He calls it "bare bones"
Mayor Dewey Bartlett's proposed budget does not include funding to rehire police officers, but he will suggest some "controversial" revenue-enhancement ideas, he told the Tulsa World on Wednesday.
Bartlett, who is set to present his budget to the City Council at 6 p.m. Thursday, said that it will be "very conservative and bare-bones."
"We don't want to be in a situation, if we can avoid it, where we have to go through in the next budget what we've had to do this fiscal year, with the cuts and layoffs," he said. "It's more difficult on everyone concerned and takes up a lot of staff time."
Sales tax revenue is expected to remain down, Bartlett said, but fee revenue is projected to be up, resulting in a flat budget.
The city's general fund for fiscal year 2011 is projected to be about $230 million.
The current general fund budget was originally proposed at $250 million but, due to cuts over the year, dropped to $228 million.
The council will have until the end of June to review and make changes to the budget before it has to be in place by the July 1 start of the fiscal year.
Also included in the mayor's proposal are an unexpected jump from $1 million to $3 million in annual expenses with the new City Hall and scheduled increases in water and sewer rates....
...Possible revenue enhancements: Bartlett also plans to propose six to eight ideas to the council that would increase city revenues and bump up the general fund without raising taxes. Each would have an impact of between $200,000 and $12 million.
For each revenue option that the council agrees to, it would allow the city to "buy back" a critical service, cut the number of furlough days or perhaps add manpower, Mayoral Chief of Staff Terry Simonson said.
"The mayor is going to pick up the can instead of continuing to kick the can on a lot of this stuff," Simonson said.
"Somebody finally has to say pick up the can and figure out how to fund long-term needs," he said.
One revenue-enhancement example is to privatize the city's parking meter system, and increase parking rates and fines to those of comparable cities, the mayor said. That would have a projected $300,000 revenue impact.
Bartlett declined to give more examples but said some will be "controversial."
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20100429_11_A1_MyrDwy269105
If we're so desperate can they push the TDA to dump some property that's costing the city money to own?
Good to know the "can" is either our budget or the place where we relieve ourselves.
"Where's Terry?" "He's in the can."
Tough time to be the Mayor...
Budgets are how I rate Mayors. Up until now, Mayor Bartlett was finishing off the previous Mayor's budget and fiscal year. All the things he had to do (layoffs, furlough days, suspending mowing) all were actions to complete the year and budget he inherited.
This presented budget is all him. Can he get it past the council and can he complete this upcoming fiscal year within that budget? Will the revenue enhancements be reasonable and actually produce revenue? Can we live with the staffing levels and get the service level we expect?
Ask me next year at this time and I will tell you what I think of him as the leader of our city.
Heard something on the news this morning about this. I could swear I heard Screwy say that part of the budget cut would be no more budget for sanding and plowing roads during winter weather.
Quote from: custosnox on April 30, 2010, 09:32:29 AM
Heard something on the news this morning about this. I could swear I heard Screwy say that part of the budget cut would be no more budget for sanding and plowing roads during winter weather.
On the flip side, one area that needs more funding than what the proposed budget will include is the city's salt supply and overtime to deal with winter storms, Bartlett said.
This fiscal year, such costs amounted to $750,000, he said. For next year, the city has a few thousand tons of salt on hand and will have less than $100,000 that can be used for storm-related overtime.
"We simply can't afford more in this budget," Bartlett said. "We'd only be able to treat priority areas, and that'd be it. That's the reality of our situation."
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20100429_11_A1_MyrDwy269105
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2010, 09:36:52 AM
"We simply can't afford more in this budget," Bartlett said. "We'd only be able to treat priority areas, and that'd be it. That's the reality of our situation."
What a dope. He's going to end up losing the city more money in sales tax revenue than he will save in plowing costs.
What in the world happened with the EMSA expenditures from 2007 to 2008? It went from $1,873,000 to $4,628,000 in one year.
Quote from: Nik on April 30, 2010, 03:27:43 PM
What in the world happened with the EMSA expenditures from 2007 to 2008? It went from $1,873,000 to $4,628,000 in one year.
They got their dedicated little tax on our water bill then went and spent it. Talk about being "white trash rich".
Quote from: Conan71 on April 30, 2010, 03:37:56 PM
They got their dedicated little tax on our water bill then went and spent it. Talk about being "white trash rich".
Any idea what they spent it on?
Get ready for this.
When is a fee not a tax? On the bottom line is written all this will be passed on to the ratepayers and given to the blotted city bureaucrats'. $50 tax on every small business will require creating another city department to implement it and see it is collected. Look at the yellow pages in the phone directly and surmise how many more city employees would have to be hired. Course Turner would volunteer as this is assumed to be his line of thought for additional taxes.
Quote from: shadows on May 01, 2010, 12:42:42 AM
Get ready for this.
When is a fee not a tax? On the bottom line is written all this will be passed on to the ratepayers and given to the blotted city bureaucrats'. $50 tax on every small business will require creating another city department to implement it and see it is collected. Look at the yellow pages in the phone directly and surmise how many more city employees would have to be hired. Course Turner would volunteer as this is assumed to be his line of thought for additional taxes.
Hoo boy...
Quote from: Hoss on May 01, 2010, 01:09:49 AM
Hoo boy...
Hoo boy all you want, but if all the new fees are implemented, it's gonna cost me $185 a year.
Quote from: nathanm on May 01, 2010, 01:16:42 AM
Hoo boy all you want, but if all the new fees are implemented, it's gonna cost me $185 a year.
Awww. Can't find an evil rich person to pay your share instead? ;)
I completely disagree with the $50 tax for businesses. I think raising rates for fire/alarm is a better solution, as well as raising rates for water the city sells to suburbs and outlying communities. Why is that not being looked at as an additional revenue source?
Quote from: nathanm on May 01, 2010, 01:16:42 AM
Hoo boy all you want, but if all the new fees are implemented, it's gonna cost me $185 a year.
That's only $.51/day. Give up a trip to the vending machine for the good of the city.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 01, 2010, 06:37:07 PM
That's only $.51/day. Give up a trip to the vending machine for the good of the city.
I'm not complaining, merely explaining that some of us will be hit with each and every one of the proposed fees.
Quote from: nathanm on May 01, 2010, 11:11:50 PM
I'm not complaining, merely explaining that some of us will be hit with each and every one of the proposed fees.
No, you were complaining and you still are. You simply cannot stomach the concept that someone other than the rich needs to chip in to solve the financial problem.
Quote from: guido911 on May 02, 2010, 02:27:34 PM
No, you were complaining and you still are. You simply cannot stomach the concept that someone other than the rich needs to chip in to solve the financial problem.
You may profess to be, but you are not a mind reader. Yes, I'd
rather not spend another nearly $200 a year (who would). If it gets me a better city, so be it. I'd rather Bartlett not be the one to manage it, given that he's proven himself to have quite the one track mind.
I think the issue is that you're projecting. I can remark about the fact that every single one of the fees will impact me without complaining. My only post on the issue was: "if all the new fees are implemented, it's gonna cost me $185 a year." How is that anything more than a statement of fact?
Quote from: nathanm on May 02, 2010, 03:27:12 PM
You may profess to be, but you are not a mind reader. Yes, I'd rather not spend another nearly $200 a year (who would). If it gets me a better city, so be it. I'd rather Bartlett not be the one to manage it, given that he's proven himself to have quite the one track mind.
I think the issue is that you're projecting. I can remark about the fact that every single one of the fees will impact me without complaining. My only post on the issue was: "if all the new fees are implemented, it's gonna cost me $185 a year." How is that anything more than a statement of fact?
Projection? I hardly believe it is a secret around here what my feeling of higher taxes are so I do not need to project them. As for your statement of fact, a person can complain about facts all the time. For example, "It's too damned hot outside to run" may be a statement of fact that I am complaining about.
Quote from: guido911 on May 02, 2010, 06:25:12 PM
For example, "It's too damned hot outside to run" may be a statement of fact that I am complaining about.
That is one possible interpretation. Another would be that you are happy that it is too hot because you don't really like running but do it anyway because it's good for you. Still another interpretation would leave it as a simple statement of fact. (especially if you just said "too hot to run," not "too
damned hot to run". The English language is not a precise machine code that can be interpreted perfectly by the listener.
My point is that while your interpretation is one possible interpretation of my meaning, I say it was otherwise. You don't have to believe me, of course, but you have to admit it seems odd for you to insist that you know better than I do what was going through my head when I wrote that post. Unless you really are psychic, in which case I defer to your better understanding of the subconscious processes going on in my mind.
Quote from: nathanm on May 02, 2010, 07:16:33 PM
That is one possible interpretation. Another would be that you are happy that it is too hot because you don't really like running but do it anyway because it's good for you. Still another interpretation would leave it as a simple statement of fact. (especially if you just said "too hot to run," not "too damned hot to run". The English language is not a precise machine code that can be interpreted perfectly by the listener.
My point is that while your interpretation is one possible interpretation of my meaning, I say it was otherwise. You don't have to believe me, of course, but you have to admit it seems odd for you to insist that you know better than I do what was going through my head when I wrote that post. Unless you really are psychic, in which case I defer to your better understanding of the subconscious processes going on in my mind.
Damn you for thinking things over!
<sarcasm off>