| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 11/29/2010 : 08:58:07 AM
|
Joint Convention of the City Council
Public Hearing
Monday, November 29th at 6:00 PM
Discussing how the fiscal-yearn2010 City of Everett Property tax levy shall be distributed between the Residential, Open Space, Commercial, Industrial and Personal Property classes.
City Hall – 3rd Floor – City Chamber
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2010 : 10:31:20 AM
|
I did not see the meeting last night but had heard values have come down, and that’s what offsets the tax bills.
My question is: Did Everett actually do a formal reassessment of the values? If not, the fact that values have come down is irrelevant because the assessments have stayed the same.
|
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2010 : 11:09:28 AM
|
| They are depending on the city council to move $4million from the Stabilization Fund. If this does not happen, then watch out. I have mixed emotions on what is the right thing to do. What will they use next year to offset the taxes. I really believe they need to try to get creative and cut spending somehow. I don't want to see water and trash rates increased, as the mayor mentioned to increase revenue. That is just another form of taxation. |
Edited by - massdee on 11/30/2010 11:10:25 AM |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2010 : 3:11:01 PM
|
| I don't see a problem with using the stabilization fund to offset the tax burden. Isn't that why it was created in the first place? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2010 : 3:14:42 PM
|
Wasn't the stabilization fund established for the school building program? I could be wrong but I thought that was when it was formed under then Mayor McCarthy.
I think the BOA kind of put the cart before the horse last night. What happens if it doesn't pass to move the money from the stabilization fund? |
Edited by - massdee on 11/30/2010 3:18:23 PM |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2010 : 3:59:30 PM
|
You are right, the stabilization fund was established as part of the school building program. It's intent was to make sure there wasn't any extra burden placed on the taxpayers as a result of debt incurred during the school building project. The fund is made up of taxpayer money....money that was placed in the fund when the city was flush with cash. If there is a public outcry to lower taxes, I see this transfer as the best way to accomplish that task. The only other option is to cut expenses. Cutting 4 million in expenses means atleast 60 positions. Firemen, Teachers, Policemen, City Services.....I don't think its doable. It would be difficult finding 10 positions to cut, never mind 60.
I think the CC needs to approve the transfer. I think the Mayor needs to continue finding grant funding for projects. The longer term solution has to be adding additional revenue to the tax base via new development. The problem is that every surrounding city has that same long term solution. The city that has strong schools,low crime rate and a favorable infrastructure is going to attract new development. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2010 : 5:06:21 PM
|
I think the transfer will pass the CC without a problem. The BOA could be a different story. It will be interesting to hear the arguments on this one. At last night's meeting, did they say the average tax bill will increase $500. to $600. if the transfer isn't made? If they do the transfer this year, what will happen next year? I still think on top of whatever is done, they still need to look to find some cuts in the budget. Where, I don't know. I don't agree with looking at Fire, Police and Teachers first. I would think, but don't know, that there could be some positions that could be cut in some areas of city hall. It would make more sense to look there first. We need a salary and hiring freeze. That should have been done when the economy turned. City government needs to be more proactive instead of reactive. They knew for years the TIF with the old Sythe was changing, that should have been taken into consideration when running the figures for this years budget. There was not one word mentioned about the TIF during the budget hearings. They need to think long and hard on any spending that can be pot off until the economy improves. These are not easy times and I think people would like to see the city government cut back much like what we had to do in our own homes.
|
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2010 : 5:30:38 PM
|
To you point " These are not easy times and I think people would like to see the city government cut back much like what we had to do in our own homes."
That way of thinking works great at a high level and even sounds good on TV. When you come down from the 50,000 foot view and get into the details you find a lot of impediments.
First, as a homeowner you can cut expenses and the only person it affects is you. Maybe you put off painting the house or repaving the driveway. The only person that will have an affect on is you. For the city to cut expenses, it affects both employees and taxpayers. It affects them today and the opportunity cost is magnified down the line (read as lost revenue for not being ready when the market turns around) Second, have you ever negotiated with a union? You cant get them to work with you to reduce health care expenses.....good luck trying to get them to hold off on previously negotiated pay increases. Pay freezes work for State and Federal governments...they are both so spread out and so large that a pay freeze makes a dent (4 billion this year alone for federal government). A pay freeze in the city would save very little...and have a negative impact on morale. The quality and quantity of work will go down. In my opinion, the juice isnt worth the squeeze. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2010 : 8:35:35 PM
|
The problem with using the stabilization fund to lower the tax levy is that it is not a sustainable solution. With $1 million already applied to the tax levy earlier in the year and $4 million proposed now, that could leave a $5 million gap going into next year. And we know that increased fixed costs alone will drive the budget up again next year. How much new growth will it take to offset a $5 million plus gap? And there is no guarantee when and how much new development will come on-line. And just how much new development would have come online to offset $5 million in taxes?
It's pretty clear that one "go to" solution to the issue won't last much longer. There are no other easy answers to this problem. That means that everything needs to be on the table, no matter how small or how painful. And the pain is just going to be magnified by the fact the issue just keeps getting put off. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 11/30/2010 : 9:57:50 PM
|
| Agreed, it is not a sustainable solution. For the 60 people that would lose their job, it provides another years worth of employment. In my opinion, cutting jobs is the last thing that should happen. If a 4 million transfer saves jobs for a year, so be it. These people that would lose their job are our neighbors. They are the people that police our streets. They teach our children. They put out the fires. I'm ok with keeping them employed for another year. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2010 : 10:25:28 AM
|
For the most part, I'm not advocating for anybody to lose their jobs at this time; if that needed to be done (and it should have been given more consideration), it should have been done at budget time. The only exception would be if there have been any jobs created that weren't in the budget. There's been a report of at least one. If that's true, it and any others need to go; it just sends the wrong message otherwise.
The fiscal year's almost half over now. You'd have to cut a lot more than 60 people to save that kind of money at this time. And the School Department is pretty much off limits. The city only funds them at the state mandated minimum level and if that level isn't met, it would only have to be made up in the future or face a permanent loss of state funding that the city would then become responsible for. Making that kind of a cut in uncertain financial times probably isn't the best of ideas.
At this point, I think that the best way to handle the situation would be a combination of things. Go ahead and use some of the stabilization money but $4 million seems to be putting all the eggs in one basket. I don't have the numbers in front of me but property taxes need to go up at least some; people won't like it but it is reality and what they should expect from now on. I don't think that 2 1/2% would be an out of line increase. I don't know if it can be done at this point in time, but if water bill receipts aren't going to cover all water expenses for the fiscal year, then water rates should go up just to the point to cover those expenses. And if there's any money left in the yet to be revealed capital improvement budget, it should be cut out of the budget. It's a great idea but it's just not the right time. If something comes up that has to be done, appropriate it from the stabilzation fund at that time. Not an ideal scenario but at least it's an attempt to get a lot of the stakeholders to do their part. And I'd hope that any other reasonable suggestions would be considered as well. City employees also need to be prepared for what will happen next fiscal year. If the unions don't want to play, they have to made to realize that the cuts will only be deeper. |
Edited by - tetris on 12/01/2010 10:27:12 AM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2010 : 1:48:45 PM
|
We actually refinanced after the budget hearings to lower the mortgage payment in anticipation of taxes going up. Was I happy about that……..of course not, but I’m not one to postpone the inevitable. I knew there was no way that government can continue the way it is, and tomorrow will be here before you know it. I am not in favor of a 4 million dollar transfer. I think it’s too much. IMHO it’s the easy way out and it’s just a delay in the inevitable. I am willing to make a sacrifice as long as the playing field is even…. and all the burden ONCE AGAIN gets pushed to the business in Everett. I think it’s terrible. They have to deal with window fees, building fees, etc. The businesses do so much more than just pay taxes in this city. They provide jobs and services to Everett residents and most sponsor sport teams one way or another. That’s more money out of THEIR pocket! For that, I blame the city council. I hope they will be happy when we have to go to another city for things, and we have nothing but boarded up buildings.
As for the mayor, he is not balancing a budget correctly by keep borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. I also think the statement made of working with someone else’s budget is BS! From the day you are sworn in as mayor, it’s your budget and it’s what you do with it that counts. All I see is spending spending spending…. borrowing borowing borrowing… with no payments into a very neglected pension fund. Another delay tactic to delay the inevitable and just look good. His employees can thank him when they have nothing to retire on and when this city goes into receivership. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2010 : 5:19:04 PM
|
| Tails....what would you do differently? (humor me, don't just make a blanket statement like cut the budget or cut jobs....give me some details). |
|
|
|
kittycat
Member
66 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2010 : 7:30:54 PM
|
Well if I was mayor the first thing I would do is cut spending in your payroll. Just wondering since people are making well over the 50K mark it's not necessary (sometimes) Mayors have to make hard decisions, and that's what happen's when you have friends working for you.
The second thing I would look at is the trash. Lets have businesses have their own trash pick up and also all the apartment buildings in the city should have their own. Why do we, the tax payers, have to pay for building trash (never could figure that one out) Apartments should have dumpsters, lets face it, they have parking for their tenants.
The third thing I would do is cut the mayor's salary. He should show he means business, after all we don't all live in a castle. |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2010 : 10:07:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by kittycat
Well if I was mayor the first thing I would do is cut spending in your payroll. Just wondering since people are making well over the 50K mark it's not necessary (sometimes) Mayors have to make hard decisions, and that's what happen's when you have friends working for you.
The second thing I would look at is the trash. Lets have businesses have their own trash pick up and also all the apartment buildings in the city should have their own. Why do we, the tax payers, have to pay for building trash (never could figure that one out) Apartments should have dumpsters, lets face it, they have parking for their tenants.
The third thing I would do is cut the mayor's salary. He should show he means business, after all we don't all live in a castle.
Kittycat...you are proving my point.
1) Cut 'my payroll': Im assuming you meant the payroll in the Mayor's office. First, I'll say that you get what you pay for...if all you want to pay is 40k, you get a 40k caliber employee. If you pay 60k, you get a 60k caliber employee. Second, lets say you were to cut everyones pay by 20%....that's gives you maybe 50k in savings
2) I agree, our trash fees are expensive but your solution isnt entirely practicle. The people (apartment house and business owners)you are looking to take trash service from are also taxpayers. A better solution would be to force people to recycle. For every ton of recycling we accumulate, the city saves $35. Tons add up quick!
3) Lower that mayors salary? To what? He is already the most underpaid mayor in the area buy atleast 25k.
The city needs a facelift...we need to spend money to make it happen. |
Edited by - just wondering on 12/02/2010 10:47:00 AM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2010 : 10:49:19 AM
|
In my honest opinion, transferring the $4 million from the stabilization account at this time almost looks like a political ploy since there is an election year coming up. It might be better to take the tax hit now, instead of next fiscal year. I hope the administration looks into it's own house and see if there are any areas they can cut. Are there any positions they can do without in the mayor's office? Are there any non-union employees that a salary freeze can be implemented? Can a hiring freeze be implemented in all areas? Can we put non essential infrastructure projects on hold for a while? Can administrator's and department head's be asked to take a week off without pay, like they did under Mayor Ragucci? I don't like to see anyone lose their jobs but it might be impossible to avoid. I still do not believe they have to look at Fire, Police and Teachers first. That always sounds like a scare tactic to me, and it's getting old. I believe non essential positions need to be looked at first and then onto the essential personnel if need be. Many of us in the private sector have faced losing our postions and we are the ones paying the salary of the public sector.
It is essential that the city cuts back on it's spending. Ultimately, that will help the taxpayers. Sorry to say it, but the area it seems most practical to cut back, at this time, is jobs. There are certain areas that the administration has no control over, so the areas that they do have control over needs to be looked at. The city doesn't need anymore band aids, city government needs to work together and come up with a solution.
I am pretty sure, if there are opponents for the mayor's office in the next election, spending practices will be a major issue. If the mayor can show he is being fiscally responsible now it will look much better to the voters.
I feel all of our elected officials are to blame for the financial situation we find our self's in. I am sure they are much more careful with their own personal finances than they have shown with the city finances.
Politics be damned and grow some balls and do what needs to be done. It might not be popular with the voters but we need to save our city.
Just my opinion. |
Edited by - massdee on 12/02/2010 12:03:11 PM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Public Hearing 11/29/10
