Tonight was the second night of Springfield City University (and my first one since I missed last week for a business trip.) It was very interesting as we discussed the governmental setup of the city and the responsibilities of the two employees who are overseen by the City Council…the City Manager and the City Clerk.
There was a lot of good information but nothing really earth shattering. However, City Manager Bob Cumley told me that even if the city was to go forward with a sales tax increase proposal it would not be able to get voted on by the citizens and be in place to stop the 7% cuts planned for the city’s budget. So it’s important for citizens to pay attention to the upcoming budget process and make sure their voice is heard when the City Manager makes his recommendations to the City Council.
The cuts cannot be avoided because of the city’s need to contribute $5.2 million to the police and fire pension fund. Mr. Cumley said tonight that if it was not for that contribution, the city could have a balanced budget without making cuts to services.
Jason, I have no way of knowing whether this is a direct quote from Cumley or not but it isn’t exactly accurate. You may have misunderstood him or it may be exactly as you wrote it, you’ll have to respond to that and if this is an accurate report of what Cumley told you then HE would need to respond to it. When you wrote:
“City Manager Bob Cumley told me that even if the city was to go forward with a sales tax increase proposal it would not be able to get voted on by the citizens and be in place to stop the 7% cuts planned for the city’s budget. ”
This isn’t exactly true because the City WANTS to pay the actuarial amount this year because it will only increase year after year, in other words, if they don’t pay the $5 million plus this year they’ll have to pay more than that next year.
Mike Brothers, of the public information office wrote in an email response to me that “we’re coming up on the end of the first year and the start of the second” and he said that is the way Cumley presented it during the class last night. Brothers also said that according to state law the actuarial recommendation does NOT have to be met this year, therefore, the characterization that “a sales tax increase proposal would not be able to get voted on by the citizens and be in place to stop the 7% cuts planned for the city’s budget, ” if indeed the only reason for the cuts is as reported and only made in order to fund the actuarial recommendation is not exactly right. The fact is, if it is the end of the first year, as Cumley said, there actually WOULD be time for a vote on a sales tax increase. If they put off cuts this year in hopes that a sales tax would be approved by voters, depending on the sales tax increase, it would determine the percentage rate of cuts necessary, if any were necessary at all.
So, is that what Cumley said? And if it is, why do you suppose he would present it that way?
Interesting post, Jackie. So you’re not at an event…with zero first hand knowledge of a conversation…and then you come in here and tell me that what I posted wasn’t accurate?
I asked Cumley to assume the tax would pass and if that could be put before the voters in time to stop the 7% cut. This was after he said without the 5.2 Mil the city could balance this year’s budget without cuts. He said that it would not be able to be in place in time to stop the cuts in this year’s budget.
Your post goes on to say things like “put off the cuts this year” and makes the assumption that cuts are not going to be put in place this year. My post said nothing about the future and nothing about putting off the cuts. I asked about the 7% cuts which are planned for this year’s budget and Cumley said a tax could not be in place to off-set those cuts for the budget.
“the City WANTS to pay the actuarial amount this year because it will only increase year after year, in other words, if they don’t pay the $5 million plus this year they’ll have to pay more than that next year” is right. They could put it off and pay more next year. However, that’s not their plan and that’s not the actions that have been taken. Under the way things are, Jackie, a tax couldn’t stop cuts for this year.
Jason, it wasn’t at all my intent to suggest that you posted something inaccurate. I really didn’t know what to do. On the one hand, I WASN’T there and didn’t hear it first hand so I was trying to give Cumley the benefit of the doubt, on the other hand I would also like to give you the benefit of the doubt. I suspected you’d take it the wrong way and your clarification goes a long way toward settling the issue, if you had provided that context in the first place I might not have questioned it at all, but you didn’t provide the context, Jason, and not having been there I was in the position of relying on you for the information, the information you gave was all I had and it was the information you gave that I responded to.
Based on the original information you gave, not your further clarification, I felt it wasn’t accurate, not necessarily YOUR account, but, if not misunderstood (or later the context clarified) the information given by Cumley. You are absolutely correct in stating that I wasn’t there and have no first hand knowledge of the exchange, that’s why I tried to be so careful, I was trying very hard not to assume anything and just replying to the information you gave as though you had given all the information. I didn’t want to assume you misunderstood Cumley nor did I want to assume that Cumley misrepresented the issue. Either way it wasn’t a good position for me and I recognize that either way it isn’t a good position for you. I’m sorry about that, the most important thing, the thing that should trump all for all of us who share such information should be getting accurate facts out. I do wish you had provided the context in your original posting, it likely could have kept us from having this exchange in the first place.
Further, I didn’t have to be at the event to read what you reported about it and comment on it, Jason. I attended the media budget briefing and that’s how I got what background understanding I have on the issue and that gave me the ability to question Cumley’s statement (as originally reported) and respond to it.
There certainly IS another way to look at it when you realize the actuarial recommendation does not HAVE to be met this year, or even next year, for that matter. If it does not HAVE to be met this year then really, in reality budget cuts don’t HAVE to be made this year either, with or without voter approval of a new sales tax. What the City wants is what the City wants, the requirements under State law are requirements under State law and there is a difference. Don’t you think that was an important aspect to consider? I mean, if you are interested in a complete look at the issue, and certainly I don’t pretend to have the market on all the facts, I just felt and still feel that as originally presented, before you clarified that you and Cumley were talking about IF the actuarial recommendation is paid this year that the cuts would be necessary, it wasn’t taking into consideration that it doesn’t have to be paid this year.
In everything you originally wrote about it you didn’t state anything about this year, Jason. You wrote:
“The cuts cannot be avoided because of the city’s need to contribute $5.2 million to the police and fire pension fund. Mr. Cumley said tonight that if it was not for that contribution, the city could have a balanced budget without making cuts to services.”
The city absolutely needs to contribute an actuarial recommendation in the next four years. They don’t “NEED” to contribute $5.2 million THIS year, per se, meaning that they could have a balanced budget this year, not make cuts to services and opt not to pay it to wait and see whether the option of sales tax revenue comes into play later and that sales tax, depending on the percentage, might actually give the city the benefit of not having to make such drastic cuts later on. Is it okay for me to write that? I hope so, I think it is an important distinction.
…and I should have been referring to next year’s budget, not this years. Oops.
According to a Gary Deaver interview that I read on this very web site the city has a balanced budget and there is NO such thing as deficit spending in the budget.
My how the tide is turning even though I knew I was correct to begin with.
Where’s the deficit spending? They’re making the cuts across the board to cover the amount of the contribution so the budget is balanced.
They have a debt of 140 million just to the pension plan, I won’t bore you with the rest of the cities debt load, of which had this money actually been placed into the pension plan instead of spent on GOD knows what throughout the city there wouldn’t be this need to make sure money is placed into the pension system. Semantics on how one defines what a deficit is is mindless, the fact remains the city is spending cash it doesn’t have, it loans out money through the UNA that has an indefinite payback period at little or NO interest to those that are borrowing it except for the taxpayers that are funding it.
The city misappropriated the pension money and created a scenario where they are now FORCED to fund the pension, had the state auditors office not brought this out in the audit the city would have continued business as usual and continued to not fund their portion. Perhaps next time they won’t promise something that cannot possibly be kept.
Taking about 50% of the spending that comes out of the general revenue for the park system would go a long way to helping this situation, however the city doesn’t seem prepared to do without some park improvements they would much rather try to pass a tax increase to the people which will not garner them the amount of money they think.
People in surrounding areas don’t need Springfield as much now as they used to so revenues into the coffers will continue to decline especially if cost don’t come back down.
Saying our city has a balanced budget is akin to all those Bill Clinton supporters trying to proclaim the federal government had a balanced budget when in all reality the nation was 5.5 trillion in debt. One never knows if the budget is balanced until the year end receipts are produced and a comparison of revenue vs expenditures is tallied.