In an effort to potentially reduce the 2011 budget deficit, the Emporia City Commission will consider Wednesday 13 service reductions, including eliminating merit raises, reducing parks and golf course manpower and not filling a firefighter or paramedic position.
On the eve of that discussion, commissioners heard from six Emporia residents at a public budget meeting Tuesday evening at the Lee Beran Recreation Center. Residents asked a variety of questions about where money has or will be spent.
The current general fund budget proposal has the city spending $18.49 million in 2011 and bringing in $17.74 million. That works out to a deficit of $748,883.
The city is estimating having $2.5 million in reserve at the end of this year, so dipping into to cover the deficit is conceivable. But commissioners are uneasy about that level of deficit and dwindling down the savings.
That’s where the 13 service reductions come in. City staff prepared a list that could save $411,134, which would bring next year’s budget deficit down to $307,749.
For a complete story, pick up a copy of Wednesday's Gazette.
history_nerd (anonymous) says...
Or, the city could use its reserves they keep for a rainy day. Storm is here, fellas.
August 10, 2010 at 10:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I've heard property valuations here are supposed to hit their low next year. That means further reduced property tax collection over the next two years. Unless a whole lot of people come to town and buy up the empty houses or a huge tax increase for us, the storm's only just begun...please don't drain the batteries playing with the flashlight before the electricity has even gone out.
August 10, 2010 at 11:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gg (anonymous) says...
I remember just recently that the new Westar Power Plant would create a tax surplus for all of Lyon County, what happened to that?
August 11, 2010 at 7:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
That place will start paying taxes in about 9 more years.
August 11, 2010 at 7:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
oh4, your flashlight anology was good.
Maybe reddog can let us know how many homes are in foreclosure now in Emporia, and what the forcast is for 2011?
How about it Dawg?
August 11, 2010 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oops (anonymous) says...
They will figure out a way to keep it off for another ten after that expires.
August 11, 2010 at 8:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
I think there were 140 last year and it looks like we will beat that this year and according to Realty Tract the summer of 2011 will be the peak and it looks like were going to lose Fanestil. There is a big push to float a bond issue to pave Americus Road because interest rates are low. NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO TAKE ON NEW DEBT.
August 11, 2010 at 8:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Well fellow, " Forumers ", what I really learned from the meeting last night was, there are those who seem to be able to live with certain Budget cuts and those who cannot live with certain Budget cuts. I am one of those who can live with more Budget cuts than it would seem most people are willing to do without. I also learned quite a bit more last night than at any of the other Budget meeting I attended. For instance, the State requires certain things be done with a City Budget, hence, at least one of the expenditure items listed as " Other Expenses " . This was explained as, not really an expenditure, but was listed to, basically appease a State requirement or mandate ??????
I also asked why all grants, appropriations, such as RDA, CVB, etc. and all of the expenditures listed in the Budget could not be reduced by the same percentage amounts as the reduction in revenues collected by the City. It was explained that, appropriations and grants were paid out of, I believe it was called " Bed " taxes, which to me sounds like " Sales taxes " from hotels and motels, but are sales taxes, none the less. And all of the other Budget catagories, such as Street Fund, Sewer Fund, etc. and that the main part of the Budget Cuts we were dealing with was the " General Fund " part of the budget .
I guess I am wrong, but I was/am always of the opinion that the " General " fund expenditures were a " compilation " of expenditures of all of the Budget Funds, whether it be sewer, street, waterworks, solid waste disposal, etc. and to me that means no expenditure that is funded by taxpayers taxes, whether it be property, sales tax/Bed tax, Alcohol tax, etc..
Confusing, isn' t it.
August 11, 2010 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
For those who are interested. The list of the $307,749 expenditure reductions or savings to the 2011 Budget is as follows.
Eliminate illicit discharge program-$68,091
Eliminate additional PT hrs. Park Dept.
$15,387
Eliminate FF-EMT position- $47,453
Reduce P.D. hardware costs-$9,000
Reduce travel & training expenses 20%
$25,510
Eliminate Special Response team costs
$9,000
Eliminate Funding to Municipal Band
$7,500
Reduce maintenance costs for phone system - $15,000
Eliminate merit raises - $125,739
move 1 MW I in Park to Sp. Park Fund
$32,576
move 1 police officer to SP. Alcohol Fund
Reduce PT hrs. at Golf course in half
$17,411
Reduce funding to Main Street in half
$25,000
Now, to me, what gets confusing is the idea of moving an expenditure from one certain tax funded expenditure to a different rax funded expenditure, can actually be called a Budget expenditure cut or savings ! I was always of the belief that no matter which tax funded part of the Budget an expenditure was placed in it was " still a taxpayer funded expenditure " and that moving an expenditure from one fund to another was not actually saving anything !
Again confusing isn' t it ???
I guess I will no longer attend any more public budet hearings, as it would seem I do not understand the complicated and confusing way of " Balancint a budget " and will no longer worry about whether the City is spending more than they take in in Revenues. After all, they can always raise or extend taxes. !
Oh, and BlueDog, that last comment was not a criticizm of the Commission or Commissioners, just a hands thrown up sign of frustration.
August 11, 2010 at 9:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
To me balancing a budget, whether it be a personal budget or a City Budget, it should be as simple as reducing the expenditures the same amount as the percentage loss of revenues collected or earned. And reducing the expenditures across the board of the Budget and not exempting certain so called " Special Fund Catagories " from reductions or moving one expenditure from one Fund Catagory to a different Fund Catagory .
But then I am just a " Dumb Ole " taxpayer !
I'm outa here, this has given me a headache and have things to get done .
August 11, 2010 at 9:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
netloafer (anonymous) says...
Methusla
I left the meeting early.
I thought you presented some good questions.
Here are some things to consider.
1. The commissioners haven't made any commitments to cut expenses. All they did was outline some possibilities. This was something they played with great skill. They are going to present a balanced budget. They've said they will either increase taxes, use reserves, cut expenses, or reduce force
2. They made staff reductions a zero sum game - "we'll have to lay off essential personnel" was Jim Kessler's mantra.
3. They made it appear that taxes haven't increased all that much over the years. By going back 15 years they made it appear that taxes have only increased by 4.1%, a real bargain! However, I went back to 1999 (our first year here) and calculated that taxes increased over that period by 18% (the city's levy by 17% over the same period)
4. Valuations have increased by 47% since 1999. Taxes assesed over that time have increased by 74%.
5. I don't know what that means to you, but to me it means that our property tax bill has doubled over that time (About $1100 in 1999, compared to about $2000 now.
6. The commissioners can talk all they want about a 3 mill increase only costing a taxpayer 30 bucks, That formula, used over time produces a doubling of taxes. That's the same formula door to door salesmen used years ago to sell products - "It'll only cost you a dime a day, less than a cup of coffee."
7. They now have half of a half cent sales tax increase to tinker with and an extension of of sales tax for economic development. "Good government" has a high price tag indeed.
8. Did you notice the pie chart that showed that about 35% of our city's portion of property taxes goes to bonds/interest? Ask yourself a question. Is that number a tad high? I know that neither of us could get a home loan if we told our banker that 35% of our income was going to pay off debt and interest. Yet, the RDA, and possibly the city, are going to be borrowing more. Incredible.
You did your best. That's all you can be asked to do
August 11, 2010 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bobhornet (anonymous) says...
Methusla, I thought you had retired in disgust?!?
August 11, 2010 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
bobhornet
Just taking a short break from mowing the yard . Wow, what heat.
You know, the funny thing about " disgust ", it makes you retire " In it " and then it seems to have a way of making you un-retire " in it " .. Funny how disgust unmotivates and then motivates as well .
August 11, 2010 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
netloafer,
Yes, I agree with you. And the really crazy thing is, how they move expenditures from one fund to another and try to make you believe that is actually cutting expenses. And saying that the Budget they are dealing with is just the General Fund. If you look at the Budget closely and do the math. The General Fund is just a compilation of all of the other so called " Individual or Special Funds ". So if one cuts all of the Individual or Special funds, Appropriations, etc., expenditures by a combined total of 5% you automatically
reduced the combined total of the General Fund expenditures by 5% which would result in a total expenditure reduction of $984,625, which equates to a total expenditure of $18,707884, which would be $225,113 less than the total receits received by the City, and " VOILA " there you have it a balanced " Budget " , with a $225,113 surplus and no thinking about property tax increases, etc.
That is why I suggested at the beginning that the Commission reduce spending by whatever the percentage amount the revenue collections happen to be. But that idea seemed to perplex them somewhat.
Well will leave the forum again for sometime, as I still have things to get done. LOL, everyone .
August 11, 2010 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
reddog (K. B. Thomas Jr.) says...
Farm RAISED the MLS is a cartel. About 7 years a go, a prominent local broker said, don't you think it's about time we all go to 7% commission. I said, "let me think about and that is when I went to 2500 dollar flat rate commission. I also notified the Federal Trade Commission but, I haven't taken any action. The foreclosure information can be obtained not from MLS but, the most accurate information that state charter banks use to file there reports is the Lyon Country District Court Clerk. This is where you will find out how many foreclousures we have had last year and this year. According to Realty track, the peek will be the summer of 2011. And now you know the rest of the story.
August 11, 2010 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )