In case you didn’t hear the news, the Springfield City Council has rejected the idea of collecting a property tax that was proposed to the Council by City Manager Bob Cumley. After the Council found out from City Attorney Dan Wichmer that they would have to re-write the ordinance the majority of Council members said they did not even want to try and do it. I think Councilwoman Rushefsky said it best when she said “It won’t bring in an amount of money to warrant the aggravation it will bring.”
I was very surprised by the voice of dissent in the meeting…Councilman Dan Chiles. If you had told me that one Council member wanted to collect the tax while the rest rejected it Dan Chiles would not have even entered my mind as the one Council member who would suggest collecting it. Now, I haven’t been able to talk to Councilman Chiles yet about it although the News-Leader says his reasoning was that “the property tax would generate enough to help restore some proposed police and fire personnel cuts and reduce cuts to nonprofit groups the city supports.”
I have a few thoughts but I’m going to hold off until I can talk to Councilman Chiles directly about the issue (and then post here about the conversation. I was unable to reach him this afternoon.) I’m very sympathetic to his views on lessening the cut to area non-profits but I also think they need to share in the burden of the budget cuts like everyone else is having to do.
There were many suggestions among the Council members regarding what to do with a $758,000 “surplus” left over after all the suggested cuts would be put in place. Councilman Manley and Councilwoman Collette both thought a contingency fund for future problems would be the best idea. Councilman Wylie suggested that $500,000 of it go into street maintenance because if “It’s going to cost us big time if we keep putting that maintenance off.”
Councilman Chiles suggested dropping the cuts to non-profits. “We should restore their budgets, and next year decrease it if we have to.”
While I’m sympathetic to Councilman Chiles’ position, I think the best suggestion I heard came from Councilman Burlison who said the money should go to help reduce the loss of 20 police officers and five fire personnel through attrition. “If not 100 percent, I’d like to see a large part of that money go that way,” Burlison said and I completely agree with him on that point. Police and fire have to be a priority more than just when the city has to make a contribution to the pension plan.
But…back to Councilman Chiles’ issue…the News Leader talked about an idea from Deputy City Manager Evelyn Honea regarding a “more equitable way” to reduce city support to the non-profit organizations: either an 11 percent cut to a group’s overall budget or a 50 percent cut in the amount the city provides. If that can work under the new plan and still allow for reducing the losses of police and fire personnel then I could get on board with that plan.
Changes are going to be discussed next Tuesday.
