This is in response to the anonymous posting on PATA.
http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/public/clubDiscussion.html?nid=746124097&nclubid=68303919&nsupercity=437534213
#1 – I clearly stated why I’m against outsourcing the Income tax department but I’ll repeat myself in case I wasn’t clear. I’ve been involved with MANY outsourcing companies and contracts in my professional life. I have YET to experience the level of customer service or proposed savings that were promised. If you do anything outside of every i that is dotted and every t that is crossed in the contract it starts costing you extra and I don’t view this outsourcing opportunity any differently. RITA also requests we keep a tax administrator onsite, employed by the city to “make sure they’re doing things right”. I’m SORRY but if you need us to keep someone employed to make sure you’re doing your job correctly then I have even less reason to believe this is going to deliver as proposed. And if it did happen to work it would probably be because of the staff person we’d keep who’d kill herself to keep the customers happy and RITA in line. I have many stories that I can share about RITA but I have enough experiences on my own with outsourcing that gives me reason to believe the projected savings will be far less than anticipated.
#2. Outsourcing of the Police Department. So it makes sense to pay for a multi-million dollar police station while we outsource our police officers to Fairfield County? The citizens supported the PD years ago when the levy was put on the ballot and that came with certain expectations – ie. We’d have our own PD, not paying for a nice police station to have County officers manning. I’d like to see the documentation as to where I actually said I’d never make cuts from the Police Department as was stated on PATA. If some tax issue isn’t passed in 2009 I do believe cuts will need to be made in the police department if there isn’t normal attrition. How many and how deep I have no speculation about at this time. But I do not believe it will be necessary to the scale of disbanding the entire department.
My Comments from May – Prior to the 2009 budget being prepared.
“2% needed? – Our finance director asked that at a bare minimum we increase our income taxes by $1M annually. That will pay the debt for Diley road as well as reinstate street paving which has been cut from the budget 2 of the last 3 years. With a increase to 2% from 1% it will generate ~$1.7M/annually. That will give us some cushion to apply towards other debt or tackle some smaller CIP items.
We’re trying to be very conservative in our approach to this proposed income tax increase while still be able to provide services to our citizens. However, it is impossible to predict how far this $1.7M will actually go in this unstable economy. We know we’ll be able to pay the Diley road debt and be able to reinstate street paving. “
Today:
After the expense subcommittee went through their process and staff prepared the 2009 budget it was clear I was wrong and the $1M was not even close to maintaining current levels of service, reinstating street paving and paying for our debt.
New debt from Diley Road - $725,000/yr
Road paving - $800,000/yr for first few years, then scaled back
Police - $300,000 in salaries/benes alone – no new officers
This is simply 3 categories and doesn’t address the many other departments or issues facing our city.
We have a balanced budget for 2009 with the cuts staff recommended and we’ve approved in Finance Committee. Clearly we have to address the 2010 budget and plan for another tax levy, further cuts, or some other measures and we need to address that now.
There are more than 2 options available to us as the PATA poster suggested and we’ll be meeting Dec 10th to start planning for 2010. This is an open meeting to the public so feel free to come and express your opinions.
- Brian
My anonymous critic indicated in his response that I was inflating the street paving figures. The $800k was the recommendation from staff, not council, for the first several years after reinstatement to catch up on the street paving that has been neglected over the last several years. I clearly stated “$800,000/yr for first few years, then scaled back”. I thought that was pretty clear.
He also stated I figured in $775K for the Diley road repayment, I stated “$725,000/yr” so he’s infalting my statements by $50K/yr.
He stated “I need to look further into that one because I see in the 2008 budget they only have 402K budgeted. Not sure where he is getting the other 370K.”
My response is the ~$400K budgeted for 2009 budgeted is because only a partial repayment of the Diley road debt will occur in 2009 and it will be ~$725K in 2010 and for the next 9 years. At the end of the 10 year State loan there will be a $3M ballon payment required which we will need to pay for somehow.
I also doubt my critic drives his car 3 shifts a day with an interceptor engine and drives it like an officer sometimes needs to. When I hear the public is not willing to support their police department then we’ll talk about getting rid of them. I have yet to hear that beyond a few anonymous postings on PATA.
I’m sorry my critic only sees one way to balance the budget and that is disbanding the PD. I see other options available that will need to be discussed in length. Again, we’ll be talking about this on Dec. 10th so feel free to come out and offer your suggestions.
- Brian
Comment by pickerington — November 22, 2008 @ 5:23 pm