posted by Joe Polk at 2:17 PM /
Over the holidays, Commissioner Raja sent out an email (and posted to his web site) explaining why he voted for the 2010 municipal budget. This was particularly interesting to me since Commissioner Miller had previously posted his comments in opposition to it.
A couple of issues caught my eye:
First, Commissioner Raja seems to trumpet the savings of limiting COLA raises for employees in 2010 by pegging the COLA to the current low inflation numbers. Forget that fact that this seems to treat people differently just because they don't have a union, does anyone really think that inflation is going to stay low? Or regardless of how it goes up and down, are we now saying to the employees that whatever the inflation number is at the end of the year you will get that raise when the number exceeds 3%?
Commissioner Raja also made a reference to paying for “expenses from the fund balance.” He said that he would “have preferred to implement organic changes that could have funded these increases on a sustainable basis going forward.”
An example of his “organic changes” seems to be the merger of the Assistant Manager and Finance Director positions. If I understood the budget broadcast, the merger of the two positions was unanimously approved by the Commission. The debate seemed to be about what would happen to the Assistant Managers HR duties. Raja wanted those duties distributed amongst other staff while the majority supported the managers recommendation of hiring a new HR person. It was said that having a separate HR position was one of the Matrix report recommendations.
Commissioner Raja said that if the majority had agreed with him we would have saved annually $141,000. Commissioner Miller said that the 2011 budget shortfall is already $3.14 million.
Commissioner Raja said that he recommended “organic changes” (notice the plural) that “could have funded these increases on a sustainable basis going forward.”
Anyone else interested in knowing what his organic suggestions were that would solve our problem? It would be great for Commissioner Raja to post his suggestions that were rejected by the Commission so we could evaluate them ourselves -- and if necessary -- lobby other Commissioners to adopt them!
Additionally, I saw that the majority did not support a strategic planning process in 2010. Given the size of our problem for 2011, I wonder why this was not supported. Doesn't the municipality need a plan - and need it quickly?
A couple of issues caught my eye:
First, Commissioner Raja seems to trumpet the savings of limiting COLA raises for employees in 2010 by pegging the COLA to the current low inflation numbers. Forget that fact that this seems to treat people differently just because they don't have a union, does anyone really think that inflation is going to stay low? Or regardless of how it goes up and down, are we now saying to the employees that whatever the inflation number is at the end of the year you will get that raise when the number exceeds 3%?
Commissioner Raja also made a reference to paying for “expenses from the fund balance.” He said that he would “have preferred to implement organic changes that could have funded these increases on a sustainable basis going forward.”
An example of his “organic changes” seems to be the merger of the Assistant Manager and Finance Director positions. If I understood the budget broadcast, the merger of the two positions was unanimously approved by the Commission. The debate seemed to be about what would happen to the Assistant Managers HR duties. Raja wanted those duties distributed amongst other staff while the majority supported the managers recommendation of hiring a new HR person. It was said that having a separate HR position was one of the Matrix report recommendations.
Commissioner Raja said that if the majority had agreed with him we would have saved annually $141,000. Commissioner Miller said that the 2011 budget shortfall is already $3.14 million.
Commissioner Raja said that he recommended “organic changes” (notice the plural) that “could have funded these increases on a sustainable basis going forward.”
Anyone else interested in knowing what his organic suggestions were that would solve our problem? It would be great for Commissioner Raja to post his suggestions that were rejected by the Commission so we could evaluate them ourselves -- and if necessary -- lobby other Commissioners to adopt them!
Additionally, I saw that the majority did not support a strategic planning process in 2010. Given the size of our problem for 2011, I wonder why this was not supported. Doesn't the municipality need a plan - and need it quickly?
Labels: budget, commission, Dan Miller, raja
11 Comments:
I am very OK with using fund balances for operating expenses, as long as reserves are not depleted below a reasonable level. The Municipality and School District need cash reserves.
But - - We should be projecting revenues and expenses out several years and telling the rest of the story. As Dan Miller has pointed out, we will be facing revenue shortfalls in coming years and we should have a plan.
Early in 2009, Raja and I sat down for coffee and he painted a very scary picture for me relative to the 2010 budget process. He insisted that somethings would have to give and that the public needs to understand and appreciate that we're going to have to do things differently her in Mt. Lebanon. Further, Raja expressed great concern over how he could communicate these concerns to the public at large in advance of the budget process.
Interestingly, the budget passed without much fanfare, Raja made no visible attempt to communicate his fears to the public or even the folks on his email list, and now he expects us to applaud the budget that did not result in a tax increase or reduction in services. Unfortunately, I can't applaud the efforts of the Commission on this one unless and until they can explain to me why I shouldn't remain concerned about all of the bad things that Raja brought to my attention 8 months ago. I hope Raja is not putting his head in the sand just so that he can avoid being the bearer of bad news. That benefits no one.
One very significant subject so far not mentioned about the 2010 budget is the Capital Improvement component of the official annual budget....perhaps not commented upon because it is nowhere to be found...MIA !
The 24-plus item 2010-2014 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)required a public hearing this fall, and was nominally approved by the Commission. The Managers recommended Budget included only a few of those, most notably $4 million for the muni. pool renovation (that a couple of Commissioners believe can be accomplished for only $3 million) and about $1 million for turfing & lighting Wildcat & Middle Fields. Indoor Tennis For Mt. Lebanon pledged $30,000 towards a $105,000 proposal for safety & security improvements to the Tennis Center. None of these are in the official 2010 budget. However, they may be reconsidered in say Feb.-March. as addendums to be funded by a bond issue.
It would undoubtedly enhance reconsideration and possible approval if the athletic clubs that want the pool & field improvemrnts would offer financial pledges towards these projects...in the spirit of public-private partnership & cooperation.
The public is by far the largest part of a public-private partnership. The wayward link is the private participation of the athletic clubs at a serious monetary level.
Haven’t we heard enough whining from the athletic clubs about more public participation for their Turf-List?
John, I think the athletic associations would step up in strong and swift fashion if the Commission and/or School Board would commit to these projects. We can't really raise money for projects that have not been approved by the appropriate authorities. If the Commission and/or SB get behind these projects, and identify what is necessary in the way of private funding, I think the money raising would begin almost immediately. However, you can't really solicit donations for a project that is not authorized or approved.
Dave, Do you remember last month the Board hired a consultant for a new high school turf and they announced that a portion of the Covenant back taxes would be used to pay for that turf.
Turfs usually cost about $1 million to install and they need to be replaced about every ten years. If you are serious about raising funds for turf you have a $1 million goal to begin.
My high school raised the money from a donor before they put a new turf in place. The athletic clubs have been promising to raise funds for fields since the municipality purchased land for a field in Scott Township 22 years ago. Athletic clubs didn’t raise the money to develop McNeilly field either.
Fool me once shame on me; fool me twice shame on you.
How about a good old fashioned debate between Commish's Raja and Miller setting forth their differences on the budget? Could each accept via posting a comment here? Thoughts?
Stu Getz
John, I think your blanket characterization of the athletic associations is a bit misguided. First, it should be noted that at one point the Soccer Association had the land and the willingness to develop a soccer complex adjacent to Connor Rd. This was intended to be a purely private initiative through the Soccer Association; however, it required Commission approval. Unfortunately, the Commissioners rejected the plan and I would note that some regular commenters on this Blog were vocal opponents of the Soccer Association's plan. Eventually, the Soccer Association sold the property to developers. Importantly, however, the Soccer Association has retained certain funds from the sale of that property that are available if and when another appropriate opportunity presents itself for the development of field space.
As for the McNeilly Rd project, the Commission NEVER approved the wonderful plans for this athletic complex. This refusal may have been partly due to funding issues, but to a larger degree the refusal came from a switch on the Commission. Unfortunately, the Commissioners who replaced those who had lobbied hard for action on this project, assured that the project went nowhere. Plus, as I've said before, it is extremely difficult for the private half of any public-private partnership to raise money when the public half never approves and throws its weight behind a plan.
I know enough about the larger athletic associations in Mt. Lebanon, as well as the corporate opportunities that have been available in other communities for similar projects, to affirmatively state that if the Commission ever approved the development of field space the private support would be there.
Commissioner Miller asked me to post this reply to Stu Getz's comment:
A resident brought this thread to my attention and asked for me to post a response.
Stu: I love debates- especially when they are well-attended, heavy with citizen participation, and have a good moderator.
That being said, I am not sure that a debate between any two Commissioners is either 1) needed at this time or 2) reflective of the reality that there are five Commissioners on this body. (If any Commissioner or the Commission as a whole wanted to do a debate format meeting I would gladly participate though.)
I do not think that there is any debate between the Commissioners about our financial difficulties, which I think we would all agree will be worse in 2011. The key question to me (and one that I strongly believe we need to answer as soon as possible) is what do we do about it? The last two years have brought about more debt for routine expenses and continuing siphoning of reserves while offering no real enhancements to our town. Our current tax structure is insufficient given our rising costs and the last budget was a band aid at best.
This is why I proposed during our budget discussion that we undertake a strategic plan. Unfortunately a majority of the Commission disagreed with my suggestion and then passed the band aid budget anyhow. I will again ask for a strategic plan with the new Commission, and it is my hope that it would be completed in time to be a tool for the 2011 budget sessions. If Commissioners continue to disagree with this I do hope they will offer concrete alternatives that can help us through this difficult time. I fear that if we just wait till October to discuss our financial shortfall it will only be a disservice to our town.
Thanks,
Dan
Dave,
I attended the commission meeting when they decided against floating the bond to grade McNeilly field.
This was done AFTER $40,000 was already spent in fees to initiate the bond selling process.
The athletic groups did not deliver on their promise to fund the grading, so the municipality punted.
Now the land is for sale if you want to buy it.
In other news, the school district is considering a millage increase of 3.41, or 12.4% in this years' budget.
The agenda for Mondays (1-25-10) Commission Meeting was posted today. Item 5 introduces a bill that will amend the Municipalities 2010 budget to do several things including provide funding for a strategic plan. This IMHO is a good proposal.
Geoff Hurd
Post a Comment
<< Home