| Author |
 Topic  |
|
billydee
Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 10:14:19 AM
|
| I now have a copy of the Budget. I am looking at the Mayor's Budget. Last year the Mayor's Budget (without the Reserve) was $319,737. This year (without the Reserve) is $385,021. This is an increase of $65,000. This is another great job of cost savings! I voted for the Mayor. As one of his supporters I expect better than this from him. It appears that my taxes will be going up substantially. With these cost savings techniques, I predict that the FY '11 Budget will only be $150 million. |
 |
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 10:28:01 AM
|
| Part of the Mayor's justification on Saturday for the combined department's increased budget was the addition of the quality control position. This position is to be staffed from someone from the school building commission (don't know how that position was paid for) who will continue to work on outstanding school issues (how long is that going to drag on?) as well as reviewing contract performance, which hasn't been done in the past. Why not? Was that part of the purchasing agent's responsibility or the internal auditor's? If you want to say that this person replaces the internal auditor, again it becomes a net increase in spending ($45.6K vs. $27.4K). Again, none of this has been explained to us very well and I'm really getting to the point where I think that it is on purpose or that they just don't know how to do it. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 10:50:45 AM
|
Billydee,
Just so that you are aware, the previous administration cut $49,500 from the mayor's budget (and a additional $200,000 from the Reserve) last fall in order to offset the Prop 2 1/2 issue. $8,000 of the increase is caused by the celebrations funding being shifted from the city council's budget to the mayor's (which they discussed shifting back). One could argue that the lion's share of the actual $57,000 increase is just a restoration of those cuts; of course, you could also argue that since the city got by without those funds last year, are they really necessary this year? |
Edited by - tetris on 06/03/2008 10:51:39 AM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 11:01:09 AM
|
| It appears changes at city hall are cloaked in secrecy. If the Administration would be more forthright, there would be a lot less speculation and rumors running rampant through the city. The wait and see game is growing very old, fast! |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 11:14:14 AM
|
| The administration needs to pay attention to the organization charts that are inserted in their budget. Everyone of them has the voters at the top. |
|
|
|
billydee
Member
21 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 12:40:30 PM
|
Tetris,
Thanks for the back story. Your restoration argument would make sense if it were Mayor Hanlon restoring the old cuts. Since it is not, the Mayor I voted for should be consistent in his cost savings arguments. If there is a need for cost savings, then it applies to his office as well. Otherwise, it would appear to others that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 06/03/2008 : 4:28:18 PM
|
| This is how is appears to me.........what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. I have not had the opportunity to really sit down and look at these numbers but from what I can see, I'm not seeing "cost savings" that so repeatedly comes up and I love clean streets but I'm not happy about a private company making a mint on my dime. I can see for a little bit, but it sounds as if they have no intention on getting sweeper number 2 operational. And when you keep repeating yourself over and over "clean streets" when you are asked about the financial aspect of it, sounds like the Mayor is making excuses instead of answering the question. Think about it, this company has already made $33,000.00 this year. If they continue through out the year, the taxpayers will be paying GTA $102,000.00 for street sweeping in 2008 and if an entire city can not maintain a sweeper, how on earth can a private company be able to maintain it? |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2008 : 4:32:48 PM
|
| One more question that was never answered......this $3,000.00 per week, does it include man hours becasue I have a tendency to think not and I think that contract should be public since we are paying for it and we are not talking nickels and dimes. They should be doing everything in their power to get this back to city services and alleviated some of the burden off the taxpayers. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 07:10:31 AM
|
Below are a couple of posts that I did on Topix. I knew that something bugged me about the Independent's budget coverage yesterday, besides the fact that they seemed to be unaware that the next budget hearing is set for this evening. However, until I saw the $800,000 figure cherry picked to make the administration look good, I couldn't put my finger on the issue.
Does anyone realize how the $800,000 decrease in city spending quoted in today's paper was calculated? They are comparing a budgeted amount to an expected expenditure amount. For comparison purposes, it needs to be compared to last year's budgeted amount; taxes are computed on budgeted amounts. When this done, there is only $200,000 to $300,000 decrease in the city spending budget. When you consider that solid waste disposal fees are decreasing by $626,000 (kudos for that) and professional service fees in the assessor's office are down by $100,000 because the complete revaluation process is done for now, the rest of city spending is actually up.
Another way to get to the $200,000 to $300,000 cut in city spending is as follows. The auditor stated last Saturday (quoted in the same paper) that the budget was going up $8.5 million. Of that, $6.3 million is the increase in the school budget and $2.4 million is the increase in fixed costs for a total of $8.7 million. Since it is not easy to calculate last year's budget figure, I'm willing to concede that the $8.5 million figure is probably a round number, most likely rounded up. Therefore, the decrease in city spending could be in the $300,000 range but nowhere near the $800,000 figure listed in the paper. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 11:38:03 AM
|
In Wednesday's Independent there is an article on page 6, under Eye on Everett, titled Tax Increases. The following two paragraphs are from that article:
"The administration said it's aim is to increase the average tax bill by no more than 2 percent, but conceded the number could climb as high as between 8 and 10 percent."
"All we can do at this point is wait and see and hope for the best while preparing for the worst."
|
Edited by - massdee on 06/05/2008 11:38:39 AM |
|
|
|
Fedup
Member
86 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 4:56:39 PM
|
"All we can do at this point is wait and see and hope for the best while preparing for the worst."
I am in shock! Is this for real? If so, the current Administration should throw the towel in now! With all the supposed finance talent up there, all they can say is "wait and see" and that they aren't sure if the taxes will go up 2% or maybe even 8-10%??????? Gee whiz, maybe I'll spend all my money now, because I may hit the lottery in the fall! Someone has to take the bull by the horns and make some drastic cuts - NOW. ALL salaries and step raises should be frozen. All unnecessary positions should be cut. All departments should be held totally accountable (here's that word again). I heard it was customary to give a new Mayor the benefit of the doubt with his/her initial budget. Well, at this point and time, as we hit the wall with prop 2 1/2, no thanks.
Five solicitors, Chief of Staff earning over 90k, consolidations which aren't saving any money - Approx 30 million dollars in budget increases over three years - are we in the twilight Zone? We have representatives that come to a budget meeting chewing gum, leave their books at home, leave the meeting and hold signs in the square, and come totally unprepared! I can count on one hand those members of City Government who really give a damn. Unfortunately, the only CC member who is not afraid to ask the tough questions won't be there this evening because her son is graduating from EHS.
I really hoped that Carlo could pull this off. Based on where we stand today, I have lost all faith in him.
Tetris, Massdee and Tails, if you ever decide to run for public office, please post it here on the blog. I will campaign for you without hesitation. Now, I shall go back to being a lurker. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 8:27:14 PM
|
Good for Peter Napolitano for asking the tough questions to City Solicitor Deveney.
Anyone hear Mr Burley giving Budget Director the heads up when the hearing was on break?
Mr Carlisle is putting me to sleep. |
Edited by - massdee on 06/05/2008 10:17:37 PM |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 10:32:23 PM
|
Tetris, do you have a running total of the cuts?
RVC just gave it.
The cuts total $392,830.00 |
Edited by - massdee on 06/05/2008 10:47:12 PM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 10:35:29 PM
|
| I still agree with what Councilor Napolitano said. I think the City Solicitor was talking through loopholes concerning her salary and we should get a legal opinion and not one of the 4 1/2 lawyers because I think the ordinance still applies to her. Will there be a rerun of this hearing? |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2008 : 10:50:40 PM
|
| The budget hearings are over. What are everyone's thoughts on this years process and FY09's budget? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Budget FY 09
