Bain-Blog

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Referendum

I have received several citizen contacts about Mayor Castle's resolution to ask citizens, via a referendum, to exceed our levy limit. I agree with today's Oshkosh Northwestern editorial. Because it is premature to ask for a levy increase before the council has a workshop on the budget, and public discussion about it, I will be voting no on the resolution.

-Bryan

posted by Bryan L. Bain at 9/12/2006 08:05:00 AM

16 Comments:

  • Atta Boy Bryan!!

    GO get um tiger. We're behind you all the way!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 12, 2006 10:39 AM  

  • Random thoughts after viewing the budget workshop held last night:

    Observation #1 - City Manager Wollangk mentioned on many occasions the high fuel prices were impacting the city. His purpose for making mention of this, was to imply that the increasing costs of energy and fuel make it necessary to increase property taxes.

    Reply – Mr. Wollangk. The taxpayers and homeowners in Oshkosh know all too well about the rising cost of energy. We can’t go to our employers and ask for a raise to offset the rising costs; we must make cuts to other areas of spending.
    We expect you to do the same.

    Observation #2 – The Department Supervisors were directed to bring a budget which reflected a 3% reduction in spending.

    Reply – I am not a HIGHLY PAID Department Manager, but if someone gave me that task as an outsider, I would say cut a few positions and cut some travel and training. Gee, maybe I know how to manage these departments as well as the HIGHLY PAID managers we have on staff. NO creativity was given.

    Observation #3 – When discussing position eliminations, many department supervisors indicated that people would be cut, but no one at this time holds those positions.

    Reply – Even thought they say they will cut positions, most positions are open already and truly just a couple people would actually loose their jobs. This all appears to me like a SHELL GAME.

    Observation #4 – Regarding Unions. The City seems to think their hands are tied.

    Reply – I have read many times on this site, postings regarding how unions hurt the average tax payer. How public unions receive their increases at the expense of the average middleclass taxpayer. After last night, Now I get it. Unions restrict what can be done to make areas more efficient. Unions hurt the taxpayers family…unless you belong to one.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 14, 2006 7:44 AM  

  • After watching the Budget workshop last night (13 Sept), we were able to see first hand what our City Manager's managerial experience and thought process is when dealing with a potential crisis situation in financial budgeting.

    It reminds me of an expression used so often, "If you can't dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with bullsh-t", of course when that tactic didn't work, Mr. Wollangk returned to what most managers retreat to, and that's to attempt to deflect and/or shift blame. Mr. Wollangk appeared childish in nature and at times immature when trying to struggle with this complex process of budgetary management.

    As a taxpaying citizen and resident of this city, I found myself ashamed at what I witnessed from this City Manager and the impotence of my elected council members to call him to the carpet for his antics.

    If you are serious when you stated that everything should on the table during this budget process, I think that all managers and mid-managers jobs should be on the table as well, and not just the lower paid, non-union, part-time or expendable employees, as we so unsympathetically refer to them.

    I think citizens understand this process won't be easy or comfortable for anyone, nor should it be, but we all acknowledge something must be done. All elected officials and department heads, as well as, the City Manager should accept this responsibility seriously, as if their job's depended on it's outcome.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 14, 2006 10:48 AM  

  • Taxpayers have been granted to opportunity to vote to rescind the garbage fee.
    Consider this: If that fee is rescinded will taxpayers be opening a door for outsourcing garbage collection within the City of Oshkosh? $2.4million out of the budget and they City stays within the levy allowed by the State. Private pickup may mean each household will definitely pay more than $10 per month.

    After watching & listening to the meeting last night the City Council and City staff
    have some tight reins on the city finances. It looks like the city will have to opt out of the garbage business. The other option would be to vote for Mayor Castle’s referendum to exceed the tax levy.
    If we want to keep the all the services good roads, police and fire protection, garbage pickup, plowed streets, ETC the City now offers we are going to have to pay for them.

    Garbage Fees / More Taxes we want neither one but we may not have a choice.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 14, 2006 5:59 PM  

  • All options considered:

    Mayor Castle's resolution to ask citizens, via a referendum, to exceed our levy limit may be able to give the City the BEST option.
    Include enough monies to do the outside survey/audit of all positions / all departments. Valuable information for now and future planning. Without the extra monies the internal audit may never be done due to a lack of funding.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 14, 2006 8:38 PM  

  • a referendum to exceed the levy?

    YES
    The budget workshop showed we have few choices and it's more palletable to have the trash service on the property tax bill than in a fee.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 15, 2006 7:15 AM  

  • Is this what our city leadership has determined to be the central issue in this budget process, by making garbage that central issue in determining if we make or break a budget in the City of Oshkosh?

    It’s unfortunate that the 65,000 taxpaying citizens of Oshkosh are again being forced to decide at the polls whether to bail out the City leadership because of poor management of the city’s finances. If there ever was a time to put our collective foot down against the excessive spending and misuse of our hard earned dollars, it is now.

    Some suggest that by passing this referendum, the city might be able to get the extra funds (1.2 million) to allow for some additional spending, pay for garbage pickup or to pay for an internal audit. I suggest that all citizens should pay closer attention to what the City Manager stated many times throughout the Budget Workshop, that is, that the city employees (union) are up for contract renewal and that a 1% increase in wages and benefits is likely, amounting to $300,000, which is taken right off the top of those extra funds, if this referendum passed, and that’s only if their contract bargaining doesn’t go into arbitration, in which case, the City Manager stated their increase might go up to 2% or higher, taking $600,000 of the top of those extra funds. That’s right folks, of that 1.2 million dollars, if this referendum passes, $300,000 - $600,000 or more, will go straight into the pockets of city employees and not towards anything the city owns, yes that means clean water, sewage, trash removal, police and fire protection, road repairs, etc. Is this what you expect from your city leadership and manager?

    Say “NO” to this referendum, and force the city leadership to stop their whining and get back to the job they are paid to do, MANAGE the city of Oshkosh.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 15, 2006 11:43 AM  

  • DID you say NO to the school board
    referendum to increase the levy??

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 16, 2006 3:29 PM  

  • They are trying to manage the city the best way. The STATE has made it very difficult with the tax/levy freeze. Its apparent listening to the Police Chief that they had not been filling postions to keep the budget in line. The city has put off buying new squad cars instead they are rotating the cars to extend the life of each vehicle. These are 2 examples of ways city staff has been saving $$$ and keeping services.
    There were other examples of saving going on over the past years within cities departments.
    It seems clear there is just no where else to cut without cutting
    cruial services.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 17, 2006 5:57 PM  

  • In reply to the statements, “They [Common Council & City Manager] are trying to manage the city the best way” and “It seems clear there is just no where else to cut without cutting cruial services” posted earlier, I listed a few items below that have been requested through the various city departments through the City Manager and ultimately passed by the Common Council over the passed couple of months of 2006.

    Res. 06-112 -- $195,834.00 - Truck Chassis & Refuse Bodies (2)
    Res. 06-192 -- $75,944.00 - Tandem Axle Truck Chassis, Dump Bodies, Plows & Hitches (2)
    Res. 06-193 -- $57,989.00 - Furniture for the Police Station
    Res. 06-208 -- $68,200.00 - Riverside Cemetery Roof Repairs
    Res. 06-209 -- $110,653.00 - Single Axle Truck, Dump Body & Plow (1)
    Res. 06-223 -- $107,275.77 - Video Surveillance System and Recording Systems for City Transit
    Res. 06-236 -- $162,960.00 - Street Sweeper (1)

    Total - $778,855.77

    Does this look like the city is doing all it can to save money in order to keep our crucial services?

    I am sure for the $1.00 per hour the city pays for prison labor to do odd jobs now, maybe we could get by with hundreds of prisoners with brooms to sweep the streets and gutters, mow grass, pick up garbage and maybe even turn the valves on the fire hydrants (something that hasn’t been done since the early 1990’s, but is crucial if you want to protect your home from fire) or possibly some of the other jobs that are part of the job description we pay people now full salaries and benefits to do.

    If the city management was thinking seriously of getting rid of garbage pick-up services, do you think that they would be wasting their time and money on purchasing two(2) brand new Trash Trucks, see (Res. 06-112)?

    Do you think that the $107,275.77 used for purchasing Video Surveillance Equipment for city buses (Res. 06-223), or maybe the $57,989.00 (Res. 06-193)furniture for the police department, could have of been better used toward Police Services or filling positions that the Police Chief stated he had open, which brings up another question, it is my understanding, that the Police Department has tested and already selected new officers as of August 2006, and is currently testing for further officers to fill positions beginning January 2007, So here's the question: If Police Services are so critical, why is the Police Chief not filling positions he states he is short (i.e. 2 Sergeants, 1 Detective, 3 Patrolman, etc.) now, positions that are currently open and fully funded already. It has already been proven that the city management really don't mind eliminating employees, so why would they have any problem about getting Police positions filled now, and then come the end of the year letting them go.

    Final thought: At a time, when we have fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends and relatives in the military just struggling to survive the lunacy of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, some dying needlessly because of poor leadership, vehicles lacking armor protection, sub-standard body armor, contaminated drinking water, etc., it is just baffling to think that the most important issue on the agenda here in this city is a referendum to tax more money out of the citizens in order to pay for city employees wages and benefit increases and garbage pickup, so we don’t have to worry about what we are going to do with our trash.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 17, 2006 9:35 PM  

  • The $107,275.77 used for purchasing Video Surveillance Equipment for city buses (Res. 06-223),

    NOT City funded funded through a Federal Grant

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 7:38 AM  

  • A very elementary concept; if push comes to shove??
    sales tax?? property taxes?? or fees??
    WHICH ONE makes the concept easier for ALL?

    Anonymous said...
    property taxes because the sales tax would have to be passed by the county board and there is no guarantee that would happen. that means it's not a good option right now so got to go with property taxes to be fair to most property owners.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 6:45 PM  

  • 6:45 states: A very elementary concept; if push comes to shove??
    sales tax?? property taxes?? or fees??
    WHICH ONE makes the concept easier for ALL?

    This was how this whole referendum idea was sold to the public, a limited amount of choices and all with one common outcome, making the taxpayers give up more of their money to the city.

    There is another choice, one that a citizen always has, and thats to say, "No more taxes & No more fees".

    But if it would make you feel better as a person, you could always donate your money to the city, that concept would be easy too.

    Is it too much to ask for our Elected Officials and their hired City Manager to "think" for a change, maybe even do a little of that activity some call "Planning". It is quite obvious that "executing" a thought out plan to stay within a budget was too difficult.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 18, 2006 8:50 PM  

  • It's so easy to sit home at your computer and critize present city staff.
    IF Your choice Is "No more taxes & No more fees".

    GET READY FOR NO SERVICE OR CUT SERVICE.

    The problems the city is now facing did not happen overnight. Some started in Madison, some are carry-overs from previous councils.
    The problems will not get solved overnight or with this contract.
    So you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?
    Can you offer any viable solutions
    or does your talent end with a cut and paste.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 19, 2006 4:10 PM  

  • a referendum to exceed the levy?

    YES
    The budget workshop showed we have few choices and it's more palletable to have the trash service on the property tax bill than in a fee.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 19, 2006 4:13 PM  

  • GET READY FOR NO SERVICE OR CUT SERVICE.

    The problems the city is now facing did not happen overnight. Some started in Madison, some are carry-overs from previous councils.

    Exactly, the problems that affect this city have never been dealt with over this course of many generations of Common Councils, City Managers, Departments Heads and yes, the City Employees. Madison may have contributed to the financial insanity this city is suffering from, but the neglect to bring true ideas by those who were hired for that purpose, get paid the big bucks and enjoy the healthy benefits seem to be working for a pay check and not for the betterment of the city.

    The problems will not get solved overnight or with this contract.

    Your right again, but acknowledging that your defeated, have no choice but to throw more money at the problems, as you stated, were caused by our own City Leadership is not how to deal with it. As for this contract, even though I should care about what happens to my fellow human beings, I could care less about their contracts that spoil the wealth of a community.

    So you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?

    The problem with your question is that the solution you’ve mentioned is the problem. Having a “do-nothing” policy only passes onto our future generations our problems we were either to lazy, egotistical, corrupt or inept to deal with.

    Can you offer any viable solutions or does your talent end with a cut and paste.

    If you or I had the same access to all the files, records, attorneys, staff, accounts and accountants that the current Leadership of this City has, I would almost guarantee that we would be able to find and eliminate the wasteful spending, if any, corruption, if any, continue to find the revenue to pay for core services, and still probably be able to balance the budget.

    Don’t get me wrong here, I am all for the city maintaining its responsibility to provide those core services if that is what this city wants, however, with respect of how its being paid for, my view is that “The budget SHOULD NOT BE BALANCED on the BACKS OF THE TAXPAYERS!!”.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at September 19, 2006 7:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home