SOME GOOD, SOME BAD AT COUNCIL WORKSHOP!
City taxpayers got some good news and some bad news at the City Council Workshop on August 15. The good news is that the drop in assessed value of all properties only dropped 9.7% from last year rather than the forecast 10.2% used in formulating the proposed Gulfport budget. The bad news is that although revenues have been falling for the past three years and attrition has left many jobs unfilled, no permanent structural changes in our governmental organization seem to have taken place to efficiently handle day-to-day operations now and into the future.
The lower than expected drop in valuations means that there will be over $24,000 in additional revenue. Coupled with increased revenues from the County for police coverage of Boca Ciega High School, about $50,000 in “found money” can be added to expected revenues for the coming year.
City Manager O’Reilly said that the new revenues would be used to lessen the budget balancing raid, (my term), on the Pension Fund Reserve Account from about $200,000 to about $150,000. Before any reader blows their top because of the “raid,” we should recognize that, unlike almost all other municipalities, Gulfport’s Pension fund is “fully funded,” and the reserve fund may not be needed. However, the Manager, when asked why he was lowering the Pension Reserve Fund grab in lieu of funding some other programs, he said that his decision was based on the “volatility” of pension funding in general. One wonders why he messed with the reserve fund in the first place.
Now for the bad news: Three years ago, we had a city operating budget of nearly $12 million. Next year a budget of almost $9 million is being proposed. During that period, a hiring freeze was instituted. Attrition was the only cost cutting measure of any consequence that was instituted. No services were cut, at least so the citizens would notice them. Substantially the same work is being done by fewer people. This sounds both good and bad; good because we have knocked nearly $3 million off the budget without noticeable affect; bad because the changes in the workplace are makeshift and will presumably return to “normal” once the revenue picture improves.
“Normal” apparently means a bloated, highly inefficient workplace that costs the taxpayers about $3 million more than it should. Now is the time to reorganize the staff by looking at the departmental structure, eliminating some expensive Directorships, hiring a few low level workers, cross training some existing employees and outsourcing some work. Unless the Council insists that this kind of a plan be provided by the City Manager before approving this year’s budget, they are not doing their job.
More bad news is that employee health insurance premiums for the same coverage as last year would be 33% higher this year due to a high loss ratio on city insurance last year, (111%). Fortunately, City Manager O’Reilly was able to find an acceptable alternative by purchasing this year’s employee health insurance through Public Risk Management Pool. Currently, the city pays 100% of employee and family coverage. Under the new plan through Blue Cross and Blue Shield The City will pay for the employee and the first $2000 of dependent coverage. Employees will have the option to pick up full dependent coverage on their own through the plan.
After one on one discussions with city employees, employees apparently figured the new plan provided them with better coverage and those affected, (about 40 out of 120), bought into the new plan. The total health insurance cost in the coming year will be $859,339.80 with the city’s share being $649,851.48. Congratulations to City Manager O’Reilly for solving what could have been a major budgetary problem.
Being one of only four cities in Pinellas County that does not provide low income senior citizens with an additional Homestead Exemption, the Council finally got around to a serious discussion of the possibility of providing qualifying senior homeowners with an additional $25,000 assessment exemption. While everyone appeared to have a positive attitude toward the idea, the major question was what would be the financial impact on revenues. Finance and Administration Director Dan Carpenter, given the data at hand, was unable to come up with an estimate that was acceptable to the council. His best guesstimate was that of the 2211 Homesteaded homes in Gulfport about 28 % could have an age qualified senior in them, so the maximum eligible properties would be around 619. At our mill rate, a $25,000 assessment would amount to about $87 in lost revenue. Therefore the absolute maximum impact would be about $53,000 per year. The figures used did not include an estimate of how many of the seniors involved would qualify for the exemption, so Dan Carpenter was uncomfortable in making any other estimates, although he knew it would be lower.
Councilperson Salmon, who is a statistician, pointed out that data is available that would allow a fair picture of the number who would qualify and provided Director Carpenter with a reference. All agreed that a better estimate of impact was necessary before any decision could be made on the matter. City Manager O’Reilly pointed out that the new exemption could not be implemented until the next fiscal year, but to do that a resolution has to be passed before the end of the calendar year.
The final budget proposal will be put before the Council at the regular Council Meeting of September 9th for a first reading. All those who have an interest in commenting on any budget matter should be there and be loaded for bear. All of these workshop sessions without citizen input in which so many informal decisions have been made will probably cause the Council to be less likely than ever to take citizen’s opinions into account. Ah, but that’s a subject for another article.
Insurance increases per pay period:
Plan Type Emp+Spouse Emp + Child Family
HMO 64.78 21.75 118.59
POS 79.33 34.34 135.76
HSA 91.46 44.78 149.74
Regarding the insurance…the City used to pay 50% (not all) of the family coverage. With the new plans being put in place employees must now pay a MINIMUM of $118.59 more per pay period for family coverage regardless of how much money they earn. To put it another way, the employee that makes $35,000 per year and is enrolled in the HMO Family Plan will have their salary reduced by $3083 or ~9%.If the employee is a non – union employee they also will not receive a pay increase. They also lost any help to better educate themselves last year when the tuition reimbursement program was discontinued. The non – union employee earning $75,000+ per year and enrolled in the same plan is taking a decrease of 4% or less. They also will not receive a pay increase. However, most of the employees in that pay range are Directors and they will still retain their ~$4000/year car allowances. Union employees will of course still receive their normal 6-10% salary increases and therefore the increased insurance cost is a little easier to offset.
I haven’t heard of any employees (union or non) in the $35,000 per year and under range that “bought into” the plan. They perhaps “understand and accept” it because the have no choice but there is no buy-in. It is a hardship for these people. And while Councilmember Hastings meant no ill will, his observation of having to pay $875/month was not lost on employees either. It is difficult for them to have empathy for someone living in a million dollar mansion on the water, in the country club.
Personally, I have always been of the mindset that every employee has the opportunity to aspire to the jobs with unique benefits and higher pay. For example, a sanitation worker can go to school and become a police officer if they so choose and the have the benefits (and risks) of what comes with that job. HOWEVER, my perspective is changing a bit particularly since the economy is as it is. I truly feel badly for the lower level employees that are being impacted. Further I find it rather distasteful that the senior level/higher paid employees have no qualms about this disparity and apparently also have no moral conscience relative to the $4000 they receive to drive around in a city that is 2.8 mi. square. I’m still trying to understand just where they are going.
Last, this issue might not be so dire if we the public were not so greedy and/ or our council members were not so worried about the next vote. You see our elected leaders seem to think that they must cut tax rates each year. That is hardly what ammendment 1 was all about. The purpose was to level out the property taxes and minimize fluctuations due to erratic property values from year to year. Values go up, taxes rates go down. Values go down, tax rates go up. That in essence creates stability in the actual dollars collected to operate the city. Taxes aside, our elected leaders also seem to have a lack of fortitude when it comes to addressing service fees, unless it’s water and sewer which is goverened by the contract with the City of St.Pete. Personally, it appalls me to know that that people from other cities use Gulfport’s services because they are less expensive than those in their own city. That is simply not right! It is time for Council to quit kicking the can down the road and address this as well as the city’s future financial state. Business’s have financial plans, individuals have financial plans. Why is that the leaders of this city don’t have the fortitude to address Gulfport’s future financial plans? The notion of year to year planning is going to catch up to them very soon and then who will pay—we the taxpayers, and much more than we do now. So, bottom line, I’d rather pay the same dollars year to year then face a hige increase when th ecity has depleted it’s fund balance reserves.
mTober, I think Hastings and King were demonstrating that individual insurance policies are far more expensive and far less beneficial to those outside government pools. Level of wealth aside, he and others need to share their life’s experiences and observations with the public so that they can relay the justification for their position. Many small businesses pay the same cost that both Hastings and King acclaimed. I would jump through hoops, as I’m sure Hastings would to only have to pay $118.59 per month for family plan health insurance and I would celebrate the day that the City Government paid for my education, vacation, pension, life insurance or long term disability insurance.
Look at the History of these benefits, why they were established and explain how they are necessary in today’s economy. Union Police in non-union Right to Work States also strikes me as a contradiction but no one has the political spine to rectify the inconsistency. I suspect if the City were able to look outside the Brotherhood of Official Police to a Security Contractor the price and quality of service would improve. Call on Pinkerton!
.
Mr. O’Reilly explained that there was a high threshold for Seniors to qualify for this tax reduction. I suspect that if the Senior qualifies they most likely also qualify for County, State and Federal assistance. My only concern is that a program in Gulfport might undermine another government program that assists Seniors in meeting their tax burdens. If another Government entity assists Seniors with their taxes then our program would have no meaningful benefit, but would burden the budget further.
Mr. King expressed herself with an angry conviction that seemed as though she was embattled. I know she is Senior Friendly as well as Business Friendly, so I’m having a bit of a problem with her remarks. Was this tax reduction suggested by someone that she doesn’t like? I seem to remember Lee speaking on this issue, but I’m not sure. I suspect the Mrs. Salmon is supporting it, could it be that Mrs. King finds her support objectionable?
The folks that may benefit from this tax reduction would be unlikely candidates for any Senior Center activities so that program, although very comprehensive, may not help the destitute seniors that would qualify for this tax program.
I’ve still not found the reasoning behind reimbursing Kipp’s Colony $23,000.00 for their expenditure and it sort of sticks in my craw that Mrs. King would promote the $23,000 for this purchase of service and raise her sword against the indigent seniors of this community. There most likely is a legal obligation for reimbursement that I’m not aware of, but it was her advocacy for the pay out that seems to have made an impression.
.
I would like to take this space and time to thank Big Dog for a accurate article and the assistance he provides to the Council and Citizens alike.
>>The $118.59 is the amount of INCREASE per pay period that the employee will pay. That is an INCREASE of almost $250 per month in addition to what was being already being paid. The total monthly cost is closer to $500 per month.
>> I don’t understand the Kipps Colony giveaway either.
>> I don’t know how the interest in the senior deduction came about but I do recall seeing a letter in The Gabber imploring the City to look into it.
Thanks for your correction Gulfporter, somewhere in the back of my mind I knew it was an increase, I just didn’t translate it in writing.
I haven’t seen or heard the explaintion jusifying the Kipp’s Colony Reimbursement other than, from Mrs. King staying that they pay 60% of the cities taxes, and I imagine she was including the intire walled community.
That argument, in and of itself, is not a reasonable justification for reimbursement, and to make that argument certainly will not establish a person as a candidate for the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I saw the October 5th workshop on TV. Very scary stuff. It appears the council, led by the vice mayor and assisted by the lawyer, are at work to redefine city land holdings in a way which will allow sale of public lands with little or no say by the citizens who fund them and have had traditional access to them. The vice made frequent real estate noises about how to bundle properties to increase benefit to developers. She also put forth definitions of “designated” lands that included parks, the city hall complex and the downtown beach. She, and others, skilfully avoided mention of the marina as “designated.” City claims on submerged lands in bayou and bay were also dismissed. The marina issue came up a couple of times when candidates put forth by the vice mayor, seemingly to split votes in her favor, carried forward her message that the marina was a liability rather than a major city financial resource and that it should be sold. Who would benefit? She, as owner of directly adjacent property would be the prime beneficiary. Why? If the marina was sold and privatized, it would most likely become dock-o-miniums which would set the way for condo or similar development in the area. As she owns one whole facing block front, she would be a lead candidate to profit by denial of public access to water and by construction of multilevel housing linked to the dock-o-miniums. Nice to sit on a council where you can vote for your personal financial gain. Keep an eye out on this one.
Citizens need to know exactly what will be listed as “designated.” From the workshop banter, it seems modifications and decisions on what parts of public Gulfport the council might sell will be made without public information and input. Once decided, people will have little chance to influence even very poor council choices. Don’t forget that the vice mayor came close to giving control of more than a mile of Gulfport waterfront and the water itself to USF to block a public access issue she oppossed. The DVD of the October 5th workshop is available at city hall and the meeting is sometimes replayed on TV. Make up your own mind. Follow the money.
Lawrance Burke is back in town, looking to buy up more property.
He apparently still owns a two story building east of the Bed & Breakfast, and trying to buy the place next door. I’m a little hazzie on the details, but if I remember correctly it was Burke that sold Hastings the building on 22nd and posibly around the corner? His house as well down in the PYCC??? He’s had close ties to the real estate councilor I’m told. There might be a connection to others, including members of the Planning & Zoning Board and the last City Attorney who is now a Judge. Burke left Gulfport and went to Safety Harbor where he has accumulated a few more properties and a lot if memory serves?
Vice has definitely worn out her welcome. She has proven over and over again how self serving she is. Vote her out!!
I’m not up on exactly what the ramifications of selling City property without public input are or could be…but, I’ve heard that Mr. Burke sold the bed & breakfast that he build for his wife, which had to have some measure of emotional investment, and left town because the City was not accommodating. Mr. Burke is a good guy, but there are just some loose ends between Government and Powerball Players that need to be clarified when the City is considering changing the rules about selling public property. Playing connect the dots is not enough, nor is fear based assumptions about loosing the beach, waterfront and control of the public treasure. If the rumors are fact and Mr. Burke is back in the game here in Gulfport, which he has every legal right to be, and builds nice properties by the way, how is it that a City, that was not accommodating then is somehow accommodating now?
Does the alteration of the rules make property speculators feel accommodated? Will Gulfport be more inviting somehow? Will our City leaders capitalize on some windfall that the new rules provide? Is there shadowy game afoot that should be in the Sunshine?
Will the Judge who was appointed by Charlie Crist loose his position when Crist is no longer a player, and return to Gulfport to run for Mayor?
An excerpt from a Nancy Drew mystery on Fantasy Island.