Showing posts with label Budget Planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Budget Planning. Show all posts

Friday, June 14, 2013

Budget Time!

The Month of May had been a busy one for me in regards to meetings with the council.  Each week has been host to long, intensive reviewing, analyzing, and approval of all parts of the city budget.  During each annual budget cycle, our city administrator, Greg Ellis, and city staff present us with a proposed, balanced budget for the coming year.  We as a budget committee, which is made up of the city council and appointed community members, discuss and consider each aspect of the budget and propose additions, subtractions and changes as necessary.

My role in these proceedings is to provide my opinion, insight, history, and feedback for the budget topics.  I only vote on the budget if it results in a split vote among the councilors and budget committee.

We have also had similar meetings to discuss and approve the URD budget as well.

The result is our 2013-2014 proposed budget.

But these budgets are not final yet. To view the proposed city budget, please click here.  This budget also includes the budget for the URD (Urban Renewal District).  If you want to be involved, study this budget!  We will be voting for all parts of this budget on Wednesday, June 19th, 2013.  I urge you to attend and voice your opinion.  Some points of interest on this budget include:
  • In the URD budget we have money budgeted for several projects:
    • Quiet Zones (click here for a blog post I did on the topic in August 2012).  This amount has come down considerably from last year, yet I am still not a fan of this project.
    • Continued Facade improvement program
    • Purchase of additional park land
    • The creation of a revolving loan fund (low interest loan) for business capital improvements
    • Omission from last year's URD budget is funding of our plan to improve 99E (read my previous article on 99E by clicking here)
  • The City Budget:
    • Increased revenue that did not keep up with expenses namely, health care expenses and PERS, which resulted in decreases in all departments
    • $70,000 for the library to continue to meet current operating hours so they do not roll back to the district minimum
    • Conversation of making Transit director for CAT a paid city employee position versus contracting that service out
    • Moving CAT from downtown to another building at a cost of $72,000/yr
If these items and a host of others are of interest, I can't stress enough how important it is to get involved.  I know it can't be easy to come before the council to state a position.  

As always, you can always email or call me directly with your questions or concerns.  I look forward to seeing you next week.

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Will We Go Bankrupt? Not Likely...

I have been MIA the last month or so and I apologize.  There has been so much going on personally that blogging has had to fall to the wayside.  I will get you all caught up very soon on all that is going on in the world as it relates to Canby.  In the meantime, here is something I found to be very important to know about our state as it relates to California.

I recently read a new article about the city of Stockton, California on the verge of bankruptcy due to their $900 MILLION obligation to CalPERS, their PERS (Public Employees Retirement System).  They cannot meet it at all!  It's a scary thought when you look across the country and see this happening across the board.  Here in Canby, we are anticipating about a $750,000 PERS/benefits impact to the city budget and the school district is looking at about a $2 MILLION impact.

The state legislature has several PERS reform bills in the pipeline where the savings will go directly to the State's school budget.  It's been a topic of argument and contention among Republicas & Democrats.  I urge you to read about these reform bills that are being proposed.

With budget issues looming like PERS increases coming in the next couple of years, the question must be asked:  Can Oregon Municipalities File For Bankruptcy?  Technically, no  It is against the law.  Who knew?

I  first learned of the Stockton story on Twitter and tweeted - "Stockton owes $900 Million!  Largest city to declare bankruptcy?  Is OR going to be 1st State?  Paging bold OR leaders! #orleg"

I was quickly informed by a Twitter follower, Oregon Oracle, that we could not go bankrupt and laid out why.  Here is their response:
The article states that in Stockton, California, a city of 300,000 residents, has become the largest US city ever to enter bankruptcy. That left a lot of Oregonians wondering when Portland, Eugene, Salem or other Beaver State cities might follow suit. Not to mention Southern Oregon counties laying off deputy sheriffs and school districts hemorrhaging teachers every budget cycle.

The short answer to the question is “Never,” or at least, “Not now.” The answer has less to do with economic doldrums, crushing PERS costs or “imbalanced tax structure” and everything to do with the technical requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. Neither Portland nor Curry County will be declaring bankruptcy anytime soon because unlike California, Oregon municipalities may not legally do so.

While too many Oregonians may be familiar with chapters 7 and 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, and our struggling businesses know about chapter 11, most people have not heard of chapter 9, which codified the Municipal Bankruptcy Act in 1937, enacted at the end of the Great Depression. Chapter 9 permits a “municipality” to file for relief under the chapter. The term “municipality” is defined in the Bankruptcy Code as a “political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State.” That definition is broad enough to include cities, counties, townships, school districts, and public improvement districts. It also includes revenue-producing bodies that provide services which are paid for by users rather than by general taxes, such as bridge authorities, highway authorities, and gas authorities.

The article goes on to stress that  there are several legal hurdles a municipality must clear before filing is allowed. Before ever reaching the issues relating to insolvency, the municipality first must be specifically authorized to be a debtor by state law or by a governmental officer or organization empowered by State law to authorize the municipality to be a debtor. And that is what separates Oregon from California.
bankruptcy_monopoly
The Golden State is one of only twelve states whose laws expressly authorize municipalities to file under Chapter 9. Arizona is another. Other states, such as Washington and Idaho, authorize taxing districts in their states to file petitions for chapter 9 bankruptcy provided that the taxing district adopts a resolution to authorize the filing. But Oregon remains silent on the issue; and with the requirement that permission must be expressly authorized, silence is as good as a denial.

So, the next time you hear a politician, bureaucrat, political activist or media member asking rhetorically when Oregon cities will follow California’s into Chapter 9 bankruptcy, you can give them the correct answer, which is, under current state law, no Oregon city or county may file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. I did that last year to a speaker talking about how mounting PERS costs were crushing school districts. While I agreed with his fiscal analysis, he did not appreciate being caught in a public presentation unaware of Oregon’s lack of authorization for Chapter 9 filings. Don’t be that person.

Ultimately, I think this topic brings up a good awareness of the issue of budgetary concerns for our elected officials.

So now you are armed for your next dinner party or political interview or if you want to stump a local politician at a local campaign stop.  Until next time...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...