Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Can't make it at 9:45 (work), but I would assume that population and sales distributions differ throughout the county. So, are we saying that we should take sales tax generated in Emporia and send it to other communities?

Secondly, "The second half would be used to lower property taxes.", counting our chickens before they are hatched, don't you think?

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So, lets extend that logic... People from Emporia spend money in Kansas, so why doesn't Emporia get a cut of the sales tax spent in Topeka, Kansas City or Wichita?

I will agree that property taxes will not go down, I think that comment, and the comments government officials are utilizing stating that the property tax revenues "may" benefit various groups show just how weak this proposal is.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whether or not the tax is county wide is not the issue. The issue is whether the tax collectors (retailers) exist at the same concentration per location as the population. If not, then you are using one city's infrastructure to support others. If they exist at the same distribution level (they don't) then you would have a valid argument. If not, you are simply robbing Peter to pay Paul. Thus, you have no argument.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, again, if someone from Emporia shops in Topeka, should that sales tax come back to Emporia? If they have the infrastructure costs (roads, sewer, electric, water, police, fire, etc.), should we get the tax benefit? I love our smaller communities (I'm from one of them), but how is that fair? Nice avoidance though...

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I GET THAT, DUH! My question, that you continue to avoid, is if sales tax should be destination based. i.e. if we should redistibute tax collected by where people are from (distributing by population) versus where the sale actually occured. And, if so, why should one group pay for the infrastructure costs associated with the collection of the tax while others get the benefit. I understand that county taxes are distributed throughout the county, but sales tax is a naturally unbalanced way to achieve equally distributed revenue, because the costs associated with generating the revenue are not equally distributed- even on a percentage of population basis.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momus, if you want that to happen, shop locally....ie, if you are from miller, admire, or olpe, shop there and your taxes should benefit you...if you all read up above, it is distributed "by population". in other words, if miller makes up 2 percent of the counties population, they get 2 percent of the tax collected by this thing if you vote it in.
you can't expect to go to topeka and spend money and have it come back to admire, allen, or olpe except in the form of the state taxes you pay.....not local taxes, hence the name.
again, if you want that "local sales tax" benefit, shop your hometown

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly, the money should stay in the relative area where it was spent. What I'm saying is that when we collect money via one method (sales) and distribute it via another method (population) and the two are not proportional (even when compensating for population differences), the process is inherantly unequal, and thus, unfair.

Posted by suzytea (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sales tax a great savings for the rich but hits the poor at a greater percentage. It will reduce property taxes, but will the landlords reduce their rent by the same percentage? The answer will be no. Everyone pays property taxes even renters

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

suzy, would you rather have your property taxes go up again? not i but thanks. and how is sales tax a savings for the rich??? i guess you and momus better take that one up. for those of us who own instead of rent, we might count it as a blessing.

cutting the budget is not the answer, they have done that for 8 straight years and the city services are down to less than bare bones, as are funds for street/sewer/water line repairs, as well as putting any new vehicles in the fleets......
for those of you who want to continue to tell the city and county to cut their budgets, don't get angry when a water line breaks and it takes them 10 days to fix it....that may be 10 days without a shower for some of you...or if you have a fire and the 25 year old fire engine they send out can't handle the work...

oh, and stop taking it out on the local city employees please. most of them live on the level of poverty because of the city holding them at their current wages for 8 years now. if thats not bad enough, those of you on government sponsored medical insurance get far better coverage than city employees do....

so....
sales tax, because lyon county has one of the LOWEST sales taxes of cities of our size in kansas, is a good way to go, because those who travel through our city help...as well as those who come here to shop, as well as those who live here.

Posted by booker5m (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes let give more money to the goverment.I watch while city employees go get their coffee and leave the truck running for 15min. Problem is the city and county dont no how to save,Raise taxes is all they know!

Posted by ralpheatsbeef (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Spend less. Cut what you must. No crying here.

Posted by b3bill (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When I hear about a proposed tax increase, I always look back at spending done by the entities wanting more tax money to consider if the request is really necessary. Have they spent prior tax money wisely?

Lyon Co. built a monstrosity of a court house, which was voted on and passed. I believe the majority of the voters were completely duped by the sales pitch made for it and didn't realize how excessive and arrogant the building design really would be. There was no need for such a building. You didn't need all the ornate building materials and extremely high ceilings to house court rooms and the various county offices. There were plenty of buildings around that would have easily met those needs. That court house has cost unnecessary millions, and has lots left to be paid off, and you're stuck with it. The financial effects of that wasteful project are being felt now. I wonder how much the heating/cooling are for such an over-sized building?

The City of Emporia tore out very adequate downtown street lighting and replaced with poor lighting, cut up downtown streets to add brick cross walks that make a lot of traffic noise and create rough streets and are slick when wet, poured intrusive curbing around many downtown intersections for some unknown reason, narrowed Commercial Street by the railroad tracks and at 12th with more unnecessary curbing, built an unneeded clock tower, etc. The downtown could have been spruced up some with planters and the sidewalks repaired as needed without such reckless destruction and spending. Emporia has blown a lot of money on projects which have no payback.

So now there is proposal for a tax increase. Tyson employment is cut way back, other businesses are struggling. The location is in a poor economic situation for many people.

So what if Emporia has lower sales taxes than other places? Why can't that be promoted to help attract people to it or at least stop by when traveling through to purchase some items? It might also help influence some businesses considering Emporia.

Do you really believe this 1% sales tax will go away in 5 years, and if so won't be replaced by something just like it, or that property taxes will be reduced? Do you really believe it won't be the same old story of not having enough tax money?

It's too bad that some employees of Emporia City and/or Lyon Co. may not have received pay raises that were comparable to employees at other workplaces. In private industry, if the business makes poor decisions and spends money unwisely, or is in a poor business cycle, it's likely the employees don't get much of a raise, if any. But, they don't have to stay employed at that job. Other people may jump at the chance to get such a job as the one seen unfit by another person. No one is required to work at any job. I know it's cold and crude, but that is how it is.

I won't be supporting any tax increases. I hope others oppose the tax increase as well.

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

b3 contest? How much will the mill levy go up from now to 2012 when the new 1% sales tax sunsets? 5% 20% 50%?

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amen! I don't wish bad things on anyone, but we can't continue to raise taxes if people and industry are leaving. I wish we had the money to do and fix everything instantly, but we don't.

As I've said before, if the economic climate were better, I might consider a tax increase necessary if we had a plan on how to apply the tax for a long term sustainable benefit. I don't think this proposal fits those criteria. I think most people understand that their property taxes will not go down in light of this proposal, while the other half cent of the proposed sales tax distribution makes little sense.

As for direct logic questions, bucket, your Wal-Mart argument is flawed (and I'm shocked). The city was the primary financier and is the primary maintainer of the infrastructure and support services that enable that retail building, and many others throughout Emporia. Thus, as the primary financier, the sales tax (and other taxes) collected are simply returns on the entire city’s investment. Other entities that have a lesser stake in the development and maintenance receive a lesser share of the return. Those that incur most of the costs reap most of the benefits (unlike what is being proposed). I wouldn’t expect another town’s tax collection to become the one of the primary funding mechanisms for my city, would you? Now, if you will allow a quid pro quo, you stated that "we should redistribute tax collected by where people are from", so I expect the next time you shop out of town (Topeka, etc.) you will be requesting some sales tax revenue be sent home? I don't have a problem with distributing taxes; it’s the methodology by which they are distributed that I have a problem with.

And, as I said before, we may need a tax increase in the future (sales or otherwise). But right now we need to give the local economy time to recover from a huge hit before we put more pressure on disposable income. Check back in one year, that's all I'm saying. Then, once we have an idea about how the economy has reacted, what the demands on services are and the level of taxation our economy can bare, we can move on. Right now there is too much happening to our population, industry, and local economy to simply say "let's raise taxes and throw money at whatever".

Posted by pizza (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To me there are a lot of questions nobody is asking. You could look at this proposal in a number of ways. We seem to have heard little from the city. Is this a bail out for the poor management and the high debt load of the city? Maybe not but nobody has asked the question and it's certainly a possibility. The county is certainly in better shape financially than the city. Helping the small towns have a better revenue stream is a really good deal I think.

However, this talk about half the money lowering the property taxes is just talk unless there is some way to measure it. How about taking the current county mill levy and subtracting 5 mills from it and setting the new figure as the absolute maximum that the county mill levy will be for the five year term? Why shouldn't the local governments be required to work within criteria set by their bosses (taxpayers)? How else to we tell that it wasn't just all talk to sound good?

Another point, a 1% increase doesn't sound like much but, in fact, it is nearly a 15% increase in the sales tax rate. That's a pretty good increase any way you look at it. With a less than "1" pull factor it's unlikely much of the sales tax money will come from outsiders shopping here.

Does the sales tax favor wealthy people? Sure it does as those not so wealthy may well have to spend all they have just to survive buying gas and food. Every dollar they spend is absolutely necessary and is taxed. Others have more discretionary income that isn't necessarily spent on sales taxable items.

I don't know which side I'm on but I do think there are lots of questions that need to be asked and answered before I'd give it much favorable thought. Any way you cut it the half not dedicated to property taxes is a significant tax increase and just months after we heard lots of talk from the chamber, etc about no new taxes. I'm confused.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

wow...talk about just not knowing.
so b3bill....the city employees should take it in the rear just because you don't want to tack a dollar onto your wal mart bill???
how about if we cut the price of all the stuff coming out of tyson and dolly so the employees there don't get any good benefits or raises for 8 yrs....is that fair?
see, some of them don't necessarily stay because they have to, they could bail and go someplace else that pays more. maybe they like it here, and don't want to uproot their families.

or, i guess you folks could just do without experienced city employees. the next time the ambulance shows up at your door, or down the street, or at a loved ones house....who do you want working on that heart patient???? or the little baby who is in medical distress...do you want the brand new horribly paid paramedic (no offense new guys..)
or do you want the more experienced medics who have been around for a trauma or code or three? i'm sure the tech colleges teach the new guys well, but come on...experience counts.
how about when the water main down the street breaks. do you want the guys who have to patch it 5 times? or the more experienced guys who can do it once with the right equipment (which yes, can mean buying new stuff too)...
oh, and if you fly, would you rather pay bargain basement discount rates for your flight and fly on a 1950's era plane with a brand new pilot just out of pilots school??

yes i know the city doesn't do airlines, but it's the same concept. you get what you pay for. if you ditch the pay and the benefits ANYWHERE for any job be it city or private sector...a lot of the good employees go elsewhere, and the employers, whether they be city or private, can't hire in the new/good guys for the basement rates you cheapskates want to get away with paying them. just because somewhere else pays more doesn't mean they want to go work there, they just want to be paid what they are worth.

as for whining about the "past" under commons, and all of the horrible practices of the past....thats water under the bridge. let it go

the new city government is cutting corners and cutting employees...all in the hopes of giving you folks better services for less out of pocket. right now what you are paying for is decades of bad choices, some of which were made by the comissioners and some of which were voted in by you folks who seem to complain the most.

oh, and if you dont' like the taxes...maybe YOU should move?? there are other communities with lower property and sales taxes. surely you could find a new job somewhere else and take your kids to a brand new school..right??

Posted by flexj66801 (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dhcc66 , Thank you

I am a City Employee. One that is tired of seeing the cuts made to our work force.

In response to the someone saying its too bad the way we are treated, we can get new jobs if we don't like it.
Lets see how you feel about that when the sewer backs up into your home, Or a water main breaks in the street in front of your house. I'd bet you'd really want a quick response from the workers then.
Truthfully, I have looked at other jobs in Cities nearby. Most of them are better paying and almost all of them have better benefits. I am more than qualified to take one of those jobs. So why do I stay here when I could easily move to better employment? That would be because my family is here. My elderly handicapped parents call Emporia home, My children go to school here & this is home to them as well. Is it wrong to want to be treated fairly? To want to provide for my family the best I can where THEY choose to call home? I don't think it is to much to ask for fair wages, fair benefits & a little appreciation from the public you serve.

One of our biggest problems is there is a huge amount of people in this community that think you can get more services for less cost. These are usually the "cut what you can" crowd. How is this even plausible? You need to take a look around, Things have been cut. This town has been through the expansion process for far to long without dealing with the maintenance of its core. So many things have been neglected to the point that now something has to be done. The truth is, We are cut to the point we no longer have the manpower needed to properly maintain what we have. Sure, Thats not a huge issue to most, But it will be when something goes wrong & you are effected. Just remember, You get what you pay for.

I for one support the tax. If it helps to better the community my family lives in then I am all for it. A few pennies out of your pocket is hardly noticeable for any one of us, But collectively it can make a huge difference.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Flex,

Thank you for your service to the community. I don't speak for everyone here (obviously), but I think a lot of people are not convinced that a sales tax increase that targets property tax with the remainder distributed by population significantly helps your plight. With the potential loss in population over the next year, the sales tax may be a zero sum gain proposal. Plus, a lot of people (myself included) have heard several uses for this yet-to-be-seen cash increase. Everything from golf carts to marketing campaigns, but contributions to the city employment base isn't an expenditure that has been on a list or in a conversation I have heard/seen. With the huge hit at Tyson, the continued financial woes of Dolly, the lingering effect from the melamine situation at Menu, expected industry falling through and the inevitable economic impact caused by a potentially massive population decrease, you are kind of in the same boat as all of us in the private sector (unfortunately). We may be able to provide (as taxpayers) an increase in revenue in the future. But, to be blunt, this year sucked for our economy. Let's try and get some stability, and then both government and the private sector may be able to take advantage of a light at the end of the tunnel.

Oh, and if I could offer a public apology to Kstrebuchet: I have been somewhat trite and condescending with a few of my comments towards you. I apologize. Both of us seem to be passionate people, and I respect that quality in you. I disregarded the golden rule for a thread and resorted to comments that were not commensurate with the level of discourse I expect from myself, and for that I am sorry.

Posted by create (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Great post, Momus. Let me add that in addition to our own heavy economic woes here at home, we have also had to deal with a national economic nightmare as well. (How cleverly I avoid the R word.)

I have been in favor of a 1% raise in sales tax, now I'm not so sure after reading what you have to say, Momus. I was wooed by the lower-our-property-taxes scenario. If, however, the voters do pass it, I hope I never hear that they used a penny of it to buy golf carts! Let them pass the hat for golf carts. Considering the ratio of people who golf to population who don't, I believe that would be a sinful expenditure. Instead, I'd like to see some of that set aside for wages and equipment.

I live one block away from Rural street where the city guys worked all last week and into this one replacing sewer lines that have simply not functioned at all for a long, long time. When it rains, the storm drains flood heavily into people's yards; the water has had nowhere to go. It was good to see that project being worked on, and when you see how hard these guys have to work with mud and concrete and...well, you get the picture. They deserve a raise.

Posted by booker5m (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kstrebuchet :Seeing how it was 7;15 in the morning.I dont think it was a lunch.The being was the truck was left running and deisel is over $4 a gal.Next know what you are talking about before posting!

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm glad my parents and grandparents didn't feel the same way you all do. If they did, we wouldn't have any 60 year old buildings that you all now say are just fine to keep using. I guess we would all be riding horses and getting our mail by pony express.

It takes money to make money in the business world. My grandfather always told me that if the railroads had thought of themselves as transportation companies rather than railroads in the early 20th century, we'd be flying on Union Pacific arilines. Instead rail passenger routes struggle.

I'm all for fiscal responsibility but part of that responsibility as a taxpayer otherwise known as a voting resident of a community of many, means investment for the future. I'd like to leave a legacy to my kids and my grandkids other than no new taxes.

I know a lot of the city and county employees. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for exploiting the sense of civic responsibility. It's almost like the old preacher rule. If you were called by God, you could just live a life of poverty and pay the preachers substandard benefits and salary. In other countries, government employees are held in high esteem and often make the largest salaries and best benefits. Those countries have much higher tax rates than we do but it's seen as part of their social responsibility to meet the obligations of living in a community/country beyond being negative on everything. I suspect that if many of you had your way, the register of historic buildings would be pretty empty had you been around 100 years ago.

Contrary to what some of you think. Institutional memory and knowledge is valuable. Motivated members of this community who chose to work for public employ keep the garbage out of your yard, keep streets open, water running, safe streets and come to your rescue you need it. If you want to save money, why don't you all haul your own garbage, sweep your own street and build an outhouse. An the next time you need an ambulance or police officer, just drive to Topeka or KC because most of our folk will be working there.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

well put just. and if the city continues to pay their workers what they are now, i'm sure you will be totally correct.
also, great post flex. i too choose to live here, good times and bad. if times get tough and you run, be prepared to run a lot. wichita, kc, and topeka all go through their rough years and nobody has seen the end of them yet.
what the bush's and their friends have done to this great country should be illegal. bush has lined his own pockets using his power and his office to do so....anybody who says different has been sleeping for the last 8 years. just listen to bush's energy secretary who estimates that gas prices may return to normal levels at around 6 months from now....now gee, doesn't that seem odd that prez bush will be leaving about then?
maybe our economy will come around sometime after that, but dont' hold your breath.

Posted by flexj66801 (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

booker5m

I am confused about something. You say it was 7:15 in the morning & a City truck was left running while you watched someone get their coffee for 15 minutes. Well, City Employees (with the exception of sanitation) don't start work until 8 am. If it were before 8am & not a sanitation truck that would have been "after hours work". If there was anything going on after hours I would have known about it considering there are only 12 public works employees in water/sewer/& street departments combined.

On another note, I don't believe a truck running for 15 minutes is a reason to strike out at anyone for reckless spending. Take a look at the round a bout at 18th & Graphics arts Rd. Something needed to be done to that intersection, But a round a bout wasn't the answer. Why you ask? Because now the bridge that is being rebuilt on graphics arts is going to be a 4 lane bridge from what I am told. There are thoughts (plans) of widening graphic arts to 4 lane for "future development". Sounds to me like the round a bout is going to be a bottle neck for sure, Not that it isn't already. So in a few years when they tear it out & put up traffic signals, All that cost to put it in was wasted. I know of a project going on at the moment that is relocating a large amount of water line that was put in roughly 8 years ago. Whether or not is was misplaced when it was laid or not is not clear to me. I know the plans were followed for the placement. Never the less it is being relocated & the old pipe & fittings are being left in the ground. I'm sure when you calculate the labor costs, Equipment costs, Pipe & parts it took to lay the main 8 yrs ago it would make your argument about a truck running for 15 minutes seem petty.

My point is there are battles to pick, Yours was not one of them. Find something with a little more substance to complain about & then present it. Also since you are unclear on whether or it was a city truck or county truck maybe you should be a aware of what you see before you assign blame to someone being wasteful.

Posted by Matt66647 (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 4:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sheeple Please!

Let's not forget the Cessna Tax, which was also supposed to "sunset" and abate property taxes.....it's STILL going strong. It was automatically renewed a few years ago with little fanfare! How much have we all saved in property taxes all these many years? Last I checked Lyon County property values and mill levies have continually been on the upswing! Look at the cumulative Lyon County statistics on the Appraisers' website...No Sign of a Break!

Speaking of taxes, did you know that only 5 cents of every quarter collected for the "Pool Bond" goes to support the Aquatics Center....The Other 20 cents goes to Economic Development (aka: Corporate Welfare").

Don't let them pull the wool over our eyes again. Say No to New Taxes! Time to cinch in the belt around the bloated City/County stomach and cut the budget.

Posted by emporian (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So just where to we start making cuts to this "bloated" budget? The only thing I can think of would be turn trash collection over to an outside source such as Waste Management. Where else can cuts be made? I know in the city department I work in, cuts have been made and we work with the bare bones necessary to get the job done.

Posted by Matt66647 (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, funny you should ask...how much taxpayer money is invested in the half built and currently vacant Biodiesel Plant?

Have you seen the New Video on You Tube "Emporia ERDA 2"? Take a look....as there is a junket planned by some of our City Fathers to the Shopping Center Convention out in Las Vegas in an attempt to market this sophmoric effort.

Who is paying for these expeditures? I believe that the "Tax Budget" should be looked at in a much broader scope - not everyone is working within the "bare bones" environment that you are suggesting Emporian.

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Lets go grap big retail at Las Vegas Convention Center. Your tax $$$ will buy our reps some nice $300 rooms and $80 dinners.

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on May 18, 2008 at 12:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I recall people complaining that nobody was working to bring in other retail outlets to Emporia. So now they go to the one conference where the retail people are all in one place and you beat them up for that. Like I said before, some people complain like there is a cash reward for it. You go where the representatives are. Vegas is generally the cheapest venue to have a convention because the rooms are subsidized by the gamblers. Does anyone have any proof that the trip is financed by tax money or is that just an assumption? Often EDA or business and chamber folk sponsor the costs to get city officials out there to these kinds of meetings. I for one am glad someone is trying to do something to bring in development and not just sitting in a chair all day and complaining about taxes.

Posted by Matt66647 (anonymous) on May 18, 2008 at 1:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone Knows that Cash Rewards are only awarded to
Crime Stoppers.

Wait a minute... what's being done to the average Lyon County taxpayer IS criminal!

57% of voters in the Gazette On-Line Poll said NO NEW TAXES CUT THE BUDGET!

Posted by Matt66647 (anonymous) on May 18, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about "Corporate Welfare" - See Above

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 18, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not suggesting cuts; I'm suggesting a freeze for one year until we get a better grasp on our economic situation. If initial estimations are correct, and we loose between 1,000 and 4,000 residents, that's a range of between four and fifteen percent of the entire population of Emporia. I'm sure these families would have liked raises, job security, etc., but the harsh reality for all of us right now is that we are in an unknown zone. It's difficult to budget inflows when you don't know what your revenue stream is like. When you have an 11% potential variation in population, budgeting sales tax inflows will be like throwing darts at a list of revenues.

Most of our population loss should occur this summer. As children get out of school, families unable to find employment will seek housing and employment elsewhere. We don't know with a reasonable degree of accuracy how many people are leaving. We don't know how a change in population will affect services (demand and required supply). We don't know how this demographic shift will affect our retailers (which is why the trip to ICSC this year is only valuable as a learning experience, nothing more). We don't know how private sector services will be affected, thus delayed job losses may be inevitable. I hate to be a Debbie Downer here, but there are too many things that we just don't know to throw yet another variable into this budget. And, even if we throw this tax hike variable in, an increase in overall funding (when taking into account the potential population loss) isn't guarantied.

In one year, we will be able to more accurately predict the full economic impact of this exceptionally rotten year. At that point, we should be able to more accurately predict the needs for services and our ability to finance our needs through more predictable forms of inflows. If we add taxes based on a fluid sales tax at this point, we might as well join the city at the ICSC in Vegas because we would just be gambling. Let's show some patience, gather some solid data and then proceed. Wait one year, please.

Posted by Matt66647 (anonymous) on May 18, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momus, Very Well Put!

Let's not forget...with the subtantial increase in the price of everything from milk to bread to gasoline - the Sales Taxes that are already being paid by Lyon County residents that remain here will ALREADY increase.

Why not wait and see if City/County services are still needed at the current levels, and further, just where exactly total tax collections end up.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on May 18, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm saying we CAN'T effectively do something today, so we might have to put it off until tomorrow. If I walked into a business tomorrow and said "through little or no fault of your own, you are going to loose between 4% and 15% of your customers over the next few months". How many businesses would say "let's not only keep everything the same, but lets plan to add inventory (golf carts?) and jack up our prices (taxes?). If a business could not accurately predict their inflows, they also can't accurately predict the money available for outflows. The same could be said of government spending. On a community level, the effect of recent changes could present such a fundamental alteration to our population, demography, sales and tax structure that we can't predict with even a reasonable degree of accuracy what our inflows will be because we have NO SOLID DATA to base those predictions on.

You say I'm procrastinating, and I say your shooting blindfolded in the dark. If I'm wrong, we simply have another year to hone a list of our needs, collect economic data and force our elected officials to tell us EXACTLY what they plan to spend this money on (as opposed to a blank check that may not end up in the hands of our city/county employees or for infrastructure, but instead for marketing commercials and golf carts). If you are wrong, however, we've blown tax dollars, committed resources that we may not have, ignored the state of the current economy and put ourselves in a position where we might have to raise property taxes next year in order to cover the shortages created by overestimating sales tax revenues in an unstable economy. On balance, Patience is still a virtue that we might want to check into...

You have to admit, this hasn't been a typical year. Normally we have a pretty good idea of the revenues we can expect from different funding sources. Property taxes should remain relatively stable next year, but if you can predict with any degree of accuracy what our sales tax revenues are going to be over the next twelve months, I need you to pick some lottery numbers for me ;) And, I have to disagree with your assesment that doing the wrong thing beats patience, study and planning.

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on May 18, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

momus you said it pretty well. Waiting a year also brings a couple of other things closer. Westar generation plant on the tax rolls 2013. Courthouse bonds will be paid off soon eliminating a 1/2 cent sales tax. Those two things should lower the taxes for all of us

Posted by Matt66647 (anonymous) on May 18, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Touche' Momus!

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on May 18, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In downturns corporations make the necessary adjustments. There are several ways they take place. First, there is a serious look at staff. The first departments to feel the pinch are things like marketing or staff positions that don't directly support operations. Second, travel and entertainment get cut to only those expenses necessary to sustain operations. Third, staff is looked at very closely. Organizations that seemed to be absolutely necessary in the good days are made redundate in the downturns. Members of these organizations are given the opportunity to either shift into customer direct operations or to take severance packages and start careers elsewhere. Fourth, operational productivity and cost structure become paramount. Overtime is reduced, administrative costs are reduced through proeductivity measures, etc. Everything is looked at. Fifth, smart companies actually start looking at ways to reduce the price of the goods or services they offer so that they can maintain their customer bases.

I'm not convinced the city is doing any of these things.

I think the city seems to consistently make two arguments. First, the ship is as tight as it can possibly be. And, second, that absoultely every line item in the budget is so essential that the city won't survive without the expense..

There are expenses that the city could look at. For example, the RDA is funded at a level approaching $500K per year, and in the outrunning years that number is going to grow year over year. I think it's fair to ask what kind of bang we're getting for our buck there.

I think it's fair to ask about outsourced retail studies that are outdated almost as soon as they're presented. I also think it's fair to ask about outsourced community development plans that cost major $'s.

As to internal departments, I think it would be good for the city to look at the fixed and variable costs associated with the municipal golf course. I think it would be good for the city to asky why the police department is required to buy vehicles locally when equivalent vehicles can be purchased and delivered from vendors outside Emporia for thousands less per vehicle. I also think it would be good for the city to explore merit programs which would be made available to employees. Allow employees to recommend through channels cost savings proposals. If the proposal were to be implemented and save the $'s outlined, the employee would get a share of the savings actually produced.

The unfortunate thing about our current circumstance is that the city is still in the mode of "hat in hand." The only solution offered to fix things is a sales tax increase, with the carrot of a reduction in property sales tax danged in front of our noses to make the proposal seem sweet. That's nothing but pure politics. Our mill levies aren't going to go down. In fact, if our property values declines,as they just might in a downturn, our mill levies will be going up..