along Main Street. The parks were officially named “Cornerstone” and “Trailside” at a Feb. 10 City Council meeting. The names were recommended by the city’s parks and recreation committee.
Centerville collects a park dedication fee from every new development within the city. Although the funding has run dry, City Administrator Dallas Larson said the parks are moving forward thanks to federal funding dollars totaling around $800,000. That money will help pay for both the bike trail and the parks, which Larson described as trail “rest stops.” The city is committing around $400,000 for the project, money that had to be borrowed against future development dedication fees, Larson said.

Charlie said...

Hey Jake, (sorry don't mean to rip on you) really, I don't.
I also, am for road projects and creating new jobs. The ones that are funded with predetermined taxpayer dollars as MANY other cities do. NOT the ones that assess people on-top of the exorbitant taxes they already pay.
Isn't that the role of government? Isn't that the reason we pay taxes? Centerville still to this day has refused to put away a reasonable amount of money to fund this very basic need.
9/15/2009
Instead of setting aside $100,000 needed for seal coating next year they chose to compromise at the suggestion of Mary Capra, dedicating approximately half of what is needed.
To her credit Linda Vickers voted against the resolution stating "you do not have a plan if that plan is not funded".

But we can spend over a million dollars on a second building we don't need?
400,000 on two "rest stop" parks?
Half a million for street lights and colored concrete on a COUNTY road?
How much road maintenance would this money have paid for?

Hopefully there are new council members with a tiny bit of tigers blood!

Sizzle... Losing... Bye!

Charlie said...

CENTERVILLE’S DEBT

2004 $5,710,000
2009 $ 11,272,000

Random thought... With this kind of debt, NOBODY should ever be assessed for road improvements in this tiny town!

What the H has been going on around Centerville?

Wake up so you can be WINNING like me and stop taking this crap!

Jake said...

Charlie, how are we to pay for roads if not thru assessments? Dthe only other way is thru a tax increase?

Jake From Centerville said...

OK... did some checking on centervillemn.com

Link:

http://www.centervillemn.com/vertical/Sites/%7BD770044D-2DE8-4478-9AB4-047D7127BF55%7D/uploads/%7B35C79668-953F-43FC-B946-0D1F7FBFBF4C%7D.PDF

Currently, we the tax payers of Centerville have $9.9 million in outstanding debt (first page under liabilities). Of that debt, Approx. $2.3 million is due in deferred assessments (under "Special Assessments Deferred also on the first page). That leaves Approx. $7.6 million in outstanding bonds that are to be paid back in full by 2025 by the taxpayers on Centerville.

Lino, by the way, has $41.5 million in outstanding debt/bonds!!!! Page F-1 on the following link:

http://www.linolakes.govoffice2.com/vertical/Sites/{A233BB09-8316-4E17-A27A-C25E01027DA7}/uploads/{60E21DA5-E854-48E2-AFD8-B770AFC578B7}.PDF

As far as I can tell, this debt was issued in various bonds from 2004, 2005, 2007 and 2009 and all seem to be related to street projects. I know this city grew quite fast in the early 2000's, so this seems about right.

The parks referenced above seem to have been paid for by cash... from park funds that developers pay...in other words there is no outstanding bonds for anything other than roads.

Now, there are internal loans of about 2 million dollars (Inerfund loans, also on page 1) made from the sewer fund to the general fund and the park capital project (I think this is for the new park for the trail project??? Anyone know for sure?).

The city also seems to have $5 million in the bank (page 4 on the balance sheet, top right number).

So, not trying to offend anyone, but what are you trying to accomplish? If the city did not charge assessments (some city's don't), the balance of the assessments would now be added to the debt and be payable in the form of additional taxes....in other words, high taxes for everyone.

Oh, and I agree about the public works building...not sure what council was thinking about that decision.

Anonymous said...

@Charlie
Hopefully there are new council members with a tiny bit of tigers blood!
Sizzle... Losing... Bye!

LOL!!! Go Wilharber and King!!!