Living with a thousand cuts...

Click here for a highlighted version of the transmittal memo from the City Manager and the OMB Manager.

So, the Brain Trust suggests it is possible to reduce FY2012 General Fun expenditures by $1,248,7000 (the extra zero is actually in the memo, so the number is actually smaller.)  By emptying the spare change jars and taking them to CoinStar, we can use the resulting $502,156 to replace lost revenue that would have been generated by the assessments (fire and street lights.)

I am not going to enumerate all of the suggested amendments to the budget, but point out things that don't make sense and require clarification.  How many Marketing Coordinators do you know that would work for $23,380?  The savings from not hiring and eliminating a Sustainability Manager is $9,007.  What am I missing here?  We would be getting rid of a Clerical Assistant whose charge would include lien searches.  Isn't this an item that the real estate community said that the city could charge much more for this service?  Are we sacrificing revenue by eliminating this position?  These are actually two part time positions and the savings amounts to $26,856.  Do any of these figures make sense?

Deferring an Economic Development Manager is o.k. - the position is needed and I would like to see the job description steered in the direction of being an ombudsman for people and businesses that have to deal with the city's bureaucracy.  A position like this needs to be respected by all levels of staff and acts in an autonomous manner - I don't know how such a position would fit into the current culture, but it is needed eventually.

I have no problem with deferring the starting date of a GIS Planner - if the city were humming like a well-oiled machine, then yes, hire a GIS Planner.  GIS stands for geographic information systems and is a method to layer zoning, utility, permit and other property information on a citywide basis.  Most communities have a start at this - but it is a long, tedious process. Right now, we would be much better off if we had a decent, user-friendly website with real time information on permits and applications.  Some of that is in place, but a GIS Planner, while glitzy on an organizational chart, should not be a priority at this time.  There is a lot of hardware and coordination with other departments for a system like this.  It could be put off for about 3 or 4 years without a problem given the city's current situation.

And the memo suggest deffering a position of "Revenue Officer" - a position "created to categorize all city properties and ensure correct assessments for stormwater and refuse services, ensure collection of those revenues and identify new revenue sources."  It says that we would be saving $31,681 by deferring this position - but is this cutting our nose off despite our face?  Wouldn't filling a position like this have the potential to pay for itself?

Also suggested is deferring the filling of the Public Services Director position.  I am not sure how long the deferral is, but the savings are $29,752 - for the six digit annual salary position, that seems low.

Great news - the Master Recreation Plan that no one cares about will now be funded by the Donation Fund.  Is the Donation Fund the one that had contributions to the city from residents and other parties that were earmarked for different purposes?  Is the Donation Fund just an accumulation of all those contributions that were deemed to be unspecified or found money?

This is a kicker:

National government organizations is a sneaky way to say Homeland Security and FEMA.  We should, according to the standard cited above, have a reserve of over $5 million.  At the end of the day we will have $177,626 if these suggestions go through.  Note that the approved budget about is less than 10 percent of the suggested guideline anyway.

Bad idea to use funds designated for capital improvements for operating purposes, especially when it relates to the Library:

I have always said that many of the city's core problems come from a historically understaffed and under-qualified planning, in this case "sustainability", department.  I completely agree with the assessment expressed in the following justification for additional planning and zoning related positions:

Hold off on the optimism, please:

Not to sound like a negative Nelly, but any significant development that would happen in the Park of Commerce is years away.  Yes, we need to work toward achieving our infrastructure goals and have a workable set of land development regulations - we also need to accommodate requests to develop property in that area as best we can, but revenue from increases in tax base are years off - partly due to the built-in delay related to the calculation of appraised property values.  The FY2012 budget is based upon property values as they were on December 31, 2011.  The FY2012 budget takes us to September 30, 2012.  As I have repeatedly maintained, the is no magnificent boost that will come from the successful completion and lease-up of the Casino building.  It is roughly the same size as the previous building, with the same functions and after the novelty wears off, it will fade into the economic background.  Remember when it was first envisioned and built in the 1920s, there was NOTHING else on the barrier island.  It was an attraction to lead people through downtown.  Look at the development of the barrier island now and the traffic from the condos there dwarfs anything that will be coming and going from the NEW casino building.  And it is not like we are building a new beach - the beach will be the beach will be the beach.