Aldermanic Raises

This goes back to the committee meeting of August 23rd.

Very little discussion actually took place regarding this topic at the committee meeting. I only have a few notes from that portion of the meeting.

• Al Hudzik wanted to get the raises if any passed so that elected officials could take office April 19th or on the first meeting in May without any special meetings.
  
• Alderman Ebersohl suggested a 3% increase be used.
• Alderman Niemietz suggested that when this issue was delayed during the last election cycle the extra ordinances and special meetings probably cost more than the raises that were given.
• The Mayor said that he could easily defend a raise of $1000 over a term per alderman. He felt that the hours put in by the alderman easily justify the raises.
  
• Alderman Stumpf mentioned a 4% raise as the last time.
• All Alderman voted Yes to pass the motion to the council for 4% raises each year for the officials elected next spring.

At the council meeting of September 7th the council voted on the recommendation as follows.

Motion: Recommend to the City Council that the compensation of the city’s aldermen elected at the April, 2011 municipal election be the same as those aldermen elected in April, 2009 for the city’s fiscal year 2011 (05/01/11 – 04/30/12 (annual salary of $5,192)) and fiscal year 2012 (05/01/12 – 04/30/13 (annual salary of $5,400)), and that said aldermanic salaries be increased by 4% for each of the city’s fiscal years of 2013 and 2014.

It passed with a Yes vote from every alderman except Oberkfell, Stumpf, & Hejna.

I emailed those who voted no and Alderman Ebersohl who is my second alderman along with Oberkfell.

• I havent seen a reply back from Alderman Ebersohl yet.
• Aldermen Hejna asked that I call her, which I have not done. I find it best to get answers back in writing/email so I can keep my interpretation of what others are trying to convey to a minimum when I post here for others to read.
• Alderman Stumpf replied back with the following "The budget is totally out of control and no one seems alarmed. I would be a hypocrite to vote for an aldermanic raise, when come budget discussion next year, I will lobby hard for fiscal prudence and restraint."
• Alderman Oberkfell replied back with the following, "The real issue hear is that I do not feel we should be taking raises at this time. My feelings on this issue have been expressed many times before, and my stance has not changed. If you look at my past record you will notice I did not support the previous raises, however they were still approved by the council. The economy is in a state of dissarray and I believe no elected official should be adding to their pockets at this time."

I support the stance of those who voted no, as there is no money for this. I just find it confusing that at the committee meeting there was little discussion against a raise at all. There was no open discussion from any alderman at the committee meeting or council meeting saying they were against a raise and they would not support it. Its frustrating to see everyone make a motion to recommend with little talk of opposition and then have people vote no.

I understand that the vote in committee does not "count" and you can change your mind between meetings but why vote yes to recommend to the council something that you do not agree with. Why give it that chance to pass at the council level when you could stop it at the committee or at least express that you are not in favor of something. It could have been possible to pass a motion for no raises since three of the alderman up for re-election who would be affected by these raises did not want them.

If your against something you should voice your opinion on it. That's not a complicated concept.

Thanks again to Oberkfell, Stumpf & Hejna for voting no to a raise, even though its still happening. Planning for the budget should start now if real changes are going to be made and I would hope this is the first step they are planning to take.

Simply stating that the budget is not good will not suffice next spring. Actual suggestions and items to "cut" if needed will be required by those not in support.

Low Speed Vehicles?

At last nights council meeting they instructed administrative staff proceed with the necessary research and document preparation to prohibit the operation of low-speed vehicles on the streets of the City.

I wish I had been at the committee meeting last week to understand what brought this idea around, minutes of these committee meetings are not posted on the website yet.

For whatever reason it was brought up, I find it to be interesting. There was a representative there last night who sells these LSV's in a number of towns in Illinois, I believe this is his company's website, he mentioned if Columbia outlawed them they would be the first city in Illinois to do that, although it appears the city can prohibit them according to "Sec. 11-1426.2. Operation of low-speed vehicles on streets" which states the following

(c) The Department of Transportation or a municipality, township, county, or other unit of local government may prohibit, by regulation, ordinance, or resolution, the operation of low-speed vehicles on streets under its jurisdiction if the Department of Transportation or unit of local government determines that the public safety would be jeopardized.
(d) Before prohibiting the operation of low-speed vehicles on a street, the Department of Transportation or unit of local government must consider the volume, speed, and character of traffic on the street and determine whether allowing low-speed vehicles to operate on that street would jeopardize public safety. Upon determining that low-speed vehicles may not safely operate on a street, and upon the adoption of an ordinance or resolution by a unit of local government, or regulation by the Department of Transportation, appropriate signs shall be posted in conformance with the State Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices adopted pursuant to Section 11-301 of this Code.

I went back and found an article regarding LSV's in a retirement type community in Florida that I read last year in Wired Magazine that I thought of instantly when they were discussing thsi last night. Its worth a read and makes LSV's sound fun or at least interesting.

I don't see what they could hurt in town. I think most people need to slow down as it is. The law doesn't let them on Route 3, though they could cross it. The Illinois law requires a drivers license unlike the Florida situation in the Wired article I linked to. It may attract a new business to town, who knows.

Does Columbia need to be the first town in Illinois to challenge section "d" above? Probably not.

8:14 AM Wednesday
Ironic Followup: The new Issue of Wired arrived in my mailbox yesterday and the cover story is? The Tesla Electric Car and a good article regarding that company's influence on the global electric automobile industry and then some info on other electric cars to be released over the coming years. Please note that an electric car is not the same as a low speed vehicle, they can be confused as the same rather quickly.

My Feelings on the G.O. Bond Issue

My feelings on the G.O. Bond are mixed. On one hand I understand the need for additional income for the city to offset the costs we as a town are facing. On the other hand I also see this as an opportunity for the city to say OK we have been taxing the community for an extended amount of time with these bonds and we’re going to stop and every council member could actually say they reduced your tax bill in these tough economic times.

First the need - There are good reasons to issue the G.O. Bond and I’ll point some out below.

* The city clearly needs the income.

* It’s easy to do and the city can do it (albeit under a certain amount) without asking the taxpayer for permission.

* People are already paying for one so when it expires we’ll just start a new one.

* The cost is minimal as shown by Al Hudzik on 8/9/10. He noted the figure of $.03 per $100 assessed value. This as he pointed out is $30/year for a $300,000 home. Not everyone in Columbia has a home worth that. I think most would fall in my category at about $15/year. Can most people afford $15/year to get these projects done? Probably.

* This money will help offset some possible shortfalls to the general fund and alleviate some of the depletion of the capitol development fund. When the budget was passed it was explained that the use of the capitol development money was just and acceptable, as it was being spent on capitol development costs, this would offset those expenditures though.

* The money the bond will generate will be used on some well deserving projects as illustrated on the short list provided 8/23/10 to the council. Keeping these long planned projects going will be great for the city’s growth and future. Without this income the city cannot complete all of the projects on any of the lists. Services or infrastructure improvements will be cut.

* The state is behind on some tax payments to the city like I have discussed before and that is causing a budget shortfall in all areas. This will help.

On the Other hand.

* Maybe the city should end accessing funds in this manner. In a month or two the city will levy for the 4.99% tax increase they have every year I paid attention to the local government. The key at 4.99% is no vote is required from the people for a levy of that amount. The council could say this year we need more since we have a shortfall and levy for 5.5%. The community would likely say no but at least we would have a voice in our local governmental system and the tax increases placed upon us.

* The cost is minimal over one year. This will last for a minimum of six years so it’s really costing me $90 on my house hopefully worth somewhere around $150,000. For the example Al gave its costing our friends in the Gedern at least twice that. Not breaking the bank, but everyone likes to keep their money.

* I would feel better having my taxes raised in another way and the city simply use the money on their own without using my money to pay down a “loans” interest. Call it 3% on the whole $450,000 and I am sure this is the incorrect way to figure it but that’s another $13,500. A lot of savings? No, but that would buy the building inspector the vehicle he needs or most of the equipment the parks department has on the short list, we would just have to prioritize what we need and when we get to buy it. Then again, this is what we should have been doing in the first place (budgeting and prioritizing)

* If when the budget was passed it was ok to use the capitol development money on these projects since that’s what the fund is for why the concern to lessen the blow to that fund now? If the first budget plan was ok why the cause for the change?

* The short list has the capability to use the entire $450,000 the bond will produce. That’s just one year’s list. If things do not improve next year how do we fund similar projects next year. We’re paying for this years projects over six years with interest.

I’ll admit that both sides have points. I do ultimately feel the city should not obtain another G.O. Bond. The budget is what it is. If the budget was good enough to pass without the funds from this bond planned or expected then we don’t need the bond, right? Going into the year everyone who voted yes on the budget said some cuts will maybe be necessary and we’ll keep tabs on how things go throughout the year.

Now is the time for those cuts to be made. The Bond basically allows for the council to ignore the problem with a temporary (this year only) and easy fix (no voter approval required). If the bond is issued and no hard choices are made now how can anyone expect the hard choices to be made next spring on next year’s budget.

I would welcome anyone's response to my views, via comment or email. I would encourage you to contact your aldermen or speak out at the public hearing when that time comes if you feel strongly for or against this issue.

Alderman Oberkfell and Hejna both voted "No" on Tuesday for the council to grant approval for the city staff to take the steps necessary to proceed with this bonds issuance in the amount of $450,000.

Chicago: Biggest/Best News since the Cubs won in '08

Mayor Daley is calling it quits, click for the story.

I've never lived in Chicago but know a number of people who have over the years both young and old. There has always been some grumbling about his reign and his fathers before him. Below is what I feel may be the largest reason for my distaste in the man.

The March 30, 2003 bulldozing of Meigs Field, maybe the last great small downtown airport.

Columbia Budget Fix - A General Obligation Bond

It was clear to me earlier this year when the city prepared its budget that taking money from the capitol development fund was not the ideal fix to the shortfalls of the city’s finances and I stated that idea at the appropriate time.

The state is currently two months behind on payments to the city which is an improvement over the four it was previously behind. These are sporadic payments at best with no guarantee that they will catch up anymore or not fall behind again.

At the August 9th Committee Meetings the Finance Claims, Bonds, & Interest Committee met to discuss “Finance/Budgetary Issues”. I’ll bullet point my notes from that meeting.

• The city has a bond issue that they may wish to renew. The expiring bond was for $375,000 at a 6 year term.
  
• Alderman Roessler: If the city does not renew it will expire. The cost to renew is low approx. $3,000.
  
• Al Hudzik: Current rate for the bond is .03-.04/$100 which works out to cost someone with a $300,000 house about $30/year or $2.50/month. The cost to renew the bond would be about $3,500 in legal fees.
  
• Linda: Kurt Froehlich in Champaign could handle the renewal of the bond. She thinks we could spend the money over three years and the tax to repay the bond is already built into the city’s tax structure.
  
• Alderman Hejna: Had a few questions about going out to bid for council on the bond.
  Al: Said that the fee of $3,500 was very reasonable and it’s under a $10,000 expense so no bidding process is required.
  
• Alderman Niemietz: Should we look at spending some of this money to expand the lagoon capacity?
  
• Ron Williams: Not right now as our capacity is 1.6 million gallons and we are using under 1 million right now.
  
• Linda: Water and Sewer can issue their own bonds for any of those needs; the issue currently is capitol development depletion.
  
• Alderman Stumpf: Bonds tend to have specific purposes; this is more of a bailout.
  
• Alderman Oberkfell: The city has raised its levy 4.99% over the last three consecutive years.
  
• Alderman Roessler: This would help us keep better fund levels.
  
• Alderman Hejna: She would need a list of things the city intends to buy with these funds, as some items should maybe just not be purchased.

It was determined OK for Al Hudzik and Linda to contact Froehlich to explore the issue. No one voted no on the issue.

I wrote this synopsis some time ago but thought it best to wait until I had the documentation handed out to the council that night 8/9/10 to add for anyone to look at.

At the August 23rd Committee Meetings the Finance Claims, Bonds, & Interest Committee met to discuss “Finance/Budgetary Issues” & “General Obligation Bond Issue Information Presentation/Discussion”. Nothing was discussed under the first heading and I’ll bullet point my notes from the Bond discussion.

• Capitol expenses are an eligible use of these potential funds.
  
• The funds must be spent within the first three years of the issue.
  
• When issuing the bind it is best to use general language and not mention very specific projects/items, this was changes in what to spend the money on later can be made if needed.
  
• Fixing up the Oak Street property may be OK but it would complicate dealings with certain IRS rules that may not be worth the hassle.
  
• $375,000 - $450,000 is a small amount for a 6-year term.
  
• Keep the repayment back loaded as property values should rise Columbia in by the time years five and six are due. Possible payment schedule $70,000/years 1 & 2, $75,000/years 3 & 4, $80,000/years 5 & 6.
  
• Possible use could be to pay off ambulance lease off early as the bond carries a lower rate.
  
• Whole process should take 1-2 months to complete including a public hearing.
  
• There is no need for a call provision since rates are unlikely to drop below the current rates available.
  
• Linda: Had a list of possible projects/items that she pulled form all departments that all get money from the general fund.
  
• Alderman Roessler: Asked if anyone was against proceeding with the idea of renewing the bond, no one said anything.
  
• Alderman Stumpf asked if the bond issue would be more, which he found out that it can if the would like it to be.
  
• The committee decided to move forward at a $450,000 amount. Ebersohl made the motion which Stumpf seconded and Hejna and Roessler voted yes on.

I wrote this synopsis sometime last week but thought it best to wait until I had the documentation handed out to the council that night 8/23/10 to add for anyone to look at.

I received the linked pdf documentation last Friday. I'll be honest I was outside working on the yard and in my garage with the nice weather we had over the holiday weekend. I'll reserve judgement on the issue until I read over the paperwork everyone else was looking at, I've scanned it but not read it thoroughly. I briefly talked with a few of the alderman after the 8/23 meeting. I'll get my opinion posted sometime this week.