This year, Council’s budget for overlaying streets is $450,000, which is up from the original number of $350,00, which is up from the most recent former city manager’s number of $250,000.
The number that staff gave to Council last fall for this work was $608,000. Rather than funding streets first, Council funded its communication budget. (You may have recently seen some of your tax dollars hard at work on the communications front.)
A new city study estimates the cost to resurface streets in need of current attention is $1,888,651.05 if "diamond grinding" is used. This work would need to be redone in ten years. The cost is $2,918,165.25 if asphalt overlay is used. This work would need to be redone in ten years.
This list of problem areas includes 17 street segments in the city. This reflects a fraction of the total streets in our community that we now have responsibility to maintain.
Staff is recommending $670,747.98 be spent for resurfacing in 2011. (This is a planning number. Bids could come in as much as 10% lower.) This plan reflects funding somewhere between 23 and 35% of the work that needs to be addressed at this time.
No action has been suggested to address the $220,000 difference between this year’s budget and staff recommendation. If this money is not spent, the streets should be expected to fall into further disrepair. I support this expenditure, as well as additional funding that is needed for streets.
In addition to these items, additional “tear and patch work” is also needed in 2011. That work would require still additional funding. If this work comes out of the repair budget, other repairs already planned would go unaddressed. And yet this work also needs to be done at this time.
A member of council asked about one invoice item at Tuesday night’s council meeting. Staff explained they had spoken with a financial advisor that might be introduced to council in case a G.O. bond was floated in the future. This could be a smart step in raising your taxes to take responsibility for costs associated with maintaining our streets.
Please join with me in thanking staff and council for paying attention to this important city business. Don't you wish they would focus more on city issues, and meddle less in the affairs of other community entities?
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Did You Notice the Revolving Door?
Have you noticed that revolving door we’ve installed here at our City?
When we were sworn in a year ago the City manager had been on duty for a while. He was our second manager, the first manager having moved on to other assignments. It wasn’t long before the second manager was gone, and the third manager came up from Austin, TX to manage us. We then moved away from CH2MHill management, and hired our own interim manager, manager #4.
When he came to work he was very enthusiastic. I said, “You seem like a nice guy, and a professional. You’ll try to do the right thing. That won’t matter. You’re here to do as you’re told.” He didn’t want to believe me. His last day was January 31st. He lasted a month longer than I’d guessed. We now have an acting interim manager, manager #5, who in the not too distant future will give way to our 6th manager.
When we were sworn in a year ago a nice communications lady helped us get our pictures taken. She didn’t last long. A Council member took over doing communications, but she quit. Another Council member took over, but she took orders from another newly appointed Council member, who had just been voted off Council by the citizens.
CH2MHill sent a communications professional from Atlanta, but he wasn’t given the chance to make his presentation. He suggested we should save money by hiring a small local firm instead of incurring CH2MHill’s costs. That sounded good, so Council went out for bid. Many candidates applied. Of all the applicants, we hired CH2MHill to be our communications provider. We’ve budgeted $75,000 for communications, a huge increase over 2010.
That’s 12 people. Have you noticed that revolving door we’ve installed here at our City?
When we were sworn in a year ago the City manager had been on duty for a while. He was our second manager, the first manager having moved on to other assignments. It wasn’t long before the second manager was gone, and the third manager came up from Austin, TX to manage us. We then moved away from CH2MHill management, and hired our own interim manager, manager #4.
When he came to work he was very enthusiastic. I said, “You seem like a nice guy, and a professional. You’ll try to do the right thing. That won’t matter. You’re here to do as you’re told.” He didn’t want to believe me. His last day was January 31st. He lasted a month longer than I’d guessed. We now have an acting interim manager, manager #5, who in the not too distant future will give way to our 6th manager.
When we were sworn in a year ago a nice communications lady helped us get our pictures taken. She didn’t last long. A Council member took over doing communications, but she quit. Another Council member took over, but she took orders from another newly appointed Council member, who had just been voted off Council by the citizens.
CH2MHill sent a communications professional from Atlanta, but he wasn’t given the chance to make his presentation. He suggested we should save money by hiring a small local firm instead of incurring CH2MHill’s costs. That sounded good, so Council went out for bid. Many candidates applied. Of all the applicants, we hired CH2MHill to be our communications provider. We’ve budgeted $75,000 for communications, a huge increase over 2010.
That’s 12 people. Have you noticed that revolving door we’ve installed here at our City?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Those People Are Trying to KILL our City.....
In the past couple months I’ve written a couple articles for our community newspaper, The Connection. I’ll write more. So far, citizen response to the articles has been very supportive. Most encouraging, some folks who were initially disappointed checked their facts, and now nod. There seems to be appreciation that someone has brought up the topics for community discussion.
A great number of people were initially supportive of the dream of a Great City at Castle Pines. Three years after the beginning of that new City, some of the polish has come off the apple. There is no doubt it took a ton of work to lift the City to where it lies today. There is no doubt the lives of the average citizen are little changed by the creation of the City, if at all. There is no doubt the numbers don’t crunch for the City. They never did. More and more people are coming to this realization.
Some folks opine that the idea of the City is tremendous, but those now in office are just not very good at the tasks at hand. Other folks believe the City could never flourish under present conditions, regardless of whomever was elected.
As for the first view, it is true it makes no sense to give additional authority to folks you elect to run a City, until those folks demonstrate an ability to handle the tasks for which you’ve made them responsible. Would you want our water service or sewer service to run like our street maintenance and snow removal has? (I’m not throwing any barbs at our public works folks. They work hard and try to do the best they can with the tools they’re given. I’m throwing barbs at every Council member who will not vote to properly fund upkeep of our streets.) Rather than spending bandwidth and treasure pursuing the Metro District, let’s please leave the District to the tasks they have responsibility to perform (water, wastewater, open space and parks management). Let’s ask the City to focus on how it’s going to take care of our streets, and properly implement its land use authority.
As for the second view, I’ve never believed a City can properly function at Castle Pines until development on the east side of I-25 comes to fruition. The City isn’t evil. It may have been created too early, or at a bad time, or perhaps both. The necessary development has not been in place these past twenty-five years. It’s not there now. It won’t be put in place until our broad economy improves. We need a crystal ball to forecast exactly when that recovery will happen. It may be eight months or three years from now, and I sure hope it’s not seven or eight years away. I’m all for partnering with land use interests to create the best community we can as the turn-around begins. But, what do we do until that happens?
I believe we should come together to take responsibility for the City’s obligations. If Council demonstrates the integrity to bring the matter of funding the upkeep of the roads to voters for a tax increase, good for them. If citizens understand the need for additional taxes and vote yes, let’s get busy. But if voters say no new taxes, a decision has been made that we need to take to heart. We cannot abandon our streets! If voters say no to funding the upkeep of the roads, we have to go back to the County, hat in hand, and say, “just kidding about that dream of incorporation”. I’m not for “Killing the City”, and I've never met anyone who is. If we have to kill the fantasies of a few folks in order to take responsibility for our obligations, I am definitely OK with that.
Imagine, if you can, a Great City…..that takes care of its streets!
A great number of people were initially supportive of the dream of a Great City at Castle Pines. Three years after the beginning of that new City, some of the polish has come off the apple. There is no doubt it took a ton of work to lift the City to where it lies today. There is no doubt the lives of the average citizen are little changed by the creation of the City, if at all. There is no doubt the numbers don’t crunch for the City. They never did. More and more people are coming to this realization.
Some folks opine that the idea of the City is tremendous, but those now in office are just not very good at the tasks at hand. Other folks believe the City could never flourish under present conditions, regardless of whomever was elected.
As for the first view, it is true it makes no sense to give additional authority to folks you elect to run a City, until those folks demonstrate an ability to handle the tasks for which you’ve made them responsible. Would you want our water service or sewer service to run like our street maintenance and snow removal has? (I’m not throwing any barbs at our public works folks. They work hard and try to do the best they can with the tools they’re given. I’m throwing barbs at every Council member who will not vote to properly fund upkeep of our streets.) Rather than spending bandwidth and treasure pursuing the Metro District, let’s please leave the District to the tasks they have responsibility to perform (water, wastewater, open space and parks management). Let’s ask the City to focus on how it’s going to take care of our streets, and properly implement its land use authority.
As for the second view, I’ve never believed a City can properly function at Castle Pines until development on the east side of I-25 comes to fruition. The City isn’t evil. It may have been created too early, or at a bad time, or perhaps both. The necessary development has not been in place these past twenty-five years. It’s not there now. It won’t be put in place until our broad economy improves. We need a crystal ball to forecast exactly when that recovery will happen. It may be eight months or three years from now, and I sure hope it’s not seven or eight years away. I’m all for partnering with land use interests to create the best community we can as the turn-around begins. But, what do we do until that happens?
I believe we should come together to take responsibility for the City’s obligations. If Council demonstrates the integrity to bring the matter of funding the upkeep of the roads to voters for a tax increase, good for them. If citizens understand the need for additional taxes and vote yes, let’s get busy. But if voters say no new taxes, a decision has been made that we need to take to heart. We cannot abandon our streets! If voters say no to funding the upkeep of the roads, we have to go back to the County, hat in hand, and say, “just kidding about that dream of incorporation”. I’m not for “Killing the City”, and I've never met anyone who is. If we have to kill the fantasies of a few folks in order to take responsibility for our obligations, I am definitely OK with that.
Imagine, if you can, a Great City…..that takes care of its streets!
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Two Good Conversations - Dan & Doug
Yesterday Dan Schmick and I sat down to chat about our community, as opposed to the "this district versus that city" stuff. Dan has served as the finance director at the Metro District for the past several years. With Jim Worley coming on board as the new manager of the District, an opportunity arose for Dan to move to the City to serve as finance director there. Districts are a bit different from cities, so this new role will give Dan exposure to additional topics in his profession. Jim is well experienced in District management. Welcome to Dan and Jim in their new roles!
Dan and I have always gotten along very well, and I think he's very good at what he does. It was my suggestion to the Council that they engage him to provide services to the City rather than the firm that is currently engaged in that pursuit. I'm happy to see Dan come on board at the City. I do believe the current firm has done a good job in improving our financial reporting, as well as this year's budget process. It just makes sense to me that Dan could handle the financial tasks at both the City and the District, saving each entity - and the citizens of the community - money. (Both entities would need to hire separate auditors to review the books Dan would keep for the separate entities.) This is the sort of combination of efforts that makes good sense and saves citizens money now, as opposed to grandiose visions bandied about these past several years.
I want to thank Councilman Doug Gilbert for chatting with me substantively about City issues last Saturday. We were both attending the same social function, and after a few minutes we migrated the conversation to topics of the City. We had a good back and forth discussion. It's been too long since we did that. I look forward to more of same. Thanks again to Doug.
I'll share with you the thoughts I expressed to them. The City needs a study to determine the life cycle costs of maintaining our roads. If we have plenty of revenue, that's great news! If we need to ask for a tax increase to pay for this obligation, let's pull together the data, and then make the case to residents for a 2012 TABOR ballot question to pay for the City's obligations. It's my sense we will need a robust capital plan to fund this obligation. Does it hurt to find out?
Dan and I have always gotten along very well, and I think he's very good at what he does. It was my suggestion to the Council that they engage him to provide services to the City rather than the firm that is currently engaged in that pursuit. I'm happy to see Dan come on board at the City. I do believe the current firm has done a good job in improving our financial reporting, as well as this year's budget process. It just makes sense to me that Dan could handle the financial tasks at both the City and the District, saving each entity - and the citizens of the community - money. (Both entities would need to hire separate auditors to review the books Dan would keep for the separate entities.) This is the sort of combination of efforts that makes good sense and saves citizens money now, as opposed to grandiose visions bandied about these past several years.
I want to thank Councilman Doug Gilbert for chatting with me substantively about City issues last Saturday. We were both attending the same social function, and after a few minutes we migrated the conversation to topics of the City. We had a good back and forth discussion. It's been too long since we did that. I look forward to more of same. Thanks again to Doug.
I'll share with you the thoughts I expressed to them. The City needs a study to determine the life cycle costs of maintaining our roads. If we have plenty of revenue, that's great news! If we need to ask for a tax increase to pay for this obligation, let's pull together the data, and then make the case to residents for a 2012 TABOR ballot question to pay for the City's obligations. It's my sense we will need a robust capital plan to fund this obligation. Does it hurt to find out?
Thursday, December 30, 2010
12/28 Article in The Castle Pines Connection - "There Is No Free Lunch"
http://www.castlepinesconnection.com/pages/news/2011/qtr1/cpc/treasurer.html
Friday, November 26, 2010
Let's Saddle Up - Comments on the 2011 Draft City Budget
Our City has an unfunded liability of seven million dollars - the cost to bring the surface of the streets up to like-new condition. In fairness, we might not want to bring the streets to like-new conditions, but a bigger concern is that we have no idea what costs lie beneath the surface of the streets. This is not something we have to address by noon, but we do have to address it. Let's saddle up as part of our 2011 budget process. Here's how:
$25,000 should be budgeted for a robust study to combine the surface and subsurface street needs numbers. Then the community could discuss how to pull together a TABOR election in March 2012 to approve a property tax to fund a capital program to address maintaining the City's assets in proper condition. Let's ask Council to consider including this $25,000 in the 2011 budget. Our acting City manager has said including this item in the budget would be very helpful.
Ahead of the results of that study, the City will need to spend +/- $610,000 every year to keep the streets from getting worse while we're figuring out our capital program. That expenditure keeps our roads at a slightly worse condition that the average community in our region. If we do not properly fund, the streets will fall into a state of greater disrepair. The current draft budget includes only $300,000 for this item, a shortfall of $310,000. $300,000 is an imprudent approach to this need. The budget instead funds other initiatives. I beleive this is cross-threaded. I believe we should fund the upkeep of what we are already responsible for before we take on new initiatives. So, where could we get the $310,000 to fully fund this item? How do we pay for our streets?
a) We could pay $90,000 for City management, rather than the $180,000 suggested by the current draft budget. If we combine managerial skills with the Metro District, $90,000 is a very real number. So long as water is Job 1 in Castle Pines (North), let's not hire a City manager to supervise the Metro District. Let's instead hire a Metro District manager to also supervise functions of the City. If you add $90,000 to what the Metro District will pay for a manager, you can attract an individual to perform both tasks. This change provides $90,000 for streets.
b) We could pay only $96,000 for legal fees, rather than $192,000. If the City dissolution petition goes away, a lot of legal fees go away too at both the Metro District and the City. We might have to curtail some City initiatives if we spend less money on legal fees, but as slow as this economy is, what's the big rush? Rather than cancelling these initiatives, let's just wait to see if revenues prove higher than forecast. If and when we have the money, then we could ask the attorney to pursue those initiatives. The change provides $96,000 for streets.
c) We could pay only $37,500 for communications, rather than $75,000. We don't have any impact metrics to support an expenditure of this magnitude. Is the problem with the issues we're trying to communicate, or with how we communicate them? Until we find out, blogs are free. Facebook is free. Costs to keep fresh news flowing is about $2,000 per year. Website maintenance costs are small, as are costs to send E-mail blasts. If the Master Association stages events to support our sense of community, and if the Chamber advocates for the businesses in the community, why would we want to pay $75,000 for communications? This change provides $37,500 for streets.
d) We could pay only $36,000 for parks rather than $72,000 for parks. It's suggested the cost would remain the same for the park whether we combined forces with the Metro District or not. Rather than looking at incremental costs for one park, look to apply a single budget to all park management functions. See what you get. For example, installing more efficient rotary nozzles to irrigate the parks could reduce water costs and fund operation of the new park. The Metro District is budgeting $200,000 for the Dissolution process. What could the community derive instead from an investment of $200,000 in more efficient irrigation? This change provides $36,000.
e) We could pay only $24,360 for bookkeeping services rather than $48,720. $48,000 is a lot of money to keep our books, write checks, and help budget. Our current bookkeeper works with HOAs, and has no real expertise with other Cities. Let's offer Metro District staff an additional $24,360 to do our books too, and see if they'll say yes. This change provides $24,360 for streets. (While we could combine bookkeeping, we would need to conduct separate audits.)
f) We could pay only $21,200 for office space rather than $42,400. Let's take out a measuring tape and see how much square footage the City now leases, then measure the space in the upstairs loft of the Metro District (including the store room). Let's see if there's a fit. This change provides $21,200 for streets (and puts money in the Metro District's wallet).
If you total up the savings, that's an additional $305,060. If we need an additional $310,000 for streets, that's pretty close. Think about what we would have to give up to get our streets properly funded. It's really not very much. And if someone has a better idea on how to fund the streets, let's do that.
A fair question is, "How firm is this +/- $610,000 number?". Earlier in the year a study of the streets was scoped, and a vendor hired. The vendor drove all the streets, measuring the needs of the pavement surfaces. The results of the draft report were worked for a period of months to make sure they reflected reality. The draft was brought to final report. Still, this is a planning number. Actual costs could be $550,000. Actual costs could be $750,000. We cannot know for sure. However, it is prudent to take action to fund our best estimate. If we do not pursue adequate effort, the downside is steep. The $7 million figure will go much higher if the proper work is not performed. If costs are not in fact as high as suggested, funding can then be reprogrammed to other initiatives. If costs are higher, we may have to tighten our belts in other areas to provide for the needs of our streets. Let's act in good faith on this effort, and fund our best estimate at $610,000.
Don Bobeda made a pitch for Council to grant $10,000 to the Chamber of Commerce, and $5,000 for the Economic Development Council. I suggest the City provide that grant funding in 2011, one-half that amount in 2012, and tell the organizations now that they need to find their own funding from 2013 onward. This approach empowers the organizations to stand on their own feet, while giving them a chance to get started. Funding to support our community organizations is included in the draft budget. Let's not micromanage the efforts of these organizations, nor spend hours debating $5,000. Let's grant the money, with the proviso that it's going away, and so make hay while the sun shines. Empower the organizations to create successful futures for themselves. If in time their membership does not see value in their efforts, they should fail and try something else that can work.
Lastly, a good first step to a brighter future for the citizens of the community is to put the City's Dissolution Petition in our rearview mirror. It's time to saddle up and move on along. Let's offer sincere congratulations to the Metro District for their efforts on the interconnect pipeline with Centennial Water and Sanitation District. The news that this pipeline is completed will be the best news the citizens of this community have ever had! This interconnect is Job 1 for the citizens of the community. Let's support it, and not make it more difficult to achieve.
$25,000 should be budgeted for a robust study to combine the surface and subsurface street needs numbers. Then the community could discuss how to pull together a TABOR election in March 2012 to approve a property tax to fund a capital program to address maintaining the City's assets in proper condition. Let's ask Council to consider including this $25,000 in the 2011 budget. Our acting City manager has said including this item in the budget would be very helpful.
Ahead of the results of that study, the City will need to spend +/- $610,000 every year to keep the streets from getting worse while we're figuring out our capital program. That expenditure keeps our roads at a slightly worse condition that the average community in our region. If we do not properly fund, the streets will fall into a state of greater disrepair. The current draft budget includes only $300,000 for this item, a shortfall of $310,000. $300,000 is an imprudent approach to this need. The budget instead funds other initiatives. I beleive this is cross-threaded. I believe we should fund the upkeep of what we are already responsible for before we take on new initiatives. So, where could we get the $310,000 to fully fund this item? How do we pay for our streets?
a) We could pay $90,000 for City management, rather than the $180,000 suggested by the current draft budget. If we combine managerial skills with the Metro District, $90,000 is a very real number. So long as water is Job 1 in Castle Pines (North), let's not hire a City manager to supervise the Metro District. Let's instead hire a Metro District manager to also supervise functions of the City. If you add $90,000 to what the Metro District will pay for a manager, you can attract an individual to perform both tasks. This change provides $90,000 for streets.
b) We could pay only $96,000 for legal fees, rather than $192,000. If the City dissolution petition goes away, a lot of legal fees go away too at both the Metro District and the City. We might have to curtail some City initiatives if we spend less money on legal fees, but as slow as this economy is, what's the big rush? Rather than cancelling these initiatives, let's just wait to see if revenues prove higher than forecast. If and when we have the money, then we could ask the attorney to pursue those initiatives. The change provides $96,000 for streets.
c) We could pay only $37,500 for communications, rather than $75,000. We don't have any impact metrics to support an expenditure of this magnitude. Is the problem with the issues we're trying to communicate, or with how we communicate them? Until we find out, blogs are free. Facebook is free. Costs to keep fresh news flowing is about $2,000 per year. Website maintenance costs are small, as are costs to send E-mail blasts. If the Master Association stages events to support our sense of community, and if the Chamber advocates for the businesses in the community, why would we want to pay $75,000 for communications? This change provides $37,500 for streets.
d) We could pay only $36,000 for parks rather than $72,000 for parks. It's suggested the cost would remain the same for the park whether we combined forces with the Metro District or not. Rather than looking at incremental costs for one park, look to apply a single budget to all park management functions. See what you get. For example, installing more efficient rotary nozzles to irrigate the parks could reduce water costs and fund operation of the new park. The Metro District is budgeting $200,000 for the Dissolution process. What could the community derive instead from an investment of $200,000 in more efficient irrigation? This change provides $36,000.
e) We could pay only $24,360 for bookkeeping services rather than $48,720. $48,000 is a lot of money to keep our books, write checks, and help budget. Our current bookkeeper works with HOAs, and has no real expertise with other Cities. Let's offer Metro District staff an additional $24,360 to do our books too, and see if they'll say yes. This change provides $24,360 for streets. (While we could combine bookkeeping, we would need to conduct separate audits.)
f) We could pay only $21,200 for office space rather than $42,400. Let's take out a measuring tape and see how much square footage the City now leases, then measure the space in the upstairs loft of the Metro District (including the store room). Let's see if there's a fit. This change provides $21,200 for streets (and puts money in the Metro District's wallet).
If you total up the savings, that's an additional $305,060. If we need an additional $310,000 for streets, that's pretty close. Think about what we would have to give up to get our streets properly funded. It's really not very much. And if someone has a better idea on how to fund the streets, let's do that.
A fair question is, "How firm is this +/- $610,000 number?". Earlier in the year a study of the streets was scoped, and a vendor hired. The vendor drove all the streets, measuring the needs of the pavement surfaces. The results of the draft report were worked for a period of months to make sure they reflected reality. The draft was brought to final report. Still, this is a planning number. Actual costs could be $550,000. Actual costs could be $750,000. We cannot know for sure. However, it is prudent to take action to fund our best estimate. If we do not pursue adequate effort, the downside is steep. The $7 million figure will go much higher if the proper work is not performed. If costs are not in fact as high as suggested, funding can then be reprogrammed to other initiatives. If costs are higher, we may have to tighten our belts in other areas to provide for the needs of our streets. Let's act in good faith on this effort, and fund our best estimate at $610,000.
Don Bobeda made a pitch for Council to grant $10,000 to the Chamber of Commerce, and $5,000 for the Economic Development Council. I suggest the City provide that grant funding in 2011, one-half that amount in 2012, and tell the organizations now that they need to find their own funding from 2013 onward. This approach empowers the organizations to stand on their own feet, while giving them a chance to get started. Funding to support our community organizations is included in the draft budget. Let's not micromanage the efforts of these organizations, nor spend hours debating $5,000. Let's grant the money, with the proviso that it's going away, and so make hay while the sun shines. Empower the organizations to create successful futures for themselves. If in time their membership does not see value in their efforts, they should fail and try something else that can work.
Lastly, a good first step to a brighter future for the citizens of the community is to put the City's Dissolution Petition in our rearview mirror. It's time to saddle up and move on along. Let's offer sincere congratulations to the Metro District for their efforts on the interconnect pipeline with Centennial Water and Sanitation District. The news that this pipeline is completed will be the best news the citizens of this community have ever had! This interconnect is Job 1 for the citizens of the community. Let's support it, and not make it more difficult to achieve.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Is That What Cities Do?
I attended the City Council meeting on November 8th. While the meeting lasted over 3 ½ hours, there was not a great deal of substantive discussion.
The 2011 budget was presented to the public, with the hearing continued to the next meeting. Next year's budget will likely be adopted at the December 14th meeting.
The cost to maintain our streets, at the current average pavement condition index rating of 69, has been determined by a pavement study to be $610,000 per year. (The cost to make all repairs identified in the study is $7 million. The City doesn’t have anywhere near that much money. The City currently has no plan to provide for that capital need.) The current budgeted amount to go towards this need in 2011 is $300,000. How can we find the other $300,000 in the budget to properly fund this obligation? Or, would you like to see the streets fall into further disrepair?
$180,000 is aimed at a City manager. (Do we need $180,000 worth of city management? In a separate discussion it was asked why we have a Court. The answer was, “That’s what cities do”. Other cities pay managers $180,000, so we should too?) When the Dissolution Petition that the City has filed goes away, the Metro District can hire a new manager. Could the District pay their manager a few extra bucks to manage City operations too?
Legal fees increase to $192,000 for 2011. Regular attorney fees increase to $144,000, plus special counsel is budgeted at an additional $48,000. At $175 per hour, that’s 1,100 hours worth of lawyering. Is that what cities do? Would it be wise to back off on being so aggressive about ramping up every function a city does?
We're contemplating $372,000 for legal fees and a manager. Are we spending more on this than on keeping our streets in good shape? Is that what cities do?
$75,000 is targeted towards communications. If the Chamber of Commerce is going to represent the merchants in the area, and if the Master Association is going to stage community events, what exactly does the City need to spend $75,000 to communicate?
Parks maintenance is $72,000. I thought the Metro District maintained the parks, and did a pretty good job of it. Why do we need to add another layer of government to maintain our parks?
The cost of financial services is $48,720. Maybe we could pay the Metro District half that much to have their staff do our books too. What we do is not terribly complex, and their staff is good at minding the books. (If we hired such services from the District, we would have to have a different auditor from the District.)
The City Hall, yes the “City Hall” lease is $32,400. Could we lease the upstairs of the Metro District building for half that? Would the dividers in City Hall fit nicely in the Metro District loft?
If we halved these costs we would find the $300,000 that’s needed for the streets. That money would then go to pay for what cities really are supposed to do. From there all we have to do pull together a capital plan to fund the big expenses, present the need to the citizens, and ask for the taxes needed to pay the bill.
The 2011 budget was presented to the public, with the hearing continued to the next meeting. Next year's budget will likely be adopted at the December 14th meeting.
The cost to maintain our streets, at the current average pavement condition index rating of 69, has been determined by a pavement study to be $610,000 per year. (The cost to make all repairs identified in the study is $7 million. The City doesn’t have anywhere near that much money. The City currently has no plan to provide for that capital need.) The current budgeted amount to go towards this need in 2011 is $300,000. How can we find the other $300,000 in the budget to properly fund this obligation? Or, would you like to see the streets fall into further disrepair?
$180,000 is aimed at a City manager. (Do we need $180,000 worth of city management? In a separate discussion it was asked why we have a Court. The answer was, “That’s what cities do”. Other cities pay managers $180,000, so we should too?) When the Dissolution Petition that the City has filed goes away, the Metro District can hire a new manager. Could the District pay their manager a few extra bucks to manage City operations too?
Legal fees increase to $192,000 for 2011. Regular attorney fees increase to $144,000, plus special counsel is budgeted at an additional $48,000. At $175 per hour, that’s 1,100 hours worth of lawyering. Is that what cities do? Would it be wise to back off on being so aggressive about ramping up every function a city does?
We're contemplating $372,000 for legal fees and a manager. Are we spending more on this than on keeping our streets in good shape? Is that what cities do?
$75,000 is targeted towards communications. If the Chamber of Commerce is going to represent the merchants in the area, and if the Master Association is going to stage community events, what exactly does the City need to spend $75,000 to communicate?
Parks maintenance is $72,000. I thought the Metro District maintained the parks, and did a pretty good job of it. Why do we need to add another layer of government to maintain our parks?
The cost of financial services is $48,720. Maybe we could pay the Metro District half that much to have their staff do our books too. What we do is not terribly complex, and their staff is good at minding the books. (If we hired such services from the District, we would have to have a different auditor from the District.)
The City Hall, yes the “City Hall” lease is $32,400. Could we lease the upstairs of the Metro District building for half that? Would the dividers in City Hall fit nicely in the Metro District loft?
If we halved these costs we would find the $300,000 that’s needed for the streets. That money would then go to pay for what cities really are supposed to do. From there all we have to do pull together a capital plan to fund the big expenses, present the need to the citizens, and ask for the taxes needed to pay the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
