EMSA Tax wasn't even needed

[Wrinkle]

Sales Tax Revenues Sore


Just the Feb 16-March 15 period overage was enough to pay the EMSA bill ($2.3M). At the time Councilors voted, the City had a surplus of $6.6 Million, before an additional $2.3 Million from the period above.

OK, Council, raise your hand if you knew the City had a $6.6 Million surplus when you voted.

[Wrinkle]

You have missed the point entirely.

[DM]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

You have missed the point entirely.

No, I think ricecake hit it right on. No one can really complain about the EMSA deal. Because you can always opt out of it. Personally I would rather pay the 2 or 3 bucks and our city still have the surplus for other things that this city needs. That money could go for roads, schools, police, etc. or like ricecake said, some sort of rainy day fund.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by DM

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

You have missed the point entirely.

No, I think ricecake hit it right on. No one can really complain about the EMSA deal. Because you can always opt out of it. Personally I would rather pay the 2 or 3 bucks and our city still have the surplus for other things that this city needs. That money could go for roads, schools, police, etc. or like ricecake said, some sort of rainy day fund.

DM and ricecake are correct. Funding emergency services strictly on sales taxes is too volatile. The most appropriate dedicated funding source would be a small property tax, which I think is in the works (would require legislation from the State to allow that to happen). The EMSA charge on the utility bill is supposed to be a stop-gap measure until a more permanent stable funding source is identified.

Wrinkle, your argument is like saying "last Friday night I walked out of the casino with $100 more than I came with, so gambling is a great way to put food on my table." Sales tax revenues the previous month declined in part because lousy weather kept shoppers at home. Too much of a roll of the dice for funding something as critical as ambulance service IMO.

[Wrinkle]

You said yourself it was a stopgap measure to get over the hump. Marketed as an 'emergency' clause because there was not time for a vote.

And, done while a pile of $6.6 Million sat idly by. Now, that's $8.9 Million.

Even if they had used it to pay the EMSA thing, they'd still have an unallocated $6.6 Million looking for a cause. At the rate we're going, two more months will provide another $5 Million of excess revenues before the bill even needs to be paid.

We were lied to persistently to achieve an administration directive. Not uncommon around here, but none the less unacceptable.

The water bill tax should never have happened.
I don't think you can rationalize this one.

[Wrinkle]

quote: What happens when sales tax revenues drop?

We're not talking about future revenues, we're talking about cash in hand.

It's supposedly a one time, annual, deficiency being made up by the water bill. Ostensibly, it 'buys' enough time for the situation to be evaluated and a permenent solution considered and implemented if necessary.

If you're trying to suggest revenues could drop below projections, we now have enough history to prove the projections were low to begin with. It would take a Katrina for revenues to drop to the point a loss against projections could occur. (we are 9 months into the projection).

Besides, if you want the City to have your money so much, send them a personal check.

[RecycleMichael]

The city has 6.6 million dollars more than they budgeted at the end of the year is not uncommon. It is only about one percent of the overall city budget.

I am glad that there is some extra. The budget guys should be a little pessimistic in revenue and getting that close is admirable.

I think paying for EMSA on a utility bill is OK. I would much rather do it this way with an chance to opt out than to try to take it from the general fund.

[shadows]

The EMSA water billing will produce twice the amount needed and much more this next year.

The $1,100 per run if one opt out is no more than a black mail threat.

The unanswered question is "who owns EMSA?' (If is a public stock issue it is the top climbers}

Where did they get the power to dictate the terms for each city in the Metro Area or State?

Why is Tulsa buying them rolling stock?

The FD has trained paramedics' and are first responders.  Is it they don't have any trained  drivers?

Is it spelled "bureaucracy?"  

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

The city has 6.6 million dollars more than they budgeted at the end of the year is not uncommon. It is only about one percent of the overall city budget.

And now the councilors are wanting to help themselves to a little of that surplus.  I'm sure it weighed in on the at-will employee pay raises as well.

I do agree though that the sales tax surplus and EMSA are two different issues.

[Wrinkle]

quote: I do agree though that the sales tax surplus and EMSA are two different issues.

I guess I'm not yet speaking clearly enough.

It isn't about EMSA. EMSA sent Mayor Taylor a 'bill' for $2.3 Million, just like Office Depot might send the City a bill for sixty tons of paper clips. Whether it valid was never really considered, just how to pay. Supposedly, this 'emergency' provision is stop-gap to provide time for evaluation, promotion of a potential permanent solution...and, a vote.

Mayor Taylor couldn't see any way to pay that one-time 'emergency' bill, along with the regular telephone, electric, insurance and subscriptions to 'Sun-n-Sea', other than to heap it onto the water bill. The Council, for reasons not clear, concurred.

At the same time, $6.6 Million (now $8.9 Million and, if revenues continue at the current rate, will be almost $15 Million by the time the bill has to be paid) in unallocated CASH sat idly by. What percentage that represents of the total budget is irrelevant.

So, tell me, just what is the purpose of surplus revenue if not for one-time, 'unexpected', unallocated annual expenses of 'emergency' nature?

She could've easily paid the bill, still have around $12.7 Million in unallocated CASH and not encumbered, mostly the lower income, citizens of this City with another tax.

Whether EMSA needs it IS another issue entirely.
And, with THIS temp solution, that issue can begin to be debated.

[RecycleMichael]

It is wrong to blame the mayor for this. First, it was a city council decision, not hers.

They looked at lots of other funding ideas, but decided on using the water bill. I talked to three different councilors about this issue months before they decided it.

Secondly, this issue has been around longer than she has been mayor. Councilor Roscoe Turner talked about this upcoming need to find additional monies for EMSA for months before the she even announce to run for election.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

It is wrong to blame the mayor for this. First, it was a city council decision, not hers.

They looked at lots of other funding ideas, but decided on using the water bill. I talked to three different councilors about this issue months before they decided it.

Secondly, this issue has been around longer than she has been mayor. Councilor Roscoe Turner talked about this upcoming need to find additional monies for EMSA for months before the she even announce to run for election.

So, why wasn't there time for a vote, as was contended? It was pushed as an 'emergency'. (we all knew it wasn't, but it was marketed that way).

The bigger question is why it wasn't just paid, along with with the magazine subscriptions? The money was there.

The Mayor made the decision to bring it to the Council in this form. Martinson was the courior. The Council approved it.

In either case, it was deception from the outset.

You'll also notice, despite all the issues of how it is accomodated in the bill (who pays, what happens to apts, what if someone moves, annual subscriptions, etc) there's no sunset provision included.

When is the next meeting on the EMSA issue scheduled? Has a committee yet been formed?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

So, tell me, just what is the purpose of surplus revenue if not for one-time, 'unexpected', unallocated annual expenses of 'emergency' nature?

The point in having a surplus one month is that it is there to offset an 'unexpected' deficit in the next month.

Maybe the Council could have used the surplus to pay EMSA if: a) they had known it was coming, which was impossible to forecast, and b)if they were willing to risk that one time surplus and hold their breath in hopes that there weren't shortfalls in upcoming months.

It was the Council's decision.  They couldn't write EMSA an IOU for money that nobody expected they would have.

This is a perfect example of what people like Councilor Martinson and the Mayor are trying to tell you.  It's risky business to try and run a city on sales tax alone.  Too many peaks and valleys.  The Mayor wants to shift fire protection onto a more stable revenue source, property tax.  It's fun (and often easy) to paint them all as bad guys, but in this case, they seem to have a clear grasp of the problem.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Originally posted by recyclemichael

So, why wasn't there time for a vote, as was contended?

You have a vote.  It's called "opt out".

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

So, tell me, just what is the purpose of surplus revenue if not for one-time, 'unexpected', unallocated annual expenses of 'emergency' nature?

The point in having a surplus one month is that it is there to offset an 'unexpected' deficit in the next month.

Maybe the Council could have used the surplus to pay EMSA if: a) they had known it was coming, which was impossible to forecast, and b)if they were willing to risk that one time surplus and hold their breath in hopes that there weren't shortfalls in upcoming months.

It was the Council's decision.  They couldn't write EMSA an IOU for money that nobody expected they would have.

This is a perfect example of what people like Councilor Martinson and the Mayor are trying to tell you.  It's risky business to try and run a city on sales tax alone.  Too many peaks and valleys.  The Mayor wants to shift fire protection onto a more stable revenue source, property tax.  It's fun (and often easy) to paint them all as bad guys, but in this case, they seem to have a clear grasp of the problem.

There was $2.3 Million surplus just in the Feb 16-March 15 period, prior to that $6.6 Million was available (known at the time of the Council vote). They didn't need to 'know it was coming', it was easily there, in CASH.

There's three months left in the Fiscal Year.

Over 9 months, we've accquired about a $9 Million surplus, so it's not too far out there to suggest another $3 Million might manifest itself before Fiscal Year end.

Funny, turns out we didn't even need to raise the water/sewer/stormwater rates to meet the $5 Million anticipated budget shortfall last year. We'd still be $5-$10 Million ahead, even after paying the EMSA thing, which, incidentally, is actually an expense for NEXT year's budget.

As for 'risky business', the City's been doing it on sales tax for a hundred years or so. If they're not up to it, perhaps we should get someone who is.