http://www.ci.champaign.il.us/government/budget/pdfs/07-five-year-forecast-2006.pdf
Below is a quick summary of year-over year increases in expense and revenues (reoccurring). Sorry for the formatting...
07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12
Total Reoccurring Revenues 5.14% 4.59% 4.40% 4.30% 4.08%
Total Reoccurring Expenditures 5.53% 4.35% 4.44% 4.57% 4.61%
The Conclusion:
"The forecast shows the City in a healthy financial condition over the next five years. The forecast, however, does not factor in any new expenditures that might be needed to keep up with the City’s growth. In addition to operating costs, this includes expenditures on long term infrastructure maintanance which have not increased in proportion to the increased size of the City. The validity of the projections for the later years of the forecast must be considered, as the uncertainty of the forecast increases significantly with the length of the period predicted."
My Concern: in 2009/2010 and forward, reoccurring expenses increase faster than reoccurring revenues every year and the city's own conclusion implies there are factors they are not even considering.
I see this as a huge red flag. If the city moves forward thinking this is acceptable, it will ultimately lead to higher taxes and fees. If everyone wants to hope that the one-time expenses vs. revenues will counter that trend, that is more risk than I would be willing to tolerate.
I would have to disagree with the claim of a "healthy financial position" while expenses are increasing faster than revenues...even with all the planned growth.
Kicked to the front page for discussion.
This clearly shows the voters of Champaign should pay close attention to what activities and new projects our elected officials are committing our tax dollars to. One very foolish move of late by our elected City official was joining the CU MTD in it's lawsuit against the CS MTD. Why, because they should not have endorsed the forced annexation policy of unelected Champaign County appointed Board. Add it the fact that the CU MTD has more money in the bank than the City of Champaign who by this action will now have legal/financial responsibilities. Dumb moves like this cost ruin budgets.
One of the biggest problems in recurring expenses for the City, and other governmental bodies, is personnel costs. The City continues to give out healthy raises every year, plus bonuses, and other perks, not to mention the pension costs that we're saddled with by the legislature. There's no room in the budget for capital projects when your budget is eaten up like this. Citizens and the City Council, in particular, need to ask hard questions: does the City Manager really need all of those assistants? Can the City contract out or outsource some services cheaper, in, for example, public works, legal, etc? I don't know the answer, but the City won't even ask the question. Instead, we get these kinds of memos, no doubt to be followed by a memo as to why we need to raise taxes, user fees, parking fees, and the list goes on. This is the year, when it looks like we might go into recession, for the Council to ask these things. If the City isn't willing to give up some perks, like employee appreciation dinners, etc., then I don't think they're serious about trimming their costs.
Champaign Dweller, all of the personnel's pay is public record.
Please list just who got bonuses, and how much.
The reason I ask is because I do not believe anyone is getting a bonus.
Please also specify what "perks" are being given.
Thank you.
I look at reocurring exepenses as ongoing expenses.
These ongoing expenses are 99.837% (2007/08 numbers) of all expenses. I agree that we need to look at the one-time projects closely, but these ongoing expenses are my focus.
When ongoing revenues are not >= ongoing expenses, there is a problem. If we learned anything from the dot-com years, we need to recognize the seriousness of this problem.
In Champaign, the ongoing increases in expenses vs revenues will be increasing at an increasing rate. This is not a good long-term business strategy.
This will result in cash burn and utlimately an increase in taxes and fees.
The numbers are scarey to me as an ordinary taxpayer ineligible for any big grant programs. They tell me that unless some drastic changes are made my taxes, which are already going up, even while the value of my house goes down, are going up even more. So when does the Council say "enough." Any more development projects that aren't economically feasible without taxpayer subsidies aren't economically feasible? The justification for subsidizing economic development is that we more than get the money back through increased revenues from property taxes, sales taxes, etc. When does someone look at the figures and say, "This apparently isn't working?" And just wait. After all the favorable publicity about the new library, we're going to be hit up for more taxes to staff it. After all, we can't have that big grand building just sitting there without adequate staffing and books.
When does someone look at the figures and say, "This apparently isn't working?"
Probably when you call you friends and ask them to look at the numbers. : ) I'm biased, but I think this is a big deal.
The City has a program called pay for performance for the non-bargaining unit employees (all employees that are not unionized). The City has a pool of funds from which it rewards employees based on their performance. I believe, although I could be mistaken, that is over and above the cost of living. In addition, I believe that such things as expensive employee recognition dinners, gifts at these functions (mugs, license plate holders, calculators, etc), etc are perks. Maybe others define them differently. All I'm saying is that in lean years, the City should watch these kinds of things and be willing to look at them as a way to trim their costs. Also, since employee time is really a large asset that the City pays for, employee time spent on diversity day (dressing up, making posters, etc ala 5th grade) are expenses that could be cut without an effect on services.
Maybe we should just hang this sign in every city employee's office so they know what the citizens expect from them:
Maybe, just maybe, when the City Council decide to stop saying yes to every major developer that comes to the city with an open palm out, then there could be a greater effort to save money. I understand the rationale for the city's actions but I think that there comes a time when there needs to be some consideration for the everyday ordinary taxpayer who isn't making a six figure income. I have heard for years how all these annexations and taxpayer subsidies are going to help add to the tax base. Yet my property taxes continue to rise and rise at a faster rate than my income. To add insult to injury, the quality of city services in my central Champaign Old-Towne location have not improved in the slighest. The streets are still cracked in places and the snow plows are still slow to arrive. When my expenses continue to go up in my household (as they are!), I have to make sacrifices and choices. The city's attitude seems to be that they should simply continue to raise the tax rate without making any sacrifices. Something needs to change.
Champaign Taxpayer, I would like to respectfully point out that are plenty scenarios where a development investment yields a great rate of return and contributes to reocurring revenues favorably vs the investment. But when it comes to revenues and expenses, you must be able to manage both.
It the city made investment deals as they came along, that would be one thing. It appears to me the city is forced to find investment deals to create revenues to counter the negative affects of ongoing operations. This creates a huge reliance the city's ability to CREATE new ongoing revenue. This is very risky to the taxpayer, regardless of whether or not people appreciate the investment decisions.
Thanks for the effort, Champaign Dweller, but you still speak in generalities.
WHO has received bonuses? Even accepting that getting a coffee mug with the city logo on it is a perk, WHO has received such a perk?
If all you have is generalities, you don't really have much.
Facts, please. Dollars. People.
Thank you.
O.K. Every employee who attends the employee appreciation lunch receives lunch, along with the gift, whatever it is. You'd have to ask the City who attends--i personally was not there. Every City employee is entitled to attend the pancake breakfast where they receive breakfast prepared by the million dollar club--the City's executive management team. They also receive a gits--again, ask the City for who attended--I, along with the rest of the taxpayers, wasn't invited. In terms of actual dollars, the Finance Director has said that many of these items are paid for by each department and that's its too hard to track--I don't think that the City has a line in the budget for entertainment or employee happiness benefits.
Anon: friendly suggestion,,,,,,,call Steven Carter and ask him for yourself,,,,,,,he would be more than happy to tell you,,,he really would, Bruce Byrd
B is for Business, regarding your post at 11:50AM, if I understand correctly, what you're describing is a Ponzi scheme.
From wikipedia: "A Ponzi scheme usually offers abnormally high short-term returns in order to entice new investors. The high returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises (and pays) require an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going."
I understand this concept, but cannot tell you if this is valid when discussing investments made by the city. I have and will continue to hope that for any significant investment made with taxpayer money, we can clearly understand upfront how ROI will be calculated and provide an ongoing scorecard throughout the life of the investment. If this information exists, I would like to analyze it.
Thank you for the suggestion, Bruce Byrd. However, Champaign Dweller has said people are getting bonuses. So I asked, "Who"? If someone, in this case Champaign Dweller, wants to make allegations I merely ask that person to provide a fact backing up those allegations. As of yet, this has not been done. I do not see how it becomes my responsibility to fact-check the allegations of others, such as by my having to call the city manager. I will now assume that Champaign Dweller "is just making it up", unless and until Champaign Dweller can provide the name of any individual who received a "bonus". I am sure Champaign Dweller can speak for himself or herself without the aid of others.
Hey, I'm not making it up--I've told you what I base this on--if you choose not to believe it, that's your problem. You're not, by any chance, employed by the City in some administrative capacity, are you?
I don't mean to intervene in the argument, but the planned expenses for the city were $63,039,167. If the gift budget is material, I would be suprised. : )
B--I don't disagree, but here is where I am on that point. The City is clearly outspending revenues. The City spends money on some things that are discretionary, and maybe even frivolous. If the City needs more money, then they should cut the frivolous items at a minimum. I don't view a tax and fee increase as particularly necessary if the City and its staff aren't even willing to give up their cups and license plate holders. A few years ago, Phil Bloomer did an interesting article on this very topic--maybe it's time for the News Gazette to look at this again, in light of a possible recession. Or maybe we can just continue to accept the status quo and pay whatever bills are sent. I notice that citizens and taxpayers are frequently called upon to make sacrifices, but when it comes to the City and its staff, not so much.
I understand the rationale for the city's actions but I think that there comes a time when there needs to be some consideration for the everyday ordinary taxpayer who isn't making a six figure income.
And how many city employees are pulling in six-figures?
The City has a program called pay for performance for the non-bargaining unit employees (all employees that are not unionized). The City has a pool of funds from which it rewards employees based on their performance.
I'm confused. I've heard many argue against across-the-board raises, saying that city employees should get merit pay. The city has funds for merit pay, and you're against that as well? They don't deserve raises above COLA based on their performance?
C-D: Maybe we should just hire the homeless and recent college grads who are still not employed to run the City? After all, they would just be happy to work and not expect any 'perks' as you put it. Point is, who cares if they get bonuses and perks as long as they are not outrageous? If you want to attract good people to work for the City, you have to offer something besides locking them in their office for 8 hours at an hourly wage and expecting them to do the people's business at a high level. Maybe you should be advocating more bonuses and salary for someone that can actually balance the budget instead on complaining about pancake breakfasts.
I have many faults,,,,being shy is not one of them,,I will call the city myself and see if I can get an answer to this question,,one way or another, in the best of all worlds,,,maybe I can even get someone at the city to post a response.:)
Champaign Dweller, you wrote about bonuses. You claim employees are getting bonuses.
All income is reported. It is public record.
Tell us, please, WHO got such bonuses?
And no, btw, I do not work for the city. I merely seek the truth. Saying words to the effect of, "Trust me, it's true" is the same as believing the city adminstrators, when they say, "Trust me, it's true".
So can you name a single individual who got a bonus?
To your defense, a lot of people read things that aren't true, and then believe them. You have probably merely fallen into the trap of pop culture mentality making popular (or unpopular) opinions into facts. Unfortunatley, here there are no facts to back up your claim.
I suggest you either 1. provide a fact, or 2. admit you made it up (even based on some belief you have that might be grounded in a similar fact somewhere) or 3. stop insulting me and questioning my reasons for asking yu to provide any evidence, beyond "I heard it somewhere", for your claim. Or maybe 4. Stop making things up. Any one of those would be a good thing.
All I asked for and all I still ask for it is you backing up your claim that some city employess get bonuses. It seems so simple, why are you so defensive about it?
Anonymous, I don't believe that I can answer your question to your satisfaction--the pay for performance information should be in the City's budget--look it up. The information about the employees who are in the non-bargaining unit should also be public information--look it up. If you think I'm making up Pay for Performance, then I suggest that you talk to anyone at the City Building who will confirm this. maybe the disconnect between us is how we define bonuses--I think pay for performance is a bonus--do you doubt that it exists, or are you saying that it isn't a bonus--I'm not sure.
Arvid--I don't disagree that people should be paid for a job well done. However, let's compare the private sector to the public sector. In a bad year, the private sector cuts expenses, lays off, or reduces or does without raises. I'm not sure that there are equal actions taken in the public sector--there the emphasis is on increasing taxes or enhancing revenue as the City's Finance Director likes to put it. If 60 to 80% or more of the budget is personnel costs, unless you're willing to discuss salaries, pay for performance, benefits, etc. then there really isn't very much room to talk about savings. All I'm saying, although apparently not very well, is that in lean times, these things should be on the table and at least considered for reduction. Maybe one of the council members who regularly read this will at least confirm that the City offers bonuses in the form of pay-for-performance, over and above the cost of living, so that anonymous can find something else to complain about.
Ask not what services you can live without - ask what price you are willing to pay.
If we can setup a policy that increases in reocurring expenses can not exceed increases in reocurring revenues, it would be a nice start. With all good management comes tough decisions. Well-run companies are faced with that challenge everday, without the ability to fall back on the taxpayer.
This thread came a reasonbly long way without finger pointing and making someone out to be a victim. Either the city is well-managed or it isn't. Based on predictions of revenues vs. expenses, the city is going to need need to make tough decisions. Alternatively, they can just raise taxes and fees.
Champaign Dweller, I am not complaining, I merely seek the truth. You have made a statement. I ask you to back it up with facts. You suggest I should do your research. I disagree. If what you say is true, and you must have thought so when you said it, it is incumbent upon you to provide some proof that what you said is true. Just because you say it is doesn't make it true. Please provide some proof, any proof, that personnel are receiving pay bonuses. Until then I will take Option B: it's not true.
Ask the Chief of Police how much the SOUTH DISTRICT LT. got as a pay for preformance for the idea of having in squad car software to generate accident reports. The ask the newest Deputy Chief for the Champaign Police Department was on her raise on pay for preformance last year. Each member of the departments "management team" has a specific job that if they do well on they get this pay for preformance. \
Is that clear enough?
Who is the "SOUTH DISTRICT LT."? Who is "newest Deputy Chief..."? What was their base salary? How much did they actually receive? It's easy to say the lt. or the deputy chief, but still there are no facts. These facts should be a matter of public record. I merely ask those who make statements be able to back up their statements. I merely seek the truth about this, without innuendo, without assumptions. It has been offered, now let it be put to the test. Is there any proof?
Champaign Dweller says: "In a bad year, the private sector cuts expenses, lays off, or reduces or does without raises. "
When they can, sure, they sometimes do this. But sometimes they (gasp!) raise the price of the product or service, instead, knowing that the product or service is still in high demand and the consumers will continue to buy it. The equivalent for a public body would be to raise taxes.
Same goes for households - it's fashionable to say "well, in my house when things are tight we cut back, we don't go out to eat, we cancel the cable service." That's all well and good when you're living fancy enough to be eating out and watching cable TV in the first place. But households that never did that to start with, what do they do? Adults get a second job, that's what. Again, the equivalent for a public body would be to raise taxes.
It's always fashionable these days to assume that the government is wasting the people's money, and that there is endless "fat" that can be cut out of the budget, if only the public sector were frugal and reasonable. But because it's become pretty much a cliche, it's worth asking for specifics - WHAT EXACT services or salaries or perks should be cut? Is there really all this fat in the budget, or is it a nebulous feeling of "well, it's government, of course they're wasteful."
I suppose it looks bad to have public employees given a pancake breakfast or a coffee cup, but in 100% all honesty, how much does that stuff cost? Usually (in both the private and the public sector) those gimmicks are only trotted out to keep the employees from screaming too loudly over the fact that once again there's a hiring freeze (with people leaving, of course, so the remaining few have more work to do and no extra pay) or no raises. Those measures are used as rewards BECAUSE they're cheap and non-renewing.
I have to agree with Arvid's comment on this one - if the employees are supposed to not unionize, and we're to accept that across the board seniority raises are not okay, NOW we're supposed to complain about merit raises TOO? I thought merit raises were supposed to be the incentive for people to do a good job. Heck, most of the time public sector jobs pay less than private sector, this is made blatant at hiring time, and the "rewards" to attract people into the gig are things like more vacation or job stability.
I'd be interested to know, how has the purchasing power of the city wages kept pace with inflation? Increased (a real raise), kept even with COLA, or declined?
I don't know that it's only the city employees who seem to want something for nothing, here.
Before anyone asks, no, I don't work for the City of Champaign.
Arvid-Just to clarify, I wasn't referring to the six-figure income of city employees. I was referring to the developers who are given tax incentives over and over and yet my middle class income sees continually rising tax bills to compensate for it anually. I don't begrudge the city employees anything (not even a coffee cup or a pancake breakfast), because I am well aware that there are not a lot of financial perks in working in the public sector. I have spoken with lots of people who are starting to have trouble living in Champaign with the combination of rising assessments and tax rates.
I hear ya on the developers. I wonder what goes on with a lot of those deals myself.
I think I know who bhss73 is based on the specific comments made concerning South District LT....and newest Deputy Chief. I think he is probably a long-term patrol officer (now retired) never promoted and never deserving of promotion, writes a lot of snarky letters to the editor in the news gazette about how the City of Champaign is poorly run. The South District Lt. Is one of 3 or 4 patrol LT's that are all a part of the pay for performance system, as is Holly Nearing, the newest Deputy Chief. The system is set up to compensate those non-bargaining unit employees for the work they do throughout the year, in addition to the COLA that is provided every July 1. The pay for performance amount varies from employee to employee, based on a pretty simple formula that each supervisor uses to grade the employee's work. The increase is by percentage until an employee reaches the top of/his or her pay grade and then it is provided in the form of a lump sum. The system is not secret by any means and a simple call to the city building provided this information. Also, a few years back there was a freeze placed on the pay for performance system however that was lifted once the city was on firmer financial footing. As for the employee recognition luncheon and the pancake breakfast, I will make another call tomorrow to get that information for you. I know that the pancakes are pretty good and they have started serving fruit in addition to the pancakes so maybe that is what pushed you over the edge ?
"That's all well and good when you're living fancy enough to be eating out and watching cable TV in the first place"
Most people below the poverty line have cable. And apparently they eat out a lot because that's supposedly why they are fat (according to liberals I've talked to)
Look on the City Website.... or do a google search... its not hard.......... Now....every Lt. has a take home vehicle. None of them are on shift work. They all work M-F 7am 3pm. In prior years, they worked shift work and would drive their own vehicles to work and then drive a squad car during their tour of duty. This was done away with 3 Chiefs ago....... of these Lt's two of the 4 do not live in Champaign County. Two do, but only ONE lives in the City of Champaign. Only two of the 3 deputy chiefs live in the City of Champaign, the other lives in the county. You have school resources officers with squad cars ( paid for by Unit 04) only 2 of the 5 live in Champaign, the others live in the county or in vermillion county. The training sgt lives outside of the county. He has a take home vehicle. By my guess there are about 8 cars a day that drive to Coles, Vermillion, Douglas, Piatt counties that are paid for by the City of Champaign. The squad cars that the officers drive? Several have over 90,000 miles on them.......
Its not limited to the police department either....in the fire department. ,every deputy chief has a take home vehicle... Explorers .....so that they can respond to fires in the night time. Prior to Chief Corbly, these people were on 24 hour shifts with the working officers. Now they work 40 hour weeks M-F 8-4. Where one time they had one car to drive to these fires, now there are 3 that come to these fires....You want to cut expenses? try cutting the fleet....
Very good suggestion, bhss73. I certainly want the police and fire departments to be fully equpped but this sounds like a geat way to start cutting expenses. I wonder how many other city vehicles are used like that.
"It's always fashionable these days to assume that the government is wasting the people's money, and that there is endless "fat" that can be cut out of the budget, if only the public sector were frugal and reasonable. But because it's become pretty much a cliche, it's worth asking for specifics - WHAT EXACT services or salaries or perks should be cut? Is there really all this fat in the budget, or is it a nebulous feeling of "well, it's government, of course they're wasteful.""
If you're going to play this game, WHAT EXACT services or salaries should not be cut? Tom Bruno eat your heart out. Is there currently any position that is difficult to fill or where the turnover is high? Is there a position where it is extremely difficult to find someone with the skills and experience?
Tough times call for tough decisions. Except these are supposed to be pretty good times yet the outlook is negative. If the city manager office and city council will not make them, we will be paying higher taxes and fees. Currently, if the budget looks good you get a raise. If the budget looks bad, you get a raise. There is no skin in the game. Under these circumstances, what would be the motivation to manage spending?
My suggestion is to not allow reoccurring spending to be > reoccurring revenues. No exceptions.
Fine and dandy. I'm not claiming you should run a red budget.
I merely point out that there are TWO solutions to a red budget - decrease spending OR increase income. Both should be debated fairly, and with actual budget examples. If there truly is fat, let's see it. In detail.
My post was made in response to seeing again, the nebulous claim that basically "the government is wasting money and they must cut the excess." The problem is that that is a cliche. It might very well BE the truth, but at this point such claims need substantive details, because we've heard them all too often.
Note that these nebulous claims are widespread - Blagojevich of all people made similar claims when running for gov, and we how that's worked out. He can't be singled out, of course, as they all said that same thing - shrill calls for "cut the fat!" Okay. So, what programs? What staff? Nix the lingonberries on the pancakes, maybe? It looks good to cut little things, but they don't add up to all that much. As for the raises, if they're only COLA, they're not a raise in real dollars, so asking to not have that means cutting pay. If you want to go there, okay, but be prepared to fight for that, by name, not just saying "cut the fat!!"
At some point, to paraphrase the Wendy's ad, we need to ask "Where's the fat?"
They are listed by name throughout the five year outlook. The question is whether or not someone will fight to control the costs.
"Pension costs (especially for fire and police officers) also continue to grow faster than other expenditures. The City’ pension cost are now $43.90 for every hundred dollars paid in regular police officer wages, and $51.00 for every hundred dollars paid in regular firefighter wages. (In comparison, the City’ cost for IMRF and FICA are only $16.42 for every hundred dollars paid inregular wages to employees .) On average, pension cost increases over the past five yearsaveraged over 8% annually, mainly due to increasing benefits and weak investment performance.
This year’s increase was significantly higher, 17.75% for Fire and 6.40% for Police. Staff doesnot expect any new legislation increasing benefits soon and anticipates improved investment returns based on the results from recent years. Therefore, staff used the historic average growthrate of 8% for the forecast."
Pension costs are $51 for every $100 in regular firefighters wages. It's time to call Jenny Craig.
If you're going to play this game, WHAT EXACT services or salaries should not be cut?
None of it should be cut. It should all be kept at current levels, if not increased. You want to see a city that keeps its taxes low, finances only what they have to? It's a charming little hamlet called "Danville", and they're just a veritable boomtown, aren't they? I agree with what someone else said about it not being the city employees who seem to want something for nothing...
Pension costs are $51 for every $100 in regular firefighters wages. It's time to call Jenny Craig.
<b for business>Blah, blah, blah...I hate pensions, they are evil and ruining society as we know it.....I keep ignoring the fact that it wouldn't matter if it was a pension, 403(b)/401(k), or IRA, the city would still be underfunding it and playing catch-up because the business community can't build anything without a city handout. I'll be damned before anybody should expect the business sector to pay for anything they do...</b for business>
Do you have anything new to add, or are you going to continue to beat this horse to death for its next two lives, too? How about addressing what causes governmental bodies to raid the pension fund in the first place? If only businesses and developers would stop demanding "financial incentives" to build in Champaign, and then not pay taxes for years to come on the development, there wouldn't be a pension crisis. The fleet mentioned above I agre should be trimmed. That's just ridiculous. Why can't you go after that instead of Joe Librarian or Jane Meter Maid? I guess because it's easier to attack the employees as being greedy.
If the investment performance is weak and the city is having to raise pension costs to meet their obligations (as opposed to Enron who just said, "oops, our bad; sorry about that...you weren't really counting on that anyway, right?") then it sounds like the private sector needs to get off its ass and make the market turn around. Or will you need a government handout for that too?
Currently, if the budget looks good you get a raise. If the budget looks bad, you get a raise.
Yes and no. If the budget looks good, you get a better raise. If the budget looks bad, you get a sometimes less than COLA or a salary/hiring freeze across the board. Of course, we've never seen that happen here in the Great State of Illinois. We don't have state employees who haven't seen a raise in 3 years, or whose units have been on hiring freezes and can't replace the employees who leave to make better wages.
"If only businesses and developers would stop demanding "financial incentives" to build in Champaign, and then not pay taxes for years to come on the development, there wouldn't be a pension crisis."
This is news to me. I had no idea developers caused the pension crisis.
"I guess because it's easier to attack the employees as being greedy."
Nobody is greedy for asking. Nobody is attacking someone by saying no. Nobody seems to be saying no.
"Why can't you go after that instead of Joe Librarian or Jane Meter Maid?"
For those who aren't paying attention, these are the helpless victims.
"then it sounds like the private sector needs to get off its ass and make the market turn around."
Can you please explain what you mean by this?
"Do you have anything new to add, or are you going to continue to beat this horse to death for its next two lives, too?"
I'm going to beat this to death until I no longer have to look at a financial outlook and see that pension costs are 51% ON TOP of wages. In the meantime, I would not object to you getting off your ass and fixing it.
Throughout all of this the major bond rating firms continue to give Champaign almost the highest bond rating possible, thereby commenting on their estimation of the city's financial health in the future.
This corporate entity, with a 90 million dollar annual budget and 600 employees holds a luncheon once a year and a pancake breakfast once a year for their employees. Sounds like a very savvy move by an employer to maintain morale at an insignificant cost. What does Carle or Busey do for their employees? I would suggest they do something very similar, for equally self-serving reasons.
Part of the Police Pension fault is that there are 21 officers on Duty Injury pension..... some have gone on to other jobs such as Judges, roofers, hog farmers and truck drivers....They were on the job for a short period of time, and then get a tax free pension for the rest of their lives, with college tuition for the kids and medical paid for as well... No one is decrying the demand for someone who is disabled but cannot work ever, but the fact of the matter is that the City does not want officers on the job who cannot do specific on the street tasks.... They can still do police work.... uch as writing reports at the station or making calls to follow up on reports, but they cant ( according to their doctors) go 0ut on the street, so the City turns to the pension fund and says that they cant work the street and we dont have a job for them, so that they must be put on pension.......so someone works for 3-4 years and then draws a tax free retirement for the rest of their lives.....
The pension fund has cried for years that they are being under funded, but no one at the city would listen and if they did, they made comments that the pension fund did not know what it was talking about... Watch the council when the tax levy comes out and watch the finance directors comments......The City paid 5million to rehab Bradley Ave. It wants to extend Olympian drive to help out with the expansion on Clear lake... another 4 million dollars .........It paid 40 million to stop flooding on one street in Champaign ( Green) thats where the money is going..... but it will no doubt be on the backs of the workers in terms of compensation that the City balances the budget.
The city is in fantastic financial shape if you also look at their current cash position. People want to build in Champaign! You can tell by looking at all the cranes. There are nice buildings downtown. There are areas that are attractive that most of us enjoy very much. If I was writing the document, there could be many justifications for making that claim.
Despite all of the staggering success, why would they have increase taxes and fees? Based on NUMBERS, there is compelling evidence that city's good financial standing with require better management of ongoing expenses, tax increases, or one-time injections of cash....or all of the above. I have acknowledged that raising taxes is an alternative throughout this post. Since all we seem to see anymore are fee increases and tax increases, I suspect we'll see more.
"This corporate entity, with a 90 million dollar annual budget and 600 employees holds a luncheon once a year and a pancake breakfast once a year for their employees. Sounds like a very savvy move by an employer to maintain morale at an insignificant cost. What does Carle or Busey do for their employees? I would suggest they do something very similar, for equally self-serving reasons."
While other commenter may think this is wasteful spending, I do not. I think this is more than acceptable and feel the city employees deserve at least that. I do, however, find it annoying when the public sector compares is spending habits to the privates when supporting reasons to spend money.....without comparing the public sector to the private sector when it comes to managing expenses. This is very convenient.
Let's wait and see how long it takes for Champaign to raise and/or create a new tax or fee. If there is evidence or interpretation contesting my claim that there is a pending issue, I'd appreciate your perspective.
I don't doubt that people want to build here or live here, but at some point you have to ask how much are you willing to pay for the privilege? All I ask is that before the City ask for more taxes and more user fees, etc that they go through the exercise of looking at their budgets to see if they can trim anything. If they can't, then they should come to the public and say that they have examined their budget, and there isn't a single thing that they can cut and that they need more, or they should come to the public and say that they've cut what they can and they need more, but maybe a smaller amount. If they're not willing to do that, then they just want a blank check and apparently people are willing to give it to them.
"All I ask is that before the City ask for more taxes and more user fees, etc that they go through the exercise of looking at their budgets to see if they can trim anything."
In order to manage expenses, they will have to fight. If they propose to raise taxes and fees, the council will vote yes because all the taxpayer will do is bitch a little bit.
Champaign Dweller, us taxpayers must be willing to fight if anything is going to be done. Call your friends and ask them to read this thread. If all we're going to require is that the city manager puts in a respectable effort to manage expenses, then you should get your checkbook ready.