He will not be seeking re-appointment as city attorney with the city for the fiscal year that started May 1, 2010. There will be a committee meeting next Monday May 24 to discuss possible candidates to fill this vacancy.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Committee Meetings 5/10
I had half of this done last week, better late than never?
All of the elected officials were in attendance at this meeting.
Parks, Playgrounds, and Recreation
• Columbia CUSD No. 4 Presentation
Ed Settles was in attendance to further discuss land use options for the school district at Bolm-Schuhkraft Park or across Route 3 where the city owns 33 acres set aside to be a future city park.
Superintendent Settles explained that the district would like to use Bolm-Schuhkraft during school hours for physical education classes and after school for band practice, soccer practices, and football practice. The schools are landlocked and the will that presented the land that is now Bolm-Schuhkraft to the city prevents the selling of some or all of the land to the district or anyone for that matter. The district had expressed interest in the past to purchase some of Bolm-Schuhkraft Park from the city. Settles also expressed interest in purchasing portions of property the city owns across Route 3, referred to in the meeting as the Weigman(sp) property.
Al Hudzik asked Settles how much land the district would be interested in buying. Settles expressed interest in anywhere from ¼ to ½ of the 33 acres, but said they would be interested in whatever the city would be willing to part with. It was noted the district would like to locate a practice field and a game field if possible.
Alderman Stumpf said he would rather trade land parcels with the district rather than selling land for cash.
Alderman Roessler asked if the district already used the park area at Bolm-Schuhkraft for activities. Superintendent Settles said that they do but he would prefer that a type of reservation system be put in place. Roessler then asked if the city had a plan in the works for the Weigman property. Alderman Niemietz responded that there is a trail there with no future plans in store at this time; there is a plan that has been prepared and awaiting funding for “Creekside Park” that would be developed first.
Alderman Roessler asked if the Weigman property floods. Niemietz responded that the land is “swampy”. Stumpf added that the land flooded for a few hours when the storm that was hurricane Gustav passed through our area. Stumpf also noted that it’s a shame the land is not being used and that there is no plan for the Weigman property. He reiterated the idea of not taking money for the land if the city were to “sell” some of the Weigman land to the school district; he would prefer a trade for land elsewhere for the city to develop a park. Alderman Ebersohl noted that one acre of the Weigman land sat higher out of reach of flooding and that was planned to be used for restrooms and parking.
Superintendent Settles asked when there may be a decision or plan for a reservation system for Bolm-Schuhkraft so he could pass that info on to his replacement that starts July 1. Niemietz said that the Play Commission is looking into creating updated park policies. Stumpf noted the district should put together a plan that would illustrate the areas of Bolm-Schuhkraft the district would utilize and what times they would want to use those designated areas. In regards to “selling land” Stumpf asked Settles for a plan of what the district would want and what they would be willing to give to the city in return. Stumpf also noted that if the school district is ever in a position to abandon the property that the high school sits on now he would like the city to be offered ownership to extend its current park area there.
Executive and Rules
• Committee Appointments Discussion
Alderman Ebersohl started the meeting stating that the Rules Committee saw no reason to change the members or chairmen of any of the council’s aldermanic committees.
Alderman Stumpf asked if there could be an economic development committee formed and if there was he would like to serve on it. Niemietz asked what its purpose would be and Stumpf replied that it could bring fresh ideas and accountability to the economic development of the city.
It was then asked if the committee chairs ever change, Ebersohl said that really doesn’t happen.
Alderman Agne asked if larger cities have economic development committees. Mayor Hutchinson replied that the Planning Commission reviews projects and their associated zoning and they move projects over to the council.
Alderman Oberkfell noted that he would like to be back on the Fire Committee. Alderman Row mentioned that if someone wanted to drop off of a committee and switch with someone else that could be a solution. No one volunteered to switch with Oberkfell. Row said he would like to switch chairmanships with Alderman Hejna moving him from Library back over to Refuse & Recycling. Niemietz asked Hejna what would happen to all of the recycling plans Hejna had for the Refuse & Recycling Committee. The idea of Hejna & Row switching was not mentioned again.
Hejna mentioned that she would like to Finance chairman again.
Stumpf said he would like to be parks chairman instead of Niemietz.
Hejna asked why the council has an education committee.
Alderman Niemietz said that the city works hand in hand with the taxing body that is the school district and that committee provides for that communication. Niemietz also noted that she would prefer to keep her chairmanship of the Parks Committee for one more year.
All of the elected officials were in attendance at this meeting.
Parks, Playgrounds, and Recreation
• Columbia CUSD No. 4 Presentation
Ed Settles was in attendance to further discuss land use options for the school district at Bolm-Schuhkraft Park or across Route 3 where the city owns 33 acres set aside to be a future city park.
Superintendent Settles explained that the district would like to use Bolm-Schuhkraft during school hours for physical education classes and after school for band practice, soccer practices, and football practice. The schools are landlocked and the will that presented the land that is now Bolm-Schuhkraft to the city prevents the selling of some or all of the land to the district or anyone for that matter. The district had expressed interest in the past to purchase some of Bolm-Schuhkraft Park from the city. Settles also expressed interest in purchasing portions of property the city owns across Route 3, referred to in the meeting as the Weigman(sp) property.
Al Hudzik asked Settles how much land the district would be interested in buying. Settles expressed interest in anywhere from ¼ to ½ of the 33 acres, but said they would be interested in whatever the city would be willing to part with. It was noted the district would like to locate a practice field and a game field if possible.
Alderman Stumpf said he would rather trade land parcels with the district rather than selling land for cash.
Alderman Roessler asked if the district already used the park area at Bolm-Schuhkraft for activities. Superintendent Settles said that they do but he would prefer that a type of reservation system be put in place. Roessler then asked if the city had a plan in the works for the Weigman property. Alderman Niemietz responded that there is a trail there with no future plans in store at this time; there is a plan that has been prepared and awaiting funding for “Creekside Park” that would be developed first.
Alderman Roessler asked if the Weigman property floods. Niemietz responded that the land is “swampy”. Stumpf added that the land flooded for a few hours when the storm that was hurricane Gustav passed through our area. Stumpf also noted that it’s a shame the land is not being used and that there is no plan for the Weigman property. He reiterated the idea of not taking money for the land if the city were to “sell” some of the Weigman land to the school district; he would prefer a trade for land elsewhere for the city to develop a park. Alderman Ebersohl noted that one acre of the Weigman land sat higher out of reach of flooding and that was planned to be used for restrooms and parking.
Superintendent Settles asked when there may be a decision or plan for a reservation system for Bolm-Schuhkraft so he could pass that info on to his replacement that starts July 1. Niemietz said that the Play Commission is looking into creating updated park policies. Stumpf noted the district should put together a plan that would illustrate the areas of Bolm-Schuhkraft the district would utilize and what times they would want to use those designated areas. In regards to “selling land” Stumpf asked Settles for a plan of what the district would want and what they would be willing to give to the city in return. Stumpf also noted that if the school district is ever in a position to abandon the property that the high school sits on now he would like the city to be offered ownership to extend its current park area there.
Executive and Rules
• Committee Appointments Discussion
Alderman Ebersohl started the meeting stating that the Rules Committee saw no reason to change the members or chairmen of any of the council’s aldermanic committees.
Alderman Stumpf asked if there could be an economic development committee formed and if there was he would like to serve on it. Niemietz asked what its purpose would be and Stumpf replied that it could bring fresh ideas and accountability to the economic development of the city.
It was then asked if the committee chairs ever change, Ebersohl said that really doesn’t happen.
Alderman Agne asked if larger cities have economic development committees. Mayor Hutchinson replied that the Planning Commission reviews projects and their associated zoning and they move projects over to the council.
Alderman Oberkfell noted that he would like to be back on the Fire Committee. Alderman Row mentioned that if someone wanted to drop off of a committee and switch with someone else that could be a solution. No one volunteered to switch with Oberkfell. Row said he would like to switch chairmanships with Alderman Hejna moving him from Library back over to Refuse & Recycling. Niemietz asked Hejna what would happen to all of the recycling plans Hejna had for the Refuse & Recycling Committee. The idea of Hejna & Row switching was not mentioned again.
Hejna mentioned that she would like to Finance chairman again.
Stumpf said he would like to be parks chairman instead of Niemietz.
Hejna asked why the council has an education committee.
Alderman Niemietz said that the city works hand in hand with the taxing body that is the school district and that committee provides for that communication. Niemietz also noted that she would prefer to keep her chairmanship of the Parks Committee for one more year.
Lost Generation
This is old but still worth the look.
February 7, 2008
Contact: David Goldstein, AARP, 202-434-2560, dgoldstein@aarp.org
AARP Announces Winners of U&50 Challenge on You Tube
The Top Five Videos Win Cash Prizes Including $5,000 for First Place
Washington, DC - Today AARP announced the winners of its U@50 Challenge. The contest, launched in August 2007 on YouTube, gave people between the ages of 18 and 30 the chance to submit short videos on the subject of what they expect their lives to be like at age 50. The goal of the U@50 Challenge was to encourage intergenerational dialogue enabling young people to speak their minds and give AARP insight into their views. More than 50 videos were submitted from across the country and from these; the five top videos were selected by a panel of judges.
This video won second, watch the whole video.
February 7, 2008
Contact: David Goldstein, AARP, 202-434-2560, dgoldstein@aarp.org
AARP Announces Winners of U&50 Challenge on You Tube
The Top Five Videos Win Cash Prizes Including $5,000 for First Place
Washington, DC - Today AARP announced the winners of its U@50 Challenge. The contest, launched in August 2007 on YouTube, gave people between the ages of 18 and 30 the chance to submit short videos on the subject of what they expect their lives to be like at age 50. The goal of the U@50 Challenge was to encourage intergenerational dialogue enabling young people to speak their minds and give AARP insight into their views. More than 50 videos were submitted from across the country and from these; the five top videos were selected by a panel of judges.
This video won second, watch the whole video.
Friday, May 14, 2010
TIF's In Chicago, This Process Sounds Familiar
Taken from Progress Illinois' article.
This maneuver, in which revenue captured in one TIF district is transferred to projects in an adjacent district, is known as "porting." It's not illegal by any means, but it provides ample opportunities for abuse.
Link to the entire article at Progress Illinois
While the wording in Columbia Crossing talked of a "pass through" which I have never received a clear answer or explanation on. Chicago's planned idea of sharing revenue between TIF districts is possible. I do not have a map of Columbia's current districts and have not gone back to see how far Columbia Crossing reached to the East I would have to imagine this idea could maybe be used.
The issue then, is it a good idea? In the case of Chicago not really. The claims that the mayor's office is using the power of distributing the revenues between TIF districts to gain votes on certain items is a troubling enough. Let alone when a district has valid needs and uses for the TIF revenue in its own district only to see it funneled somewhere else.
In Columbia's case if a development were to happen in the bottoms (which I am not sure is the best location) and a TIF district be used (which I am not sure is really the best financing measure) and the new TIF district "touched" the current TIF district that includes at least the middle school it seems possible Columbia could take a page out of the Daley playbook (which I would not advise doing)and have at it. But it seems completly possible, maybe.
This maneuver, in which revenue captured in one TIF district is transferred to projects in an adjacent district, is known as "porting." It's not illegal by any means, but it provides ample opportunities for abuse.
Link to the entire article at Progress Illinois
While the wording in Columbia Crossing talked of a "pass through" which I have never received a clear answer or explanation on. Chicago's planned idea of sharing revenue between TIF districts is possible. I do not have a map of Columbia's current districts and have not gone back to see how far Columbia Crossing reached to the East I would have to imagine this idea could maybe be used.
The issue then, is it a good idea? In the case of Chicago not really. The claims that the mayor's office is using the power of distributing the revenues between TIF districts to gain votes on certain items is a troubling enough. Let alone when a district has valid needs and uses for the TIF revenue in its own district only to see it funneled somewhere else.
In Columbia's case if a development were to happen in the bottoms (which I am not sure is the best location) and a TIF district be used (which I am not sure is really the best financing measure) and the new TIF district "touched" the current TIF district that includes at least the middle school it seems possible Columbia could take a page out of the Daley playbook (which I would not advise doing)and have at it. But it seems completly possible, maybe.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
To Mike Madigan: What the heck? :: The SouthtownStar :: Phil Kadner
To Mike Madigan: What the heck? :: The SouthtownStar :: Phil Kadner
Go ahead read the article.
Ok, now do you think Madigan will provide an answer?
If he does it won't answer the questions posed. It will blame the Republicans and not the Democrats. The Republicans will respond and say it's the Democrats fault. How can most citizens understand the problems and know a solution must be found while the elected in Springfield do nothing. And they are doing nothing, they went home last week Friday. Republicans should vote for the tax increase and if they don't the Democrats should activly be voicing that issue and not waiting until the elections to call out the Republicans. Democrats should get down to cutting some programs, sure that may cost them some votes. It may also cost some Republicans some votes to say yes to a tax increase.
What I can say for sure is that all elected Representatives and Senators in Springfield are costing their constituents and the state far more than the outcome of the upcoming election. They were not elected to work full time preparing and positioning for a future election. They are all failing to do the jobs they were elected to do, its that simple. I am not saying I have the answers but we should as citizens shift our votes elsewhere this November based on the current performance of those in Springfield.
Go ahead read the article.
Ok, now do you think Madigan will provide an answer?
If he does it won't answer the questions posed. It will blame the Republicans and not the Democrats. The Republicans will respond and say it's the Democrats fault. How can most citizens understand the problems and know a solution must be found while the elected in Springfield do nothing. And they are doing nothing, they went home last week Friday. Republicans should vote for the tax increase and if they don't the Democrats should activly be voicing that issue and not waiting until the elections to call out the Republicans. Democrats should get down to cutting some programs, sure that may cost them some votes. It may also cost some Republicans some votes to say yes to a tax increase.
What I can say for sure is that all elected Representatives and Senators in Springfield are costing their constituents and the state far more than the outcome of the upcoming election. They were not elected to work full time preparing and positioning for a future election. They are all failing to do the jobs they were elected to do, its that simple. I am not saying I have the answers but we should as citizens shift our votes elsewhere this November based on the current performance of those in Springfield.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Sunday, May 09, 2010
What happened? Nothing really.
Well the elected could not figure out how to pass a budget but they sort of finished up some other items.
STAR Bonds are a go for the Marion area according to the House. The Senate will vote sometime before May 31, they had to leave a few weeks early since they finished what they get paid to do.
If passed we'll wait and see how long it takes for a STAR Bond district to pop up in Glen Carbon and for Chicago to divert all state sales tax back to itself with the use of this new tool.
In regards to the budget the officials will take some time off and come back before the end of May for "a couple of days" to pass a budget. They have been working on it for months and they'll come back for a few days to pass one? Wouldn't it be better served to stay a few weeks more and work out the details on the budget rather than having meetings between a few people at a time in Chicago with Gov. Quinn to make agreements to get what you want?
It will not be what we as citizens want or need, I guarantee the budget will be the same useless proposal that we have seen for the past few years.
STAR Bonds are a go for the Marion area according to the House. The Senate will vote sometime before May 31, they had to leave a few weeks early since they finished what they get paid to do.
If passed we'll wait and see how long it takes for a STAR Bond district to pop up in Glen Carbon and for Chicago to divert all state sales tax back to itself with the use of this new tool.
In regards to the budget the officials will take some time off and come back before the end of May for "a couple of days" to pass a budget. They have been working on it for months and they'll come back for a few days to pass one? Wouldn't it be better served to stay a few weeks more and work out the details on the budget rather than having meetings between a few people at a time in Chicago with Gov. Quinn to make agreements to get what you want?
It will not be what we as citizens want or need, I guarantee the budget will be the same useless proposal that we have seen for the past few years.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Some Good News.....Ok It's Really More Bad News
Taken from this article at The State Journal Register
The budget includes $26.1 billion from the state’s general checkbook account which pays for most state services. The money is allocated in large lump sums within various state agencies and Quinn will be given broad authority to direct how the money is spent.
The budget does not include the $3.8 million due to the state-funded pension systems in the next budget year. The plan is to suspend payments into those systems for the first six months of the year and hope that a funding scheme can be worked out.
The budget includes $26.1 billion from the state’s general checkbook account which pays for most state services. The money is allocated in large lump sums within various state agencies and Quinn will be given broad authority to direct how the money is spent.
The budget does not include the $3.8 million due to the state-funded pension systems in the next budget year. The plan is to suspend payments into those systems for the first six months of the year and hope that a funding scheme can be worked out.
My View:
SB3660 calls for suspending payments to an already unfunded pension system, this seems like a good idea, right? Its nothing to worry about as as we can rely on "hope that a funding scheme can be worked out". Does anyone with a vote in Springfield take anything seriously? The state is looking at a possible $13Billion deficit and the one of the items they felt could be put off is the state funded pension system? I believe the above cited article is incorrect as other sources say its between $3.7-4Billion they will not fund to the pension system.
Another hot topic issue with the budget includes the no brainer cigarette tax. It adds a $1 a pack tax to cigarettes. Making people spend more or quit is ok by me, sorry. If you wanted to add a tax to my vices I would live with them.
I understand the difficult decisions being placed on our elected officials in deciding what to cut but they have made the process much more complicated than it should be. Their lack of controlling the spending or raising sufficient revenues for years could have curtailed the current budget issues. The officials have also mandated their spring session should end a few weeks early so everything is a rush today so they can get home early.
They'll need the extra time to campaign after their complete lack of effort opr ability to fix muxh of anythung so far in 2010.
SB3660 calls for suspending payments to an already unfunded pension system, this seems like a good idea, right? Its nothing to worry about as as we can rely on "hope that a funding scheme can be worked out". Does anyone with a vote in Springfield take anything seriously? The state is looking at a possible $13Billion deficit and the one of the items they felt could be put off is the state funded pension system? I believe the above cited article is incorrect as other sources say its between $3.7-4Billion they will not fund to the pension system.
Another hot topic issue with the budget includes the no brainer cigarette tax. It adds a $1 a pack tax to cigarettes. Making people spend more or quit is ok by me, sorry. If you wanted to add a tax to my vices I would live with them.
I understand the difficult decisions being placed on our elected officials in deciding what to cut but they have made the process much more complicated than it should be. Their lack of controlling the spending or raising sufficient revenues for years could have curtailed the current budget issues. The officials have also mandated their spring session should end a few weeks early so everything is a rush today so they can get home early.
They'll need the extra time to campaign after their complete lack of effort opr ability to fix muxh of anythung so far in 2010.
Star Bonds
Seems to be hitting some opposition but not enough.
This sums up my issue with the plan all along.
This sums up my issue with the plan all along.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Star Bonds - Alive.....No Surprise
As I said last Friday when I wrote about this ongoing Bond issue.
The development is being moved. The target is Marion for this always ambiguous "destination development"
Story from St. Louis Business Journal - 5/4
The Southern online story - 5/1
Second Southern story - 5/4
From Progress Illinois - near the bottom- 5/4
Would have put this up earlier in the week but I was out of town for business. I have to say the local acceptance of the project from elected officials is much greater this time around it seems. Carbondale's mayor seems to be one of the few asking questions. Costello is out of the development team as it moved into his fathers congressional district.
I can understand how this seems like a great deal for the economy of Southern Illinois. This isn't just a deal for part of the state. The state budget far from stable and creating a development that "could" send money to help at the state level without these Bonds does not improve the situation. It will create jobs both during construction and upon completion but the revenue to the state is my issue. I have not read too far into the new bill but I did see one major change.
Its not called "The STAR Bonds Financing Act" anymore its short name is "The Innovation Development and Economy Act". This is a good move as some of the negative press associated with the STAR Bond name may be sidestepped. Misleading as politics usually is this change should not surprise anyone.
While I think the plan has a lot of work to accomplish before the end of this week. I think one item is being forgotten. In the original plan I remember there being a condition of no STAR Bond districts being allowed within a 250-mile radius of another, or something along those lines. With the Glen Carbon location that radius would cut a large majority of Chicago out of the party. With the move to Marion anything north of I-80/94 is fair game. The field day that will take place in the TIF District known as Chicago could be astounding. A quick search I did of the bill turned up no radius requirements at the current time.
Link to Ammendment 3 of SB2093
Which town will they turn to next and what funding will they attempt to receive for their business. Time will tell.
The development is being moved. The target is Marion for this always ambiguous "destination development"
Story from St. Louis Business Journal - 5/4
The Southern online story - 5/1
Second Southern story - 5/4
From Progress Illinois - near the bottom- 5/4
Would have put this up earlier in the week but I was out of town for business. I have to say the local acceptance of the project from elected officials is much greater this time around it seems. Carbondale's mayor seems to be one of the few asking questions. Costello is out of the development team as it moved into his fathers congressional district.
I can understand how this seems like a great deal for the economy of Southern Illinois. This isn't just a deal for part of the state. The state budget far from stable and creating a development that "could" send money to help at the state level without these Bonds does not improve the situation. It will create jobs both during construction and upon completion but the revenue to the state is my issue. I have not read too far into the new bill but I did see one major change.
Its not called "The STAR Bonds Financing Act" anymore its short name is "The Innovation Development and Economy Act". This is a good move as some of the negative press associated with the STAR Bond name may be sidestepped. Misleading as politics usually is this change should not surprise anyone.
While I think the plan has a lot of work to accomplish before the end of this week. I think one item is being forgotten. In the original plan I remember there being a condition of no STAR Bond districts being allowed within a 250-mile radius of another, or something along those lines. With the Glen Carbon location that radius would cut a large majority of Chicago out of the party. With the move to Marion anything north of I-80/94 is fair game. The field day that will take place in the TIF District known as Chicago could be astounding. A quick search I did of the bill turned up no radius requirements at the current time.
Link to Ammendment 3 of SB2093
Friday, April 30, 2010
Star Bonds - Dead?
The Links:
stltoday
Belleville News Democrat
Suburban Journals
A couple of items that struck me when reading through these stories.
I feel this development is strong enough to stand on its own. I understand finding financing is tough right now as many projects people thought were going to happen simply are not because organizations cannot get funding, banks aren't even willing to fund their long planned expansions in some cases.
Maybe the project can be scaled down and started on. If two or three of the anchors begin construction many of the others will come on their own I would think.
The most troubling note I read was this
Holland said in a press release that opponents made it clear they didn't want the development in Madison County.
I don't really remember anywhere along the way any voices saying the project was not wanted in Madison County. The issues with the project were in regards to funding. If he was told that his development was not wanted in Madison County he should have made that more public.
The most interesting part of this whole saga is yet to take place. Where will this "development" move to next. There are some large tenants like LegoLand & Ikea which were rumored in the Columbia Crossing development and were mentioned as part of the University Town Center project as well. These are very large tax revenue producing city changing locations that have an obvious desire to locate in the metro region.
Which town will they turn to next and what funding will the attempt to recive for their business. Time will tell.
stltoday
Belleville News Democrat
Suburban Journals
A couple of items that struck me when reading through these stories.
"The reason is simple," said Rebecca Rausch, vice president of public affairs for Fleishman-Hillard of St. Louis, who served as spokeswoman for developer Bruce Holland and the University Town Center. "For more than a year, Bruce and his team tried to get the support of local mayors and lawmakers, but couldn't get it. Bruce and his team are not moving forward with the University Town Center Development."
I feel this development is strong enough to stand on its own. I understand finding financing is tough right now as many projects people thought were going to happen simply are not because organizations cannot get funding, banks aren't even willing to fund their long planned expansions in some cases.
Maybe the project can be scaled down and started on. If two or three of the anchors begin construction many of the others will come on their own I would think.
The most troubling note I read was this
Holland said in a press release that opponents made it clear they didn't want the development in Madison County.
I don't really remember anywhere along the way any voices saying the project was not wanted in Madison County. The issues with the project were in regards to funding. If he was told that his development was not wanted in Madison County he should have made that more public.
The most interesting part of this whole saga is yet to take place. Where will this "development" move to next. There are some large tenants like LegoLand & Ikea which were rumored in the Columbia Crossing development and were mentioned as part of the University Town Center project as well. These are very large tax revenue producing city changing locations that have an obvious desire to locate in the metro region.
Which town will they turn to next and what funding will the attempt to recive for their business. Time will tell.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Star Bonds - Mayors to Make Their Case
Link to the story.
I think it will get the push before early May. I find myself continuing to follow this story as it seems many of the "major elements" from Columbia Crossing are appearing in the UTC Plan and the Edwardsville are is where I grew up.
Here is an article from earlier this month.
I think it will get the push before early May. I find myself continuing to follow this story as it seems many of the "major elements" from Columbia Crossing are appearing in the UTC Plan and the Edwardsville are is where I grew up.
Here is an article from earlier this month.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Levee Informational Meeting
I received an email from Gene Bergmann this afternoon containing an open invitation for the public to attend a meeting regarding the levee issues and how they will affect Columbia and Monroe County as a whole. From his email I understand the meeting is being put together by the Progress for Columbia group.
I hope everyone will come to this meeting regardless of who is organizing it. I am sure the meeting will be a good opportunity to get updated with the most recent information concerning the levees. We all should be interested in how the levee issue is progressing no matter who is organizing the meeting.
As sent to me here is the invite.
Public Meeting to Discuss Levee Upgrade
When : Wednesday, May 12 – 7:00 p.m.
Where : Columbia Middle School
Speakers :
-Les Sternam, East West Gateway Council
-Other Civic Leaders from Dupo, Waterloo, & Columbia
Come to hear an update from the key leader of the levee upgrade and the importance of this project for Monroe County’s future development. Their will also be an opportunity to get answers to your questions.
I hope everyone will come to this meeting regardless of who is organizing it. I am sure the meeting will be a good opportunity to get updated with the most recent information concerning the levees. We all should be interested in how the levee issue is progressing no matter who is organizing the meeting.
As sent to me here is the invite.
Public Meeting to Discuss Levee Upgrade
When : Wednesday, May 12 – 7:00 p.m.
Where : Columbia Middle School
Speakers :
-Les Sternam, East West Gateway Council
-Other Civic Leaders from Dupo, Waterloo, & Columbia
Come to hear an update from the key leader of the levee upgrade and the importance of this project for Monroe County’s future development. Their will also be an opportunity to get answers to your questions.
Columbia Budget
The council passed the budget last night with a very quiet and quick 4-3 vote. Alderman Row was out of town, yeas were cast by Agne, Roessler, Ebersohl, & Niemietz while the nays were cast by Stumpf, Hejna, & Oberkfell.
The public comment period which took place before the meeting had a total of two people comment. Former Mayor Lester Schneider said he would prefer there be an itemized list for expenditures out of the capitol development fund. I was the other to comment and made the following statement.
I feel the alderman should engage in some sort of discussion before they vote no on something. Alderman Hejna gave her opinion that total disbursements should not exceed total revenues during the discussion period before the vote but Al Hudzik gave a rebuttal to her reasoning in that expenditures for the Old Town Bond were previously funded but that money is now being paid out. I really never had any indication while the council was discussing the budget either this week or last week that Oberkfell and Stumpf would vote no on the budget.
I had another paragraph prepared for the public comment portion of the meeting but chose not to speak it in fear it would be taken the wrong way by the council. Given now how it is evident they were split on the issue with little to no conversation or voicing of opinions over the budgeting process it seems I should have said what I planned to.
Budget that was voted on. Coming.
Revisions made since last weeks committee meeting.
The public comment period which took place before the meeting had a total of two people comment. Former Mayor Lester Schneider said he would prefer there be an itemized list for expenditures out of the capitol development fund. I was the other to comment and made the following statement.
First off I would like to thank Al and Linda for their time to prepare the budget.
I would however not use the term “worst case scenario” when describing either the revenue or disbursement side of this budget. The revenue side will not likely be what is shown in the budget right now. The arrearage money owed to the city will more than likely not be received from the state and it would seem more than likely that the state will miss 3-4 monthly payments over the next fiscal year. The state has not proven that they will be able to do any better than that. Depending on what months the state chooses to not pay, the city could be missing possibly over $250,000 in projected revenue.
These projected shortfalls in revenue can be made up with a few tweaks and not spending what is projected in only a few line items. If legal fees for Columbia Crossing, tourism, risk management, can stay near what they were last year a great amount of this can be made up. It will be difficult but it can be done.
In regards to disbursements I would like to see the council make an attempt at prioritizing the list of capitol expenditures for this year and the next few. While I feel that some of the items that are funded out of the capitol development fund are not truly capitol development items, this is only my viewpoint. I tend to classify road projects, new buildings or building upgrades/improvements along with other infrastructure improvements as true capitol development projects. It should have become very evident last week that while this year the city will be able to fund what they want to make projects with matching or other supplemental funds get done, this may not be possible in the next fiscal year. The capitol development fund will not be able to continue funding the number of projects the city would like to accomplish. Prioritizing projects can take away the strain of choosing which ones to do down the road.
I feel the alderman should engage in some sort of discussion before they vote no on something. Alderman Hejna gave her opinion that total disbursements should not exceed total revenues during the discussion period before the vote but Al Hudzik gave a rebuttal to her reasoning in that expenditures for the Old Town Bond were previously funded but that money is now being paid out. I really never had any indication while the council was discussing the budget either this week or last week that Oberkfell and Stumpf would vote no on the budget.
I had another paragraph prepared for the public comment portion of the meeting but chose not to speak it in fear it would be taken the wrong way by the council. Given now how it is evident they were split on the issue with little to no conversation or voicing of opinions over the budgeting process it seems I should have said what I planned to.
I would also encourage the council to discuss issues. The council must communicate and set aside their differences if the city is to succeed and prosper. It is not my intent to point blame on this issue, as you all must work to improve how you interact with each other on every issue including this budget.
Budget that was voted on. Coming.
Revisions made since last weeks committee meeting.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Remainder of the Budget Meeting Video
I feel these two clips offer the best information regarding the budget. Some good questions were asked by Alderman Row and Stumpf.
I think what is the most frustrating thing when watching the council "talk" about an issue is that they really do not talk to each other. They ask for questions, an alderman will have a question or ask for the other aldermans input or perspective and they all sit and stare at each other.I know some of the alderman take issue with what the others have done in the past but you at least have to talk to each other.
I would encourage everyone to come and voice any concerns you may have regarding the budget tomorrow night before the council meeting at 6:45.
I would watch the whole clip but Alderman Stumpf asks some good questions starting around 2:50 in.
Alderman Row has a good question starting around 2:50 in, but watch the whole clip.
I think what is the most frustrating thing when watching the council "talk" about an issue is that they really do not talk to each other. They ask for questions, an alderman will have a question or ask for the other aldermans input or perspective and they all sit and stare at each other.I know some of the alderman take issue with what the others have done in the past but you at least have to talk to each other.
I would encourage everyone to come and voice any concerns you may have regarding the budget tomorrow night before the council meeting at 6:45.
I would watch the whole clip but Alderman Stumpf asks some good questions starting around 2:50 in.
Alderman Row has a good question starting around 2:50 in, but watch the whole clip.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Walmart possibly leaving St. Ann - A "TIF Story" - Continued
A follow up to a story I posted back on the 5th of January. I have to say in this case TIF seems like a bad deal. If Wal-Mart and THF want a store in this part of town they'll build it, I would guess they offer a deal to St. Ann if Bridgeton tells them no.
Link to article at stltoday.com
Link to article at stltoday.com
My questions of the Budget.
I sent my questions over to Al Hudzik yesterday as he is the one putting the budget together along with Linda Sharp. I have a hard time understanding how the city can project the revenue they are when all signs point to similar cash flow to the year we are just finishing up.
My questions in black, Al's answers in blue.
I have looked at this a few times and I see where the money can be made up if this occurs and expenses need to be wrangled in to stay in the black but wouldn't the budget be "more real" & "worst case scenario"if we showed up front with a negative income right below the positive for the arrearage figures the state owes us for the same amount. I understand we need to show the money owed somewhere but realistically that money will not be flowing into the city in the next year, or ever for that matter.
It’s difficult to show a worst case scenario by indicating that you feel some of the projected revenues are not going to be received (even if there is a 50-50 chance of that being the case), because you would then have to make a similar calculation on the reduction of expenses put in the budget that you don’t feel will be spent (e.g. total amount of legal fees) – in order to be able to spend funds, the expense items must appear in the budget; however, steps can be taken throughout the year to reduce the expenses (as necessary) if the income reflected is not received. Additionally, our goal was to show a cash balance at year end greater than or equal to the $288,000 state income tax arrearage – the Draft Budget falls a little short, but other adjustments are being made to meet that goal.
I believe you mentioned the budget reflects $77 a resident for funding from the state. Should we be taking into account that the state will miss at a minimum 3-4 payments? Nothing over the last year has showed us they can or will provide what is owed to us. This would be another (-$250,000) depending on what months the state decides to keep what is owed to us.
I feel there’s a possibility that the state may fall farther behind than the current 4 mos., however, there’s no way to tell; therefore, I wouldn’t know how to estimate the arrearage we are going to see – as stated above, expenses will have to be controlled throughout the year based upon the income we see coming in.
On the same issue should the city figure anything in for the decline in funding the state is proposing to the municipalities in regards to income tax? The reduction from the municipalities share of 10% down to 7%. Again I am not sure when this would take place in regards to them passing a budget but should we take this into account? As the state really has no backup plan and if this reduction do not take place then I feel the missed payments mentioned above would most definitely continue, either case would be a large reduction in revenue, I fear both will happen.
There’s no way to tell what steps the state legislature will take in the matter of the governor’s request on the reduction of the state income tax receipts to the cities – this would take legislative action and is not something the Governor can implement without the legislature; additionally, there’s a possibility that the state will increase its income tax rates (both individual and corporate), and if so, the reduction the governor mentioned in his budget speech may be reduced/alleviated depending on whether the cities receive a portion of the funds attributable to the income tax rate increase.
In regards to the revolving loan fund, I noticed Bon Vivant was listed, I believe this was some improvement work to the facade of the building or it was in a main street improvement program and since the store is no longer there I wondered what the status of that would be. I have nothing against the uses of these funds to help our local businesses, just trying to see what their status would be.
Bon Vivant is current on its loan and it was a topic discussed at a meeting held this morning – this issue will be reviewed and addressed, and I’m sure whatever funds are due the city will be repaid.
Could the city prioritize the capitol development plans in terms of streets and infrastructure plans for the next few years so when they need to be scaled back or cut the community, the council, and the streets department knows what stays and what goes in order of importance and not just what people want at the time.
I feel the capital development plans suggestion is a good one and will try to work on it, however, one thing to keep in mind is that elections are held every two years and the priorities of different councils may change with the election results.
In general I feel Al gave some good responses. I still have an issue with projecting more revenue than anyone can realistically expect.
My questions in black, Al's answers in blue.
I have looked at this a few times and I see where the money can be made up if this occurs and expenses need to be wrangled in to stay in the black but wouldn't the budget be "more real" & "worst case scenario"if we showed up front with a negative income right below the positive for the arrearage figures the state owes us for the same amount. I understand we need to show the money owed somewhere but realistically that money will not be flowing into the city in the next year, or ever for that matter.
It’s difficult to show a worst case scenario by indicating that you feel some of the projected revenues are not going to be received (even if there is a 50-50 chance of that being the case), because you would then have to make a similar calculation on the reduction of expenses put in the budget that you don’t feel will be spent (e.g. total amount of legal fees) – in order to be able to spend funds, the expense items must appear in the budget; however, steps can be taken throughout the year to reduce the expenses (as necessary) if the income reflected is not received. Additionally, our goal was to show a cash balance at year end greater than or equal to the $288,000 state income tax arrearage – the Draft Budget falls a little short, but other adjustments are being made to meet that goal.
I believe you mentioned the budget reflects $77 a resident for funding from the state. Should we be taking into account that the state will miss at a minimum 3-4 payments? Nothing over the last year has showed us they can or will provide what is owed to us. This would be another (-$250,000) depending on what months the state decides to keep what is owed to us.
I feel there’s a possibility that the state may fall farther behind than the current 4 mos., however, there’s no way to tell; therefore, I wouldn’t know how to estimate the arrearage we are going to see – as stated above, expenses will have to be controlled throughout the year based upon the income we see coming in.
On the same issue should the city figure anything in for the decline in funding the state is proposing to the municipalities in regards to income tax? The reduction from the municipalities share of 10% down to 7%. Again I am not sure when this would take place in regards to them passing a budget but should we take this into account? As the state really has no backup plan and if this reduction do not take place then I feel the missed payments mentioned above would most definitely continue, either case would be a large reduction in revenue, I fear both will happen.
There’s no way to tell what steps the state legislature will take in the matter of the governor’s request on the reduction of the state income tax receipts to the cities – this would take legislative action and is not something the Governor can implement without the legislature; additionally, there’s a possibility that the state will increase its income tax rates (both individual and corporate), and if so, the reduction the governor mentioned in his budget speech may be reduced/alleviated depending on whether the cities receive a portion of the funds attributable to the income tax rate increase.
In regards to the revolving loan fund, I noticed Bon Vivant was listed, I believe this was some improvement work to the facade of the building or it was in a main street improvement program and since the store is no longer there I wondered what the status of that would be. I have nothing against the uses of these funds to help our local businesses, just trying to see what their status would be.
Bon Vivant is current on its loan and it was a topic discussed at a meeting held this morning – this issue will be reviewed and addressed, and I’m sure whatever funds are due the city will be repaid.
Could the city prioritize the capitol development plans in terms of streets and infrastructure plans for the next few years so when they need to be scaled back or cut the community, the council, and the streets department knows what stays and what goes in order of importance and not just what people want at the time.
I feel the capital development plans suggestion is a good one and will try to work on it, however, one thing to keep in mind is that elections are held every two years and the priorities of different councils may change with the election results.
In general I feel Al gave some good responses. I still have an issue with projecting more revenue than anyone can realistically expect.
Budget Meeting
Its been a busy week and I still have a few videos to edit down and get online but I would still encourage everyone to pick up the budget at the city's website and look it over, no one has a reason to complain if they don't voice their issues with the councils plans to spend your money now rather than after the fact.
I did cut parts of the meeting out as no one needs all of the dead space where no one was talking and parts of the budget process and explanation simply are not all that vital to the process as a whole. The first clip states the meeting was a regular session council meeting which is incorrect, it was a Committee of the Whole meeting, I missed changing part of the title clip.
I did cut parts of the meeting out as no one needs all of the dead space where no one was talking and parts of the budget process and explanation simply are not all that vital to the process as a whole. The first clip states the meeting was a regular session council meeting which is incorrect, it was a Committee of the Whole meeting, I missed changing part of the title clip.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Article on Local Cities and Development
I thought this was a good article showing examples of two cities with very similar characteristics with Columbia. O'Fallon relies on sales taxes from car dealerships like Columbia does and Brentwood is similar in size to Columbia. I would have to say Brentwoods location for development is far superior to locations Columbia could offer but there are many people who drive through Columbia on Route 3 everyday.
Interesting points of view regardless and the story isn't all pro-tif so give it a read.
Interesting points of view regardless and the story isn't all pro-tif so give it a read.
Let me explain what a "Unique Visitor" is. It's tuff to tell as visitors is based on cookies which some people disable and some people often clear.