BITE THE BULLETT ON BUDGET BALANCE!
In FY2007 Gulfport’s property tax revenue was $3,416.991. Our proposed budget estimates that property tax revenues will be $2,502,911 in FY2010. Other revenues like state shared revenues, EMS revenues, investment revenues are all down to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars since FY2007.
The estimated impact of the virtual doubling of our Homestead Exemptions and significant drops in property values for FY2010 was about 12%. Given our $10-12 million operating budget, that would amount to between $1.2 to $1.4 million in revenue losses. These predictions appear to be borne out by current conditions. Worse, there is no sign that devaluation of real estate will not continue through FY2010 and further drops in revenue will not occur in FY2011 even if our real estate market enters into a slow recovery. Property valuations are based on recent history and therefore lag in reflecting the actual economy.
In order to show a balanced budget, which is required by law, our administration took $1.1 million out of accumulated surpluses and showed them as revenues in FY2010. Fortunately this surplus occurred when our city council worked with the administration in securing a 10%, across the board cut in expenditures in FY2009. Hopefully, most of the funds used to balance the budget this year came form these savings and not out of our 25% of budget safety net.
Even with the unprecedented input from a prior year’s revenues, the mill rate would have to go up $.40 per thousand in assessed valuation to balance the budget. The council will presumably work over the coming weeks to get the mill rate down to $3.47 as is there expressed goal.
The problem is the $1.1 million surplus wont be available next year and revenues will continue to fall further behind expenditures. We will be facing a deficit well in excess of $1.3 million in FY2011. This year’s council can decide to pass the proposed budget pretty much as it is and put the real problem off until next year, (after 3 of the 5 council members have completed their races for re-election), or they can deal with it now so that we can be responsive to actual conditions and spread the shock to the taxpayers over 2-3 years rather than 1.
Over the past few years cuts in spending have been made. Some jobs have been cut or left unfilled since FY2007, (approximately 20), some services have been cut, (staff cuts and 1 hour shortening of the library hours, cuts in the GEMS Program, elimination of longevity raises, elimination of a police lieutenant as examples). Any further cuts of any consequence are going to be tougher than before and will certainly involve some high level staff cuts because that’s where the money is. The goal should be expenditure cuts of about $500,000 this year and next to offset the current $1.1 million revenue shortfall. Even if this year’s $500,000 goal is met, there will probably be some increase in the tax rate over the next two years.
If the policy is to try and hold to the current tax level, now is the time the city council must act. The best way to convey policy is to fund what you want and not to fund what you do not want. Budget time is the best time to create policy, maybe the only time. Also, if what is desired is to keep the actual burden on the taxpayer at the same level, a more sophisticated approach to setting the tax rate may need to be employed. Tax rates are set at budget time.
Rather than making holding the tax rate a goal, maybe the council should sell the idea of keeping the actual tax levy the same rather than the rate. With lower property values, most people could pay about the same or slightly less in taxes even though their rate is substantially higher. Isn’t the amount you pay the important thing?
Still, cuts will have to be made and there are cuts that can be made without adversely affecting the level of service to the taxpayers. Every possibility should be explored. Nothing should be left off the table. Perhaps it’s time for the council to question whether we still need a full time IT Director now that staff people are more computer literate, off the shelf software exists and local outsourcing of services is so much more readily available. Maybe a city of 2.8 square miles that has been “built out” since the late ‘60’s cannot afford a Building Official, Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer. Maybe some of those jobs can be combined and still get the job done. Three Planners including the Director maybe should be only two.
The suggested cuts above are just that, suggestions of cuts in fairly obvious areas that a council member can implement by not funding the position. The suggestions are also meaningful in that the savings could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. With a $500,000 savings goal, these are the kinds of cuts we need to make.
It is always difficult to recommend or implement cutting jobs and in the past our council has, perhaps rightfully, been reluctant to do it The level of the problem now is greater than it ever has been in the past. We have to do what is being done everywhere in both the public and private sectors; cut our short and long term overhead in meaningful ways in order to survive as a full service city. Now is the time to bite the bullet and do what has to be done to truly balance our budget.
I was wondering if someone could make some sense out of something for me….
The Police Department has to lose a Lieutenants position…(I don’t like it, but I understand given the circumstances)
So…why on earth, if we are facing hard economic times, would you add a management position to the fire department??? Why do they need another middle manager? They have 3 Lt’s.
If I am off base here, please let me know. But cutting one postion to fund another doens’t sound like subtraction to me.
For my money, I would look closely at code enforcement. As I look south of my property I can see grass not cut for 4 weeks, a tipped over trashcan that has been lying on the easement across the street next to a lounge chair that has been dumped. Looking at the property behind me the alley grass has not been cut in two months and trash just lies among the overgrowth. If I follow the alley south next to the Laundromat there’s a commercial dumpster that has been lying on its side for 5 days and no one seems to be doing anything about it. Looking west down Newton ave is a fence that has been lying on the easement in front of a house for weeks and no one is moving it. Where’s code enforcement? There is none.
As I have posted in the past if I take it upon myself to file a complaint something will get done, but is that anyway to run an airline? Reactive rather than Proactive enforcement has failed this district for years and following the monthly area sweeps that are posted in the Gabber will demonstrate just how superficial those inspection are.
If as Watchman alluded too, that the Police Department could do the job, would do a real job Proactively…I would gather votes to make in happen. I have hundreds of photos that will demonstrate the absolute inadequacies of the Department of Code Enforcement in Gulfport Florida and I could demonstrate to anyone concerned that this is an ongoing failure.
But before we through this department into the tall grass we need to be assured that there is a better system waiting to proactively address the failures that confront the system that is now in place. We need an oversight committee of volunteers, at least until the new system is up and running. The City employees as well as the Police department can be the eyes of the new Code Department. Why shouldn’t a trash truck driver rely an infraction of the law to an enforcing agent?
Of course some folks will defend the City with accuses about the absents of man power causing the trash to pile up and the grass to grow beyond the legal limit but it wasn’t any different when there was a full employment roster.
Planning is some kind of a Joke. The plans for 49th street were outsourced years ago and the revisions are also being outsourced to a private Planner after the County rejected the application by Gulfport to take on the project. What is the point of having a planning department if someone else is doing the work? What are the citizens of Gulfport getting for the cumulative $200 thousand dollar salaries and benefit package that sits in the office and twiddles their thumbs waiting for a plan to call their own?
Watchman–here are my two cents: On the face of it, I agree that it does not make sense to have 1 LT. in the Police Dept and 3 LTs. and a Capt. in the Fire Dep’t. To be honest, I didn’t know there were 3 in Fire. I guess someone got promoted when Marinkovic got promoted? Back to the numbers… Presuming these are management positions and not strictly titled positions, I think the key is to determine how many people are needed in management (be it CAPT,LT, SGT,etc)based on the number of people (non-mngmt) being managed along with any other duties required. If these are strictly titled positions based on meeting certain requirements in order to be promoted then I do believe that the # of LT positions available in the PD should be more that in the FD, just due to the sheer staff numbers. I am fairly confident that the reasoning by the City is not the latter logic and I doubt they did any type of analysis that included the former logic. I suspect that the Cap’t position being added to the FD is to provide peripheral support for the experential and knowledge based skills that may be lacking on the current FD management team. Doesn’t make sense to me but that seems to be the way of gov’t.:-)
2view has a good point regarding code enforcement. Not so long ago, It was the Fire Department that was responsible for certain types of code enforcement. Many at the time thought that this was not an appropriate use of the fire department (Which it wasn’t) which prompted the creation of the code enforcement position.
The city Charter states that the city manager or his designee can issue citations for code violations. Hence, any city employee, so long as it is ok’d by the CM, can issue notices to appear for violations.
The police still practice code enforcement. We deal with unregistered vehilces on property or public right of way, we issue violations for dogs at large (usually after a courtesy warning) and we have also issued citations for permitting violations. And lets not forget those pesky chickens LOL. So, code enforcement is old hat for us.
The questions is, could we be more efficient than our current code enforcment? I think it is possible. But we are currenlty operating with less people. In 2006 we had 32 Officers. We currently have 28 officers (including command staff of 6 Sgts, 1 Lt and 1 Chief, whomever that is) and we have one patrol officer vacancy that remains frozen. We have seen a 12.5% reduction in manpower the last few years. We were never really full staff to begin with, always being short one or two officers. Calls for service increae every year. Crime is also “slightly” on the rise. I, as a law enforcement professional, would be fooling myself if I said that we could provide full time proactive code enforcment services with our current staffing. And if I did say we could, and then we didn’t, then I have just let you down. So I would rather be honest then give you false promises. And believe me, I would love to cut somewhere so we could save our Lt. spot. But even that is not worth me telling stories to help the pd budget. And not fair to you all either.
There may be a happy medium. Why not hire a part time code enforcement person, or rely on volunteers. This may be something to look into. Then, the police could supplement code enoforcement activities until staffing was somwhere in the normal range, whenever that could be possible.
tmober… Again, I don’t know if any analysis was completed on our Lt. position. I was informed though that one reason for the change is because that is the way St. Pete Beach does it. The problem with that is we have more personnel than St. Pete Beach and answer more calls for service.
The fire department has approx 15 to 16 members, which includes 3 Lt’s, 1 Chief and 2 fire fighter volunteers. The rest are fire fighters/emt’s 1 Lt supervises 1 respective shift of about 4 to 5 people. And each Lt reports to the Chief. This seems simple and effective given their low personnel numbers.
The police department has 28 sworm positions and a number of civillian staff, divided into two division. Here is the break down
Patrol:
1Lt is responsible for the function of the patrol division. The patrol LT supervises the 4 Patrol Sgts. Each Sgt. Supervises a Squad of 4 to 5 officers
Investigative Services:
1 Lt Supervises the 1 ISD sgt, the 1 Civilian Supervisor called Tech Services Supervisor and the civilian staff in records (main postion vacant but maned by current civilian staf) and dispatch(4).
The ISD Sgt is responsible for supervising the 2 detectives and he is also responsible for assigning cases and investigating cases.
The Tech Services Supervisor is responsible for the property and evidence specialist we have, and is the direct supervisor for all 4 dispatchers. If we had a full time records clerk, then that person would report directly to the LT (I think)
(Hope I haven’t confused you yet)
So, by eliminating one Lt position, your making 1 commander responsible for 7 supervisors divided unequal into four separate units (patrol, ISD, dispatch, Records, Property and evidence). Oh, and this lone Lt will also be the Public information officer for the media.
I think this is insane. That poor Lt is going to be so busy that I fear something will fall through the cracks. Or, tasks will be deligated to lower ranks which will take them away from proactive patrolling or supervising subordinates. We will also have to change many ways we conduct business. Not to mention remove every reference to the elimiated postion in about one hundred polices. Not very efficient to me.
To suggest making the Code Enforcement Officer’s job a part-time job, as both Watchman and I have suggested is not to underestimate the importance of true code enforcement. Beautification of the city is partly a function of code enforcement. Public safety is partly a function of code enforcement, (I’m pleased to learn our police are active in this area). Environmental protection should be a function of code enforcement. None of the above should be passive, but should be an active expression of stated policies and plans.
Today’s policy appears to relegate code enforcement to a passive role, i.e., waiting for a complaint to act. Under that passive policy, there is no question that we do not need a full-time code enforcement officer at an annual cost of about $60,000 including benefits. There is also no question that we do not need a Building Official at an annual cost of nearly $100,000 and a full-time Building Inspector at an annual cost of about $65,000. At most, the Building Division should be at 1 and 1/2 staff instead of three with all personnel cross trained as building inspectors and code enforcement agents for the city. The budget could be reduced by about $120,000 in this division alone.
I think I have discovered or just tripped upon a new term. In this country there seems to be an overwhelming desire to have everything now while not paying for it. Whether it be Republican, Democrat, or just plain non-partisan, our current government and citizen’s way of thinking is “give us all the benefits, but make sure we pay less in taxes”
Where it all started I won’t even begin to look into, but it is coming to a serious head here in this country soon. Let’s just take our fair little city, Gulfport. According to this article, Big Dog states that our revenue shortfall over operating expenses will be approximately $1.1 Million short. ($1,100,000 for those that need it in plain dollars and sense.) Fortunately, Gulfport has a few million left in reserve from when times were better. (Approximately ten years ago or so) and so we are not FORCED to raise taxes, nor are we forced to take a good hard look at expenditures.
Our state (Florida) is also facing the same kind of revenue shortfall and have also been raiding (oh I‘m sorry maybe that was too hard of term), borrowing money from trust funds to make ends meet. Both the state of Florida and the city of Gulfport are required by law to balance the budget. Of course those that make up the laws, make sure there are loopholes so that they can comply with the law, even when their intent is to not follow the intent of the law.
Now on to the big boys, our federal government, who having no restraint of law to balance a budget, have allowed us to carry deficits (More expenses then income) since the year 2000. Touting tax cuts (Yea!) and spending more (Yea?) they have got our national debt up to over $Ten Trillion. ($10,000,000,000,000 for those again needing it in plain numbers.). Let’s see Ten Trillion divided by say 350 Million inhabitants of the USA equals $28,571.43 per person. Well that’s not such a bad number after all. It’s probably more then half the inhabitants make in a year, but what the heck, look at all we are getting for all this deficit spending.
Where has the government gotten all this extra money it has spent and not earned, well for an unusual idea, they have borrowed the money from trust funds, such as the Social Security fund, the Medicare fund and numerous others that I need not mention here. In addition the US treasury borrows money in the form of U.S. Treasury notes and bonds. Many people in our country hold these notes and bonds and so do people in other countries. As well as other countries governments holding on to them too. China just to name a major one. How does the country keep its head afloat?
We all know the evil of credit cards, it’s not so much that they let you spend more then you have and possibly more then you earn, it is that they charge interest. And by gosh, so our government is paying interest on the national debt. Lets see Ten Trillion at four percent ( $400 Billion in interest) divided by the same 350 million people is $1,142 a person that we pay in interest. Of course interest is money not spent on any thing productive like infrastructure, or some other social good.
So it’s good that Gulfport has no debt, no interest to pay, all the money goes towards real city work. But I digress. The federal government also gets loans from the Federal Reserve, as do most of the banks in this country. And through the Federal Reserve we are all loaning the government money. Take a look in your wallet; the days of treasury notes redeemable in silver or gold are gone.
Replaced by Federal Reserve Notes, these pieces of paper like cloth are nothing but a “Legal tender for all debts, public & Private”. No where does these notes in your wallets say they are redeemable for any thing more then more of the same, paper money. With nothing to back them, there is no reason to not print more, and print more they are.
We all know the law of supply and demand. If you don’t, you should. (Time out for a brief review: If supply is low and the demand high – the product is worth more. If the supply is high, and/or demand is low – the product is worth less. Not worthless but worth less.
So printing more money, ta da, makes it worth less. While the value of gold and the value of oil remain somewhat constant to each other, the cost in dollars continues to rise as the dollar becomes worth less.
But you don’t give a damn about the price of gold nor the price of silver, but you sure do give a damn about the price of oil and the price of milk. So while the government keeps borrowing money to keep the deficit going, the amount in interest continues to climb.
As it borrows more from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve prints more and your loan (represented by that dollar bill in your wallet) to the government becomes worth less.
Who is going to pay back all that borrowed money? When are they going to pay it back, and when will the various governments economies run like the rest of the country’s people have to live on, well maybe I should just say that they should be living on, anyway?
I can honestly say that the people running our government are running on hopes and dreams, hope that the economy gets better, hope that the tax revenues will increase (without them having to do anything) putting off the paying of things, using the credit cards, the bond issues, the voodoo accounting to let their dreams of doing more with less come to realization. There will come a day of reckoning, no one obviously knows when that is, but bankruptcy is a possibility for all government organizations, certainly we saw that in New York City thirty years ago, we see that now in California, where the politicians have put off raising taxes and looking seriously at expenses, is unable to deal with their obligations.
Put it off for another day, that my friends is “Procrastination Politics”
I wanted to update my figures a little, since I looked them up.
As of today, August 13, 2009, the national debt was $11,658,192,962,449.83. According to the treasury Department.
Our population according to the Census Bureau is 307,166,199.
By the way the census lists the world population at 6,777,442,620.
I don’t believe that they are counting illegal aliens in either number. Sorry I got distracted.
So if we divide the debt by the population we get your share (if you are living and in the USA) at $37,954.02.
And again according to the treasury the average debt load was 3.418 %. So your share would be $1,297.27.
All I can say is keep working, hope for a better day and put off paying your debts until tomorrow. It works for them.
Big Dog – I agree with your observations on the Bldg Dept.
Here are some other opportunities for savings equating to $100K or more:
NO COLA increase to those earning > $40K/yr. These salaries = approx $3.8 mil. 2% of that is $76K. This would need to include fire and police workers. Sorry Watchman….but I think both unions could have been a little more flexible in these trying times.
INSURANCE: Consider having employees contribute toward their own coverage. Government is virtually the only business left that still pays the entire contribution for employees. 2nd option- consider higher contributions by “highly compensated employees” i.e $40K+.
CAR ALLOWANCES FOR DIRECTORS = $22K. This includes a stipend for a cell phone. Directors have since been issued city cell phones so they just got a $50/mo inc. The car allowances are a faux method for increased salary. Add 1/2 to the salaries and get rid of the car allowance. Where are these people driving in a city that is 2.5 miles square? If they have to travel a long distance–rent a car. Get rid of the take home cars for the Police Chief and the Fire Chief or keep one for general city use. Savings: $11K+
SANITATION DEPT: discontinue collecting garbage on holidays = approx $16K.
Have sanitation workers work 8 hr. / day instead of 6.5 and paid for 8. That may actually equate to one person or more over time. They could also be used to clean up the streets, trim curb grasses on main thoroughfares, etc.
Pick up residential garbage one time per week as many residents have suggested. Sopak says it is against the law–which it is–but it is a G’Port law, not a state law as he infers.The G’port lae can be changed. There are any number of cities in FL and other SOUTHERN states that do this. The notion of bugs, smell and maggots is a bunch of bunk!
IT: Look into the option of outsourcing this dept. $200K+ for a dept of two seems very high. What actually do they do? Their “face” to the community–the city www–is now better but it is still far from what other cities offer. When will the meeting minutes for 2008-09 be posted? Why doesn’t the city have auto bill pay? Why did it take eons to get the bank transfer capability that Rivera bragged about at the budget workshop? Why does an employee have to suggest to turn of the computer systems when not in use? IT should have recognized this. Wonder if this suggestion has been implemented? Cable Service– why doesn’t G’port have access to Fios? No historical web streaming of meetings? Has Rivera considered partnering with other cities for this? How much does ity cost to put that stff on YouTube? Is that really necessary?
OFFICE SUPPLIES PURCHASING: Consolidate and control thru one area. Can’t begin to imagine how mush waste / duplication is going on by having these purchases made by individuals.
ADMINISTRATION: Auto bill pay? Brighthouse / Progress Energy payment processing purportedly costs the city money to facilitate. If this is true, why do we do it? Payroll / timekeeping system?
REVIEW ALL PROCESSES for EFFICIENCIES:
Why are “resident’ parking passes issued by the police dep’t and ” beach” parking passes issued by Public Works or the Buliding Dep’t? (I don’t recall which it is)
Discontinue sending letters to library customers advising their books have arrived. This info can be found on the web according to the resident that suggested this.
Streamline process for misc payments in one place. I once requested a copy of the minutes of a TAC meeting. The Police Chief’s secretary would not email it to me. When I picked up the hard copy I had to go to the police info window, get a piece of scratch paper that said “$.10 due”, take it to the accounting window,pay the $.10, have it marked “paid”, walk it back to the police dep’t info window and then get my copy. This process involved a minimum of three employees …..for TEN CENTS!!
DOWNTOWN LIGHTS: They are beautiful but are they necessary every night during these difficult times? Perhaps limit them to Thur / Fri / Sat evenings.
MARINA RENTS: Review the payment,collection and default process. Having past due balance in excess of $60K is unacceptable. Why does Council tolerate this? Blaming it on the former attorney is nonsense! Perhaps Council actually doesn’t know, because they don’t receive a regular budget update report. “Budget” BTW, is a mis-nomer as sound fiscal management includes actual INCOME and EXPENSES not budget to budget. It is time for staff to make this info available on a proactive basis.
HOLIDAY DECORATIONS: We can do without or a limited amount for a few years. Put a tree in Caldwell park instead of decorating all of the street lights.
WATCHMAN: You and your associates need to make your concerns about the Lieutenant position known to Council. They seemed to listen to Willocks last year when he made his plea for the Accredidation Officer. I and other residents can only do/say so much and as is quite evident, what we say often falls on deaf ears. Hopefully your observation about St.Pete Beach is incorrect. It would be very disconcerting to know that this is the only reasoning being used for this decision.
Many a time I would call attention to an issue and it bordered on code enforcement where the officer would pass it off to the Codes Department. Many construction projects without permits and so on …would convene on the weekends when the code department was closed.
Vehicles are within the PD’s realm of influence but trash left on easements or bushes growing across sidewalks is not. If you catch something in the act, then the PD may respond, but it’s a judgment call and the lines are blurred.
There was a plan and it has been dropped so many times it would be difficult to put it back together again. It was never really implemented with the full cooperation of all the departments working together anyway. We knew from early on that most of the beautification and redevelopment plan was hot air, but we remained engaged and hopeful until the end. Many dollars and hours with neighbors both residents and business owners were spent putting the plan into action, and today you couldn’t pay those folks to waste their time again, including the folks on the redevelopment committee.
The problem with this City is that they pretend to be a small community and a big full service city who have become so compartmentalized that know one knows what is really going on.
The plan should be tattooed on every employee’s forehead so when they look in the mirror they can see what the objective is. This need to be a full service city with 2.8 miles and 12,000 people is going to drive this city into an economic mess.
What community are we developing that requires a full time community development department? Can’t that be part time, can’t that be outsource and project specific? Keep the cops, fire and maintenance and outsource the redundancy that seems to be glaring us in the face. Cops, Fire and Maintenance is dependent on rapid response, I doubt you’ll see the need for Community Development to race to a location or a City Planner charging down the street with his outsourced plan hot off the press.
Take all the empty office space that we’ll get from dismantling the redundant departments and leased it out to pay for another Lieutenant.
A drug deal gone right.
The other day, actually Thursday, our own Gulfport Police Department was working the 49th Street Corridor to slow down traffic and maybe catch some unaware speeder who unknowingly wanted to contribute some cash to the city’s coffers.
I first spotted the very obvious Police Expedition sitting beam to the traffic with a radar gun sticking out the window. You would have to be texting and paying no attention at all to miss it. Of course as we all know, drivers texting are usually not going as fast as the rest of the traffic.
The radar gun went down as I was the only vehicle headed south at that time, my speed, no greater then 25 MPH. The next police vehicle I spotted was a few hours later, and he was hiding his Charger behind our new foliage between 8th and 9th Avenue.
We had a good laugh, as he was sitting watching the southbound traffic, or maybe the north bound also, a car pulled onto 8th Avenue stopped in the middle of the street, a car stuck behind him making the same turn, a pedestrian suddenly turned into a curbside shop and with the quick exchange of cash and goods, a drug deal went down.
Now I do not bring this up because I am faulting our police department concentrating on money making activities such as catching speeders as compared to keeping drug dealers off the streets. I think it just goes to show two distinct things. 1) Our police force is so overwhelmed with crime and understaffed that to expect them to catch a drug dealer is a rarity. And 2) How silly it is that some drugs are legal and we can get them at Walgreens and some drugs are illegal, so we have to get them off the streets. Many of them having the same properties and ingredients. It’s really time to re-look at our drug laws, tobacco is all but legal and so is alcohol. Yet these drugs contribute no more to the degradation of the country and its health then does marijuana or cocaine. It would appear that the most harmful ingredients in the latter as compared to the former are the costs involved in obtaining it.
Making alcohol legal (again) in the early part of the twentieth century, seemed to alleviate much of the violent crime such as we are seeing again in the early part of the twenty-first century related to illegal substances which the people demand. Again it’s all about supply and demand.
Could I have Dos Equis please.
tmober…No need to be sorry; I support a No COLA for this budget year. I would even go so far as salary freezes deptartment wide. Its times like these, small decision like this could possibly save jobs in the long run. I think the union reps were irresponsible asking for anything. I think the city was equally irresponsible for agreeing to it. In general, law enforcement union members only seem to care about their raises and other benefits and not the slight possibility that their brothers or sisters could get laid off. Very sad.
I’ve tried to rally some regarding the Lt. position. I’ve also considered speaking at a council meeting. There are a few problems with that. First, I dont’ think I am allowed to go to council and speak on the matter. Second, if I did, I think it would make some above my position unhappy.
All of your suggestions seem very viable. Have you presented this to the powers that be, and if so, why aren’t they listening?
Watchman,
You are allowed at the council meeting and you can have your three minutes of say.
If you would antagonize those who rank higher that is another story
If I was on the council I would want to hear what you had to say.
Hopefully they are reading the Watchdog too.
Watchman – I’ve suggested most of the below previously. Are “they” listening? That’s the million dollar question. As Big Dog said..it’s time to bite the bullet so far I’m not seeing the tough decisions being made.
It troubles me that you have concerns about speaking up regarding the lietenant position, but I do understand that is a reality.
It also toubles me that our PD is in flux with the “tryout for chief” program. It is one thing for this to occur in sports but I don’t see this very public tryout being viable in a small city police department. I’ve never come across a management philosophy that would support this process. Just very odd to me.
This position and the City manager position have been vacant for far too long. I wonder why the Fire Chief position was filled so quickly yet the PD had to have tryouts? Are Coombs and Vincent both truly interested in being chief? Will the “non-winner be happy going back to being a Lt.—the only Lt.?
http://www.ci.gulfport.fl.us/City_Meetings/Agendas/2009/08-17-09_Council_Workshop_Meeting_Agenda_Packet.pdf
Some observations:
GENERAL employees will have to give up COLA, but UNION employees will not be asked to reconsider?
Director level, highly compensated employees give up nothing more than mnay low paid general employees?? Car allowances?
The PD gives up a Lieutenant for a FD Captain?
mtober….I was able to see some of the budget workshot on GTV. The elimination of the COLA for general employees is only going to increase the gap in relations between the PD and the general staff. I don’t understand? Why can’t negotiations be re-opened with union employees so that we can amend the contract? I am a little out of my league when it comes to the union stuff, but given our financial crisis, that would be the logical thing to do. I think St. Pete tried it but I don’t know the outcome of it. I think union pd employees are getting a 4% total increase for the fiscal year. I think we can give back at least 2% if not the whole sha-bang. I would be happy to give up any increase for this year. I live within my budget and frankly, I didn’t expect to get one this year anyway. I have spoken to a few officers about the whole pay raise topic. Many are very open minded and would understand having to skip a raise this year. But I can’t speak for the majority.
Regarding chief tryouts….If you look at education, training, time in a command position, Lt. Vincent should be the choice for chief. He has a masters degree, he has attended the fbi executive academy and he has been a lieutenant longer (5 plus years compared to Lt. Coombs’ 3). Lt. Coombs has his BA/BS, and has been the Lt. for almost three years. I have nothing but the upmost respect for both. I am not sure why we are having tryouts. Personally, I feel that not having a permanent chief right this very second is hurting the department. We need clear direction of where we are going, What we should be focusing on(cause each cheif is different). We don’t have that now. Maybe it’s just me, but I think we are kind of in a wait and see mode and that is not what we need right now.
As for who wants the job? Thats tough to say. They are both very reserved about the topic.
FYI…you think the tryout process is odd. thats because it is. I have never heard of it. There is no reason for it other than saving $$$ IMO
I personally believe, that the chief of police, the fire chief and the city manager should live in the city of Gulfport.
I know I am not alone in this belief and the city charter committee may take these topics on as they progress.
I fear that in a city where nothing changes, albeit very slowly, that the charter committees recommendations will fall on deaf ears.
I know I am not alone in the above belief.
Is it too much to ask that someone who has so much power to direct the city also be a part of the community?
The investigation of the city council by Lt. Vincent was very selective.
Gulfport needs to look outside of the present lineup.
If I had any say in the matter I would ask Carol Sciannameo a resident of Gulfport and most likely the highest qualified person in the field, to find us someone.
Dogfish-
I tend to agree with you, however, I think there are also a number of precedidents against it — i.e. Willocks, Bonfield, Harmon,etc.
As to the Charter Committe work falling on deaf ears….agree with that too.
I also am concerned that Council is predisposed to a City Manager and apparently a Police Chief just as they were with the Interim Attorney position. Please don’t take that to mean that I am against OReilly or Coombs/Vincent. I just want to know we are looking for the best candidate available.
City Council, staff and many residents need to start thinking outside the box instead of curling up inside it, in order to move ahead and face the anticipated future financial perils.
“AUTO PAY” or “GOING INTO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT”?
Recently, The Gabber published a couple letters from residents suggesting that the City should offer an “auto pay” option for paying utility bills. I was glad to see this as I’ve also mentioned the idea to the City’s Chief Bean Counter Carpenter. (who BTW I find to be a great asset to the city) I believe some of the Budget Survey responses also suggested this.
As seems typical, with this city, the official response to the residents’ forward thinking ideas, by Interim City Manager O’Reilly was “NO”. And the reasoning behind the response? “We don’t want to go into people’s bank accounts.” And another reason…this would eliminate a 1/2 person and then who would take the payments for Progress Energy and Brighthouse? Seems to me the 1/2 person could then be freed up to perform other duties — maybe even manage a centralized office supply purchaing program rather than have every department buy their own. How about faster cash flow? Back to the main topic, the commitment to this “NO” response is so strong that even Vice Mayor Worthington recited the ill advised “we don’t wnat to go into your bank account” line at Tuesday’s Council meeting.
I don’t know if this would be a cost effective service for our City to offer. I do believe, however, that it is an option that needs to be considered and analyzed. Just drawing conclusions absent appropriate data is poor management.
Further, with all due respect to CBC Carpenter and ICM O’Reilly and the VM, the comments that the notion of an “auto-pay” or “direct debit” functionality is like having a free hand to take money from a bank account is very mis-leading. Typically the entity offering such a service does not ” go into” someone’s bank account as inferred. It is a debit transaction just as a check would be. The general process is that the customer who has signed up for the service, is advised of the amount to be debited before the debit occurs. Further most such systems usually have an associated exception reporting system that would help in identifying anomalies. If this is such a risk, why do Progress Energy, Brighthouse, Verizon, and any number of cities (below) offer this service? I seriously doubt that people would participate if they thought a business or other entity was “going into their account”.
In order to meet our future economic challenges, we need to think outside the box — strategically and objectively.
http://www.stpete.org/utilitybill/customer_service/direct_debit_service.asp
http://www.pinellascounty.org/utilities/PDF/AutoPay.pdf
http://www.dunedingov.com/home.aspx?page=departments/finance/utilitybilling_autopay
http://www.ci.tarpon-springs.fl.us/text.html
http://www.ci.treasure-island.fl.us/finance/pdf/automaticpayment.pdf
See link to article below.
It would be nice if G’port’s Fire and Police would reconsider their raises for this year. At the same time, residents should forego a prop tax decrease. Last but not least perhaps the Council might also give up some of their $$. Many people serving on committes year round receive no pay for their efforts. One year with reduced or no pay won’t hurt the Council members as they surely are not in this for the money.
http://tampabay.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2009/08/17/daily48.html
It’s my personal opinion that officials in government jobs, be it city manager, chief of police, or other department directors should not have to be subject to a residency requirement for their position. Here’s why…
By having a residency requirement, you are limited to hiring those who live, or are willing to move into Gulfport. Say for instance the city of Gulfport needed to hire a new city manager (this is a ficticious example by the way and has nothing to do with our current conditions). Say we had two final candidates for the job. Candiate A has super qualifications, an even better record for running a city, but either will not or cant move into Gulfport. Candidate B will move into or currently lives in Gulfport, but his employement record is a bit spotty with poor decisions and his qualifications are so so. Should we hire candidate B simply because he will move to or curretnly lives in Gulfport? Candidate A would be my pick because he is more qualified. I really wouldn’t care where he lived so long as he is doing a good job. Qualifications and performance is how we should judge these and all positions within a city.
Also, wouldn’t you hate it if you worked in a city where people knew where you lived and new your phone number. How long do you think it would take before you were ready to pull your hair out from people bothering you in your personal space during none business hours? And I am positive this would happen at some point. When I get home, my work stays at work and it is not allowed in my house. I would not want it darkening the door steps were I spend my peace and quiet time with my family.
Just my opinion
Watchman – I think that it would be beneficial to the city if the aforementioned appointed positions (city manager, police chief, and fire chief) had a residency requirement. In my humble opinion, living in the city they serve gives them more of an idea of what the living conditions are in and around the city. Sadly, when you take on those types of roles, you move yourself into a fishbowl. The other side of this argument is that living in the city you have confidence in how it is run and the services that are provided. It sends a positive message.
Dogfish – did it ever occur to you that police officers sometimes need to be highly visible. Perhaps it isn’t about writing tickets and generating revenue as much as having a presence and slowing the traffic down a bit. You seem to be awfully critical of the police department. I personally am pleased with their efforts. For the most part, the police officers seem to be trying to make a difference in this community. I frequently see them walking the alleyways and walking around businesses.
By the way folks, COLA = Cost of Living Allowance. Perhaps you should keep that in mind.
Have a nice day.
Residency is all important;
A Fire Chief, a Police Chief, and a City Manager in my opinion all need to live in the city they serve. How else, except by being served by the city they serve, can they possibly expect to know what is really happening in the city. Our city manager has been required to live in the city as long as I can remember, and probably longer.
No offense to Mr. O’Reilly, who used to live in Gulfport but now chooses to live in St. Pete Beach, but if the city faces some area wide crisis, where is Mr. O’Reilly’s loyalty going to be, his home and family in St. Pete Beach or his JOB in Gulfport. If the bridges to the islands are closed, which side will Mr. O’Reilly choose to stay.
Likewise for the chiefs. When Chief Willocks city owned vehicle was burglarized and his gun and computer taken, it was pretty much unknown because Chief Willocks was a resident of St. Petersburg. Now our Interim Police Chief lives in Pasco County. How fast can he get to the city if an emergency demands his presence? Wouldn’t an administrator more effectively protect his city when his family does live there, would they not be more in tune with the issues that their employers had if they too faced the same issues of safety and security.
In our last go around to hire a new City Manager, the final five candidates, all well qualified, knew in advance that they would have to move to Gulfport. Three of the five were from out of state. Imagine if they were not required to live here. Would they commute from as far away as North Carolina, having a temporary residence in a motel room on 34th Street. I realize that this is a bit extreme, but a possibility never the less. Mr. Brobeil came from Indian Rocks Beach, not even that far away. But given that an area wide emergency developed over night, how would he been able to get to the city if area wide flooding closed roads and bridges.
Yes, we all know where our city managers live, as well as the mayor and the four council people. I don’t hear them complain that citizens knowing where they live, disturbing their private lives, is a problem. IT goes with the job.
I love our police department, and wouldn’t want to be served either by the county sheriffs or the St. Petersburg Police. And yes I do want them to be highly visible and have no complaints about that either. But they aren’t always highly visible. I believe that they are understaffed and overworked. But this understaffing results in them not being as visible as they could be. I don’t fault them for missing a drug deal going down, and I don’t fault them for not being able to deter all the crime in the city. It comes with the neighborhood and the economic situation that we live in.
Unfortunately like many people in the workforce today, lack of supervision possibly, or just a different work ethic then the one I grew up with, allows some of our officers, and I am sure not all, to sit under a nice shady tree, off the beaten path, filling out reports or talking on their cell phones. I can’t tell you how many times I have driven the Marina district, our little part of Zip Code 33711, our part of Congressional District 11, and was unable to find a police cruiser anywhere. Being the district that is closest to the St. Petersburg city line, that area has been hit by more crime then was happening just a few years ago. Day time crime, when those residents were out working or otherwise not at home. I have found officers sitting in a crime free zone and requested that they sit up closer to the border with our big city neighbor in order to be more visible, even it is just to fill out reports and talk on their cell phone. I rejoice that our officers are able to do those chores, because active crime is so low in our city.
Dogfish…just to clarify and not tht it changes your point but I am fairly certain O’Reilly lives in Seminole area not St.Pete Bch.
Worker bee – I’m guessing you may be a City employee–thank you for your service. Thanks also for posting. Your feedback is insightful.
Just some observations regarding COLA and city employee pay in general:
>>Government is one of the very few entities remaining that still pays it’s employees a COLA and a merit increase. Private industry stopped doing this years ago. COLA is usually based on the CPI (Consumer Price Index)percenatge. The CPI has been and I believe still is a negative. As such, a COLA based on that would be a negative amount. In fact, Social Security increases are based on the same and the government recently announced that Social Security recipients will not receive a cost of living increase next year.
>>Having said that, the reason the City is not paying general
employees a COLA is because revenues are down and the money is not available to pay it. I am confident that it would be paid, regardless of the CPI, if the money was available. I also know that this decision did not come easily for Jim, Dan and the rest of the management team.
>> The reason revenues are lower is due to a few things, anmong them: taxpayers, statewide, demanded lower property taxes a few years ago. At the time, property values were very high (actually inflated) and the associated taxes followed suit. In Gulfport last year, Council voted to reduce the millage rate drastically–that lowered revenues. In my opinion the reduction by Council was due to feedback from business owners and for political reasons. Essentially it provided a positive for some people for one year. I recall stating that I would have been fine with my taxes staying as they were because property values had already started to fall. Unfortunately, Council didn’t think ahead to the future and today we’re in a pickle!! As it is currently, it appears that Council will do the same again this year and property taxes are even lower, so guess what–revenue is lower. I am in favor of raising the millage rate–the impact to the taxpayers is not that great.
>>Regarding pay in general, the shareholders of public companies and the owners of private companies have demanded more for less, from their employees, for a very long time. In these environments, employees are generally always paid on “pay for performance” basis. The criteria for this is based on specific, measurable objectives. The top performers are paid accordingly. Performing at a satisfactory level typically garners little if any annual increase. The City of Gulfport uses a fairly subjective methodology for its performance process and, in my opinion, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the employee. In fact, to my knowledge there was not one employee in the city last year that did not get a merit increase and many received more than the budgeted 2% as the average increase overall exceeded that. (Exception- those that may have been maxed out)In my opinion, that alone is very odd. I know we have many great workers, but the reality is that there are some that are not. My question: are they being compensated accordingly? I am doubtful. I would argue that Gulfport needs a true pay for performance system. Superior performers should be rewarded accordingly. In order to do that the City needs to rethink and redo job descriptions, performance expectations and the actual performance review documents. This is done by many government entities already. Will we see this in Gulfport–likely not. I suspect this philosophy is far too forward thinking for our leaders — staff and council. Net, net Worker bee–you may be one of those people working your buns off and the person next to you that may not be as productive is getting the same raise as you. Do you think that is fair?
>>Benefits. At the last Council meeting the Council approved the insurance package for employees. It was noted that the City is paying 100% of the fee for the employee’s coverage. That is very generous–be thankful! I just signed up for benefits with my company–a huge organization in the hospitality industry. I will have to pay just shy of $100 per month for myself, for basic medical, dental and vision with the highest co-pays and deductibles. I know that this is fairly standard so while I don’t like it, I do accept it.
It is also now unheard of for almost any company to fund a retirement program. The private sector may offer a vehicle for employees to utilize and may match a very small portion of the employee’s donation to a retirement fund. What government employees receive is a pipedream for anyone else. Be thankful!
>>Union employees — it is unfortunate that the union folks in G’port were not willing to step up to the plate and give up a little more this year. The current City management as well as the past have tried very hard to insure that merit, COLA, benefits, etc. are as consistent as possible for union and non-union employees. I think this is commendable!! On the other hand, I also believe that anyone can choose to become a police officer or firefighter if they elect to obtain the schooling, training, etc. In that sense, I don’t know that it is wrong to have different types of compensation packages. It is regretable that some non-union employees may view this as adverse.
In closing, I am in favor of raising the millage rate to increase the revenues in order to compensate some of the lower paid employees with a COLA.I believe ighly compensated employees should forgoe COLAs. The Directors’ salaies should also be restructured to eliminate car allowances. Those are just a way to increase salary in alternate way. I also would like to see a formalized employee recognition program for employees in order to laud their accomplishments and milestone achievements.
Mtober-I just wanted to clarify a bit about the COLA. For union employees, it has in the past been based on the difference between the CPI this year vs. the CPI last year. In this case, the number is among the highest it has ever been.
Dogfish–just wondering why you think the fire chief, and police chief need to have more a vested interest in the city than, say, the community development or public works directors. It’s kind of unrealistic to recruit qualified applicants for such positions when there is a residency restriction.
Everyone–are you aware that council members have been privately telling Mr. O’Reilly that they are planning to appoint him as the full time manager without waiting for any recommendations from the charter review committee? They intend to change the charter without a referendum vote on the subject, which is what the former city attorney told them was required. Perhaps that’s the reason he was dismissed? They are going to appoint as city manager this man with little or no experience or education in risk management, human resources, or financial planning and management. If I were a council member and I were searching for a new city manager, I would seek out the industry standard at a minimum. Those are typically a master’s degree in public administration along with at least eight years experience in finance or community development. O’Reilly has only a bachelor’s degree, and it’s in recreation management. Not only is he short on formal education, he is out of his league on the other subjects. The council should conduct a search for a new manager, and it should absolutely not be Jim O’Reilly.
City Manager Update
At yesterdays City Council Workshop, councilman Bob Worthington, shocked the audience, one city councilwoman and possibly the Interim City attorney, by stating that it was not necessary to change the city charter by referendum to hire Jim O’Reilly as City manager, all it took was an ordinance changing the charter.
All five of the council are in favor of hiring Mr. O’Reilly as permanent city manager, (at least as permanent as that position can be) due the the apparent lack of leadership that the city now finds itself in. To paraphrase one city council person, Jim O’Reilly has things he wants to do , but can’t because of his temporary position.
GEORGE===Please clarify which time frame was used to calculate this years COLA.
———————————————————-
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) decreased 0.2 percent in July before seasonal adjustment, the Bureau
of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Over the last 12 months the index has fallen 2.1 percent, as a
28.1 percent decline in the energy index since its July 2008 peak has more than offset increases of 0.9 percent in the food index and
1.5 percent in the index for all items less food and energy.
YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN
2009 211.143 212.193 212.709 213.24 213.856 215.693 215.351
2008 211.08 211.693 213.528 214.823 216.632 218.815 219.964 219.086 218.783 216.573 212.425 210.228 215.30
2007 202.416 203.499 205.352 206.686 207.949 208.352 208.299 207.917 208.49 208.936 210.177 210.036 207.34
The City has spent a year, parked in idle, to now find out that the charter can just be changed to see fit by enacting an ordinance?
Apparently the attorneys we had working for us throughout the “Interim City Manager” term were no match for the Florida League of Cities.
I believe attorney Driscoll would have suggested that if he had thought that the charter could have been amended by ordinance, and attorney Minkoff is too soon on the job and less experienced in municipal law to have caught that this quickly.
Thank goodness for the FLOC attorney who got us out of our City Manager pickle without us having to spend badly needed dollars in a headhunting team and/or getting a referendum on the ballot.
Mtober, I apologize to you. The CPI-U has, in fact, decreased since last year. I find that very surprising considering that the for the same time period two years earlier, it had increased nearly seven percent. Without checking the data, I had assumed we were still on that trend.
George — No apology necessary.
As a resident/taxpayer I am willing to accept a higher millage rate and pay more taxes. Sooo….how about u and the others stepping up to the plate and giving back the COLA for this next year??
I meant to attach this to my previous post.
http://tampabay.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2009/08/17/daily48.html
I think these are the KEY questions that should be on everyone’s mind. I am also attaching my comments to Council on Tuesday evening along with the concerns / observations I attached.
1. Why was the YTD expense reference left out of this year’s budget document? Why don’t you want the public to know this info? How is the Council making a decision on the budget without this information? DO YOU CREATE A BUDGET FOR YOUR HOME AND/OR BUSINESS WITHOUT THIS INFO?
The INCORRECT answers are:
1. Left it out to simplify the budget process
2. The law doesn’t require it
3. We are in a transition year
2. What is the detail of the purported $1,000,000 savings:
The INCORRECT answer will be:
1. Anything but the detail
3.Can you sustain the purported $1 mil savings into next year with the 3.4 mills and how will you do it?
The INCORRECT answers are:
1. It is up to the Council.
2. It requires a culture change
3. Anything that is remotely close to being vague
4. What are the strategic plans that are underway for next year?
The INCORRECT answer will be:
1. Anything but the detail
================================
Good evening,
Last week’s Council Workshop Meeting and the discussion regarding the budget have prompted some thoughts:
Over the past year, several good things have happened as relates to the budget. I commend staff for the simplification of the budget document and for their efforts toward savings.
In listening to the discussion last week I heard the phrase “next year” as it relates to studying further options for revenue enhancement and expense decreases. I recall hearing some of the same last year. This reminds me of my childhood and the response my brother and I would get from our mother when we said “I’ll do it later “or “I’ll do it tomorrow”. In a sing song voice she’d say “morgen morgen nur nicht heute sagen alle faulen leute” translated from German: “tomorrow, tomorrow but not today, that’s what lazy people say”. Please understand that I do not to infer literal laziness. However, I do believe this city has been lazy from a strategic perspective. We cannot continue to say “next year”. You must act now for next year and the next year and those beyond that. Not filling a job for a year is a tactical savings and that was good for this year. It is not a strategic savings. Lowering the millage rate, for political gain, when property values are deflated, is a tactical initiative not a strategic initiative. Not investigating strategic revenue enhancements or expense reductions for the upcoming budget year is nothing but shortsighted.
When I learned to drive, my Dad told me, “Don’t let the car idle so long”; “turn it off or move forward.” The City of Gulfport needs to do the same….stop idling and move forward – to the future, with a strategic mindset.
• As a resident and taxpayer, I ask you to please increase the millage rate to 3.85 so that the City recognizes the same property tax revenues as it did this past year. Not doing this, will critically impact the 10-11 budget when property values are expected to decline further.
• I encourage my fellow taxpayers to embrace the notion of a higher millage rate—the impact to your taxes will be minimal, virtually no different than last year.
• I encourage the Police and Fire unions to step up to the plate and reconsider the COLA that they demanded. Reference the courageous actions of your counterparts in Temple Terrace.
• I encourage the highly compensated employees, particularly Directors, to step up to the plate and volunteer some additional sacrifice for the upcoming year. This is a common practice in private industry and has also been embraced by leaders in government.
• Last, I encourage the City Council to consider its own compensation. You should not ask of others what you will not do yourself.
If all of us will give a little more, we will continue to enjoy the Gulfport we all love so much.
The budget hearings to be held over the next several weeks may well be the most important meetings held this year. The decisions made will have an impact on the coming year as well as future years.
Mayor and Council, I ask that you encourage all residents and employees to attend the Budget Hearing Meetings and seek their input and hearten them to speak up, without fear of retribution.
I am providing copies of this for the record and Council with additional concerns and thoughts attached.
Thank you!
Margarete
Date: September 1, 2009
To: Mayor and Council Members
From: Margarete Tober
Subject: Concerns / Ideas for Budget Hearings
• Millage Rate – Must do 3.85 mills or City will have more problems next year and thereafter. Need strategic not political decisions. This is not the year to brag that you reduced the tax rate!
• Merit vs. COLA- Merit and lump payment sum in lieu of COLA for those maxed out. Typically should average ~1%, but should be given in standard amounts. E.G. – Salaries < $30K get $250. < $40K get $350, etc. COLA costs more and doesn’t allow recognition of work or lack of work; it is not fair to lump all employees together. Employees that performed great should be recognized for that and not be rewarded the same as those that didn’t perform as well.
• ALL jobs have a maximum value. Employees have or should have the option to apply for other jobs or move on to other entities. However, the city should also have pay ranges and position levels that are more generic and allow for growth. Salary reviews need to be done sooner rather than later.
• Increasing the pay ranges each year by the COLA amount and also adding COLA to salaries is dangerous and the cause of salaries maxing out. This is unheard of in the private sector and I submit that other government entities may pay COLA but do not manage their pay ranges in this fashion. It is mathematically impossible to keep salaries in line if you increase those 4+ % each year but only increase the salary ranges by 2%. The best solution is to do away with COLA or pay it in a lump sum in the future and not add it to salaries.
• Need to review pay grades/salaries, etc. – now. Some employees that were supposed to get money as a result of the last salary survey didn’t get $$. You cannot assume that Gulfport’s salaries are competitive. Five years have passed since the last salary survey was done. It can be done in-house. I already did much of the work for you — for free.
• Car Allowances – IMO this is unjust to the taxpayers and nothing more than another faux method for increasing salaries—think Longevity Bonus. No other city, similar to Gulfport, pays a car allowance to Directors. $4200 / year = approximately 8,000 miles. Where are they driving? Use a city vehicle or rent a car if it is for a long, multiple days trip. Add 1/2 to salary and eliminate the other 1/2. Highly compensated employees should give up something.
• IT Dept—$200K for 2 people? What do these people do? Web ok but not great! Zachary even told you that. The City should have many more auto options available. E.G. –permits on-line, auto pay, etc.
• Auto Pay- Excuse for not doing auto pay is just that–an excuse. Why is it not being investigated? The City will not go into anyone’s bank account.
• Garbage pick-up–1 time per week is sufficient. Don’t need holiday pickups. The people spoke to you in the surveys. Mayor, you should not make this decision on your personal needs. There are any numbers of cities in the South that pick up garbage one time per week. Set up a central garbage bin at the 49th St station for people that absolutely have to get rid of garbage 2 times per week.
• Recycle can change to every 2 weeks. Set up more central recycle stations. Collect glass, cans, etc. Every other little city does, but Gulfport, has an excuse to NOT do it?
• Council Pay-Show some courage and give up some of it this year and next. You can’t expect others to do so and not do it yourself. ?
• What is the justification for adding another layer of management to the Fire Dep’t and eliminating a Lieutenant in the Police Dep’t, which is much larger than the Fire Dep’t? This is not the way to solve the issue of an inadequate Fire Chief. Also, have you spoken to police employees about this? They have issues with this decision. (See http://www.gulfportwatchdog.com)
Thanks for reading.
mtober…
The more I read your ideas, the more I think you should be running the show. (Or at least you should consider running for council one day).
You bring up a good point. Why doesn’t the city give up the car allowance for department directors? I think it’s because since the dawn of time, it’s always the foot solider who get things taken away. Upper management seem to be immune from any type of “cut”. Seems that they are a special class in the system.
Also, IT depatment… I know that Richard Cita earms every penny of what he makes. That guy is worked to death it seems. I think the city would be lost (technically speaking) if he were not there. No sure what the other guy does exactly.
Regarding council pay…Why don’t they give up a little of their pay? They don’t seem to make that much anyway. The symbolic gesture would mean so much to citizes and employees, I’m sure of it.
Fire Lt and Police Lt…a topic near and dear to my heart. I get some of the reasoning behind eliminating the Lt. Position. It will be vacant if Vincent or Coombs get’s promoted. By eliminating it, you save on payroll. But, again, I dont’ think anyone is thinking about how the elimination of this position will effect the organization. I guess only time will tell. Even with the council thinking about raising the mil rate, The PD Lt position is gone I think.
I think your thoughts on merit vs cola are right on. Merit increases should be reserved for those who perform above expected norms. You should not get one for just doing what is expected. They could work out a merit system that was similar to our longevity bonus. It could be a lump some given out annually based on performance. This way, it would not increase the annual pay of the employee, but it would still recognize them for their performance.
Watchdog–Thanks for your comments. Just to be clear on the IT dept…while I think the city has been way behind the 8 ball on IT initiatives, my observation is simply to determine if it would be more effeective to outsouce this area. Other than what I have seen,from a public perspective, and thru Budget Committee observations, I don’t know if these people are capable, or if they are good employees, etc. My observations are from a business perspective and I believe not investigating the outsourcing option is akin to putting one’s head in the sand.
Watchman– my understanding now is that Lt.’s Coombs and Vincent actually proposed the cut of the Lt. position. Do you have any insight on that?
mtober…
Thats not what they told me. They told me that they want to keep it.
BigDog, how is the Code enforcement idea progressing? The Grass is still uncut since I made the Comment on August 14th. The code requires us to maintain the easements but as anyone could plainly see there is no enforcement applied here. There is tree limbs on the ground in the parking lot that have been there for 2 months, the Grass on the property of 1431 49th street has not been cut for 2 months. The grass and trash in the alley behind 1400 49th street has not been cut for 3 months.
Someone from the area placed a hand written sign on the fence a week ago pointing out the waist deep grass and trash, but the code officer would actually need to be in the area to read it. It was hard for them to observe the smoke from the office as well, maybe they should move the office?
(I’m pleased to learn our police are active in this area). and if that were true then the grass and trash would be addresses, but I see the police here almost daily and nothing is addressed. They were out in front with a dog a few days ago and walked past the grass, trash and sign and never flinched. Their task is selective as Watchman has pointed out.
I would be nice to have real enforcement on these delinquent properties by anyone who is charged with the task, but that’s not the reality the reality is indiference, plain and simple, and the photos tell the true story, which I will begin to publish once again.
We are wasting money on code enforcement and if the Police Department is capable of doing the job I believe they should have it.
http://gulfportwatchdog.com/2009/08/bite-the-bullett-on-budget-balance/comment-page-1/#comment-365
If Code enforcement is handled by the Police department then the need ofr a Code truck would be eliminated. That would be a savings to add to the salery and benefit list. The savings would go long way in paying for a LT in the Police Dept.
2iview—Very good points! Not long ago i asked if a certain ordinance regarding the storage of wehicles, boats, motor homes, etc. was being enforced and provided examples including some of my neighbors. What does Bruce do–tells my neighbor that I complained about them and about him not doing his job!! Result: the neighbor is PO’d and the City decided they weren’t sure how to enforce the ordinance. It is now on hold while it is being “studied”! I’m not sure about the easements, but I know one of the Councils voted not to require residents to maintain the curbs in front of their homes.I also understand that the good ‘ole boy network is pretty strong when it comes to code enforcement. From that perspective I can see where it could become very frustrating for the people trying to do the enforcing.
Would you and your other half be interested in working on a community effort to “clean up” G’port? I think we need some citizens to encourage / help other citizens.