Taking Shots at the City Budget
Here's a thread just in case somebody didn't get their shot in front of the Council yesterday.
I know people are frustrated with their taxes, and I agree in some cases they are too high, but the sheer ignorance of taxing authority and things like taking out the consequences of Bush tax cuts expiring and Obamacare on a local City Council is just silly.
The VAST majority of the city budget is tied up in salaries, with most of those being the salaries of our fire and policemen.
The VAST majority of our reserves are tied up in reserve requirements for our outstanding debt.
In my mind one path to significantly reduce the budget, and therefore the tax burden is to go beyond hiring freezes, salary freezes and attrition and lay-off City employees AND pay off the debt the City has taken upon itself with the consent of the voters.
Understand, I'm not advocating laying-off City employees, but that is the stark truth of what would be required to achieve what the protesters seem to want. City government isn't like State and Federal Government, where there are plenty of wealth re-distribution schemes at those levels of government and forms of taxation that need to be abolished for the good of everyone. For the most part, the City takes my tax dollars and I personally get a service or some value.
I think the council is doing the best job it can under the circumstances, but for now the only thing that will save the City is what will save us all, rising oil prices. (Unless the MDC finally pulls one big freaking economic rabbit out of its hat).
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Taking Shots at the City Budget.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.jessicaswell.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3082
7 Comments
I concur , Ospurt . Shepherd , I will NEVER be a happy taxpayer but I do agree with you regarding the overlapping police services and wish the Sheriff's department could take over the responsibilities of the MPD..Many other U.S. cities have gone this route in order to SAVE MONEY ! Besides I like voting for TOP COP .(I know I do now but it ain't the same as what it SHOULD be .)
This needs be said . I have heard and read statements that compare businesses with city government ..you know what I mean..Statements like " If I can't afford it , I don't buy it !" or
If my business is doing poorly ...yadda yadda yadda . The point is businesses are built on a chance of failure . Only in rare occasions will a failed business devastate a community . Apples and Oranges . Cities simply can NOT be allowed to fail ! The cost would be much greater than an earlier tax hike . A bitter little pill indeed !.
A corporate CEO has the power to make things happen . Our Mayor has the power to suggest things happen . If you own your own business you are able to control costs and all things that keep you in business (excluding laws/taxes/etc.) City government answers to the people whilst trying to balance on a tightrope with state laws on the right and Federal laws on the left ..
Aw , hell , I'm running on . Lemme just say I am NOT happy about the tax hike , as the Hospital board wants one too ! But I understand . NOT happy at all ! But I understand . NOT....
Good posts , Os and Shep .
Ospurt,
Can you tell me the pros and cons of the 32-hour work week for certain city employees (not police, fire, garbage)?
I have no idea what the pros and cons of a 32 hour work week are. I'm not a labor and productivity guru.
In my opinion, the solution is right sized staffing, not monkeying with the hours.
If it takes a 40 hour a week person to process water bills and you cut them to 32, is it reasonable to think they are going to get as many done as before? When work piles up do you start looking at 2 underutilized people instead of 1 maxed out person just to keep the 32 hour limit alive?
As for staffing, who in the public really knows how much work the City has to do and what level of staff is necessary? I know I don't.
I also know that I can't judge inefficiency and overstaffing by observing "guys standing around on a construction project." I've watched lots of construction projects, and most of the time the guys are stuck waiting on one guy to do what he has to do so they can get back to work. For those in an office setting, I guess you could call the person waiting on the computer tech to fix their computer like the "extra guy" on a construction site leaning on a shovel waiting for the other guy to get done.
I'm taking a guess here , but I believe "Full-Time" employment is based on a 40 hour work week with overtime kicking in at the 41st hour.
The 32 hr work week is considered part-time , ergo no benefits or overtime .
Just a guess here, kids.
32 hours can be considered full time and make you eligible for benefits in most professions. On overtime, if you exempt fire, police, garbage and I guess on-call water/sewer repair folks, it seems the only people who would be losing overtime were office workers in City Hall. I doubt they are ever authorized for overtime.
I see it as a way to cut employment without cutting anybody. Seems like a cowards way to get out of laying off people. When I've seen this used in the oilfield or other private businesses, the employees wind up quitting if the hours don't come back to 40 soon.
30 hours is defined as full time in Obamacare. That is the threshold for employers to pay for coverage. I predict in the private world, lots more part timers in the future along with more contract help. They'll be on their own.
32 vs 40 hours in the public sector? If that went with a commensurate downward adjustment in pay, I'd be OK with it. Effectively it is a 4 day work week. Pretty cushy, no matter what your public gig is.
Recall that half of the landscapers (it seems) in this town are off-duty firefighters...
PS: our mayor is on record in this month's Texas Monthly saying that the oilfield is now employing a bunch of folks who used to be on our police force. First I've heard of it. Anyone else have seen some data to back up the statement?
Ospurt,
Per your recent posts below, I wish there was half the energy (and twice the research!) focused on our county taxes. I am OK with speaking truth to power, but, really, know your stuff folks.
I am happily a tax payer in the city of Midland, but have much more concern over the county tariff (incl. the hospital, our local "third rail") and how it has been growing relative to services received.
Speaking of which, I saw a county constable car recently on the streets of Midland. What is a constable? What does the constabulary do? How many policing agencies do we need?
1. county sheriff dept.
2. city police
3. SCHOOL/MISD police
4. DPS
5. county constable
Is there a little overlap here? A lot?? What do we end up with, a police person per 500 county residents?