I asked a simple question at the Morristown City Council meeting on November 16.
Short Question: Are some city residents paying the garbage fee while other city residents are not?
Short Answer: Yes.
My question and City Administrator Tony Cox's response were not reported in the "news"paper, but two days later Bob Moore had a front page article trying to provide cover for the fact that the City of Morristown is charging the new $10/month garbage fee to some city residents but not to others.
After this came out on November 16, Moore talked to Asst. City Administrator Buddy Fielder. Fielder apparently said that the city's billing system is 95% complete and added that the City is resolving all MUS-related bills before addressing billing difficulties in the Alpha-Talbott, Witt, and Russellville-Whitesburg utility districts.
For some reason, Moore didn't describe the billing difficulties that the City needs to address in AT, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts. Why?
As soon as Fielder said there were billing difficulties with AT, Witt, and RV-WB, a reporter would ask certain obvious questions especially for a front-page news article: What are the billing difficulties with AT, Witt, and RV-WB? What are you doing to address these difficulties? When will these difficulties be resolved?
But IF Moore had asked the obvious questions, then Fielder's statement about billing difficulties in the Alpha, Witt, or RV-WB utility districts would have unraveled.
There are no current billing difficulties to address with the Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts. Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB have NOT sent a single bill for the city's garbage fee to city residents in their areas because the City has NOT yet asked or authorized them to add the city's garbage fee to water bills of city residents.
Moore, in my opinion, wrote the article solely or primarily to allow the City to provide front-page "spin" for its actions in billing some residents and not others. To make sure that the City had free rein to "spin" its response, Moore adopted a new journalism standard that could be described as "don't ask (the obvious questions) and don't tell (what's really going on)." Just front-page governmental "spin."
What we have is the City directing MUS to jump in and add the $10/month garbage fee to water bills for city residents in September 2010, but the City did NOT and still has NOT (as of November 16) directed or authorized AT, Witt, or RV-WB to add the $10/month garbage fee to water bills for city residents in September or in October or in November. Why start billing some but not others?
Assistant City Administrator Buddy Fielder said that City residents who weren't billed for September, October, and November won't be charged for past service. "Those were issues on our part, not on their part....I don't think it makes sense to do that."
As a matter of fairness, Fielder is probably right that the City should not go back and try to collect past garbage fees from city residents who didn't receive a garbage fee on their utility bill because of the city's "issues." Especially when the "issue" in this whole thing is that the City didn't even try to bill city residents served by AT, Witt, or RV-WB.
But what do Fielder and City Administrator Tony Cox and Mayor Barile and City Councilmembers think about the flip-side of this mess? What about those city residents who did receive a bill and who did pay the $10/month garbage fee for a service that others didn't pay for? What's fair for them?
Just looking at what's fair and addressing some potential legal problems in this "charge some/don't charge others" situation, the City should stop billing the garbage fee to city residents served by MUS until the city residents served by Alpha, Witt, and RV-WB utility districts have been billed an equal number of months.
After all city residents served by Alpha, Witt, RV-WB utilities have been billed for the same number of months that MUS customers have already been billed for, then billing of city customers thru MUS would resume.
Sadly, this post is about proper billing of a new garbage fee instead of the fee itself. The new garbage fee is the city's poster child for years and years of financial mismanagement and an almost total lack of accountability.
The new garbage fee is nothing more than a way for the Mayor and City Council to take more money from the citizens and use that money for pet projects--like brick pavers on city roads--while providing financial cover for the problems brought about by years of financial mismanagement, sweetheart deals, and illegal money switcheroos.
It's not rocket science. Mayor Sami Barile and City Council wanted more of "other people's money" so they decided to make city residents start paying a separate and new "fee" for garbage pick-up, a service which used to be provided thru property taxes and other city revenues.
[The only person to vote against the new $10/month garbage fee was Councilman Gene Brooks.]
Of course, making the taxpayers shoulder the financial burden created by the Mayor and City Council's years of financial mismanagement, neglect, and lack of accountability is nothing new.
Let's see...property tax increase in 2007, sales tax increase in 2008, red light cameras, sewer increases almost every year, and now a new garbage fee! Next year?
Showing posts with label property tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label property tax. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
July 7, 2010 First Reading: City Tax Rate Is Increased from $0.98 to $1.05; Garbage Fee of $10/month Is Still in Place
With a 7-0 vote, Mayor Barile and City Council "increased" the City of Morristown property tax rate from $0.98 to $1.05 on first reading yesterday. The second and final reading will take place tomorrow (Thursday, July 8) at a special called meeting at 4:00 at the City Center.
This amended and increased rate comes just a little over two weeks after the property tax rate was first set at $0.98 on June 17 AND a $10/month garbage fee was voted in for residents of Morristown.
The new garbage "fee"--forcing residents to start paying a separate "fee" for garbage pick-up that has previously been a service paid for by taxes--was put in by Mayor Barile and Councilmembers Bob Garrett, Claude Jinks, Kay Senter, and Doc Rooney. Councilmember Frank McGuffin "abstained" on the garbage vote due to a potential conflict of interest in that his family owns a garbage service (Tidi-Waste). Councilmember Gene Brooks voted "no" on the garbage fee.
Why a new garbage "fee"? Mismanagement, waste, illegal money transfers, excessive and unnecessary spending, loads of debt, violations of the City Charter, $100 Million dollar wish lists, and on and on.
Higher property taxes (2007), increased sales taxes (from the 2008 "pick-your-poison" sales tax referendum), red light camera revenues, and illegal money transfers (taking money from the sewer fund and putting it in the general fund to "cover" for financial mismanagement) no longer did the financial trick at the City Center.
Since Mayor Barile, Garrett, Jinks, Rooney, and Senter didn't want to repeat any of the recent previous tax hikes/revenue "enhancements," they came up with a brand new "fee" to take an extra $1 million from the residents of Morristown.
And the $10/month starter rate is just a way for the Mayor and Council to get their foot in the door and get residents used to paying a fee for garbage pick-up even though there has not been any additional charge for garbage pick-up in previous years.
Watch out! In the coming years--- if the Mayor, Council, and City Administrator do what they have said they are going to do (pull all tax money from the sanitation fund so they can spend that tax money elsewhere and collect a garbage "fee")-- then the garbage "fee" of $10/month will end up being $17 or $18 per month or more.
This amended and increased rate comes just a little over two weeks after the property tax rate was first set at $0.98 on June 17 AND a $10/month garbage fee was voted in for residents of Morristown.
The new garbage "fee"--forcing residents to start paying a separate "fee" for garbage pick-up that has previously been a service paid for by taxes--was put in by Mayor Barile and Councilmembers Bob Garrett, Claude Jinks, Kay Senter, and Doc Rooney. Councilmember Frank McGuffin "abstained" on the garbage vote due to a potential conflict of interest in that his family owns a garbage service (Tidi-Waste). Councilmember Gene Brooks voted "no" on the garbage fee.
Why a new garbage "fee"? Mismanagement, waste, illegal money transfers, excessive and unnecessary spending, loads of debt, violations of the City Charter, $100 Million dollar wish lists, and on and on.
Higher property taxes (2007), increased sales taxes (from the 2008 "pick-your-poison" sales tax referendum), red light camera revenues, and illegal money transfers (taking money from the sewer fund and putting it in the general fund to "cover" for financial mismanagement) no longer did the financial trick at the City Center.
Since Mayor Barile, Garrett, Jinks, Rooney, and Senter didn't want to repeat any of the recent previous tax hikes/revenue "enhancements," they came up with a brand new "fee" to take an extra $1 million from the residents of Morristown.
And the $10/month starter rate is just a way for the Mayor and Council to get their foot in the door and get residents used to paying a fee for garbage pick-up even though there has not been any additional charge for garbage pick-up in previous years.
Watch out! In the coming years--- if the Mayor, Council, and City Administrator do what they have said they are going to do (pull all tax money from the sanitation fund so they can spend that tax money elsewhere and collect a garbage "fee")-- then the garbage "fee" of $10/month will end up being $17 or $18 per month or more.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
June 22, 2010 Stancil Cancels Tax Levy and Budget Vote
During public comments at the beginning of yesterday's meeting of the Hamblen County Commission, I pointed out to Chairman Stancil Ford and all commissioners that there is currently no certified tax rate for Hamblen County. I noted that Commissioners could not vote on a tax rate or budget yesterday since they are still waiting for the certified tax rate. [Ironically, it was Stancil Ford who had changed Commission's regular meeting date to June 21 just so he could try and push a tax and budget vote through quickly.]
As the tax rate and budget discussion begain toward the end of the meeting, Ford acknowledged that there is no certified rate and admitted that the budget and tax rate could not be voted on at this meeting. Bill Brittain said that appeals of appraisals were just ending, and he thought that a proposed certified tax rate might go to the state on Friday and perhaps be approved by the state on Monday, June 28, after which a vote on the tax rate and budget could be taken.
What's funny in all this is that it was Chairman Ford who created all the uproar by changing the regular meeting date from June 24 to June 21. As usual, haste makes waste. No matter how quickly Ford wants to push a budget and tax rate through, state law requires that certain procedures be followed and, in re-appraisal years, the certified tax rate must be set prior to tax rate and budget votes.
Stancil and all commissioners need to realize the importance in taking time to do things right and even check the math before attempting to pass a tax rate levy and a budget.
Just how important is it to get the certified tax rate and check the math in Hamblen County? In 2005, it was worth ONE MILLION DOLLARS in savings to taxpayers.
During the last re-appraisal year (2005), I was on County Commission. We received the certified tax rate in our budget packets, and the Finance Director, Trustee, Assessor, and County Mayor were using that certified tax rate in budget calculations. Just after one quick look at the "certified" tax rate that was being used, I knew something was wrong. It was clearly too high. I pulled out the old pencil and paper, checked the math, and found that the certified rate was indeed incorrect and that the miscalculated rate would result in overtaxing the property owners in Hamblen County in the amount of more than ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
I brought this miscalculation and tax overcharge to the attention of Assessor Keith Ely. Ely then pointed out the miscalculation that I had found to the state. After my one question, the 2005 tax rate was recalculated and the certified tax rate was reduced by about 10 cents, saving the taxpayers of Hamblen County over ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
Haste makes waste. Trust but verify. Follow state law--it is there for a reason.
As the tax rate and budget discussion begain toward the end of the meeting, Ford acknowledged that there is no certified rate and admitted that the budget and tax rate could not be voted on at this meeting. Bill Brittain said that appeals of appraisals were just ending, and he thought that a proposed certified tax rate might go to the state on Friday and perhaps be approved by the state on Monday, June 28, after which a vote on the tax rate and budget could be taken.
What's funny in all this is that it was Chairman Ford who created all the uproar by changing the regular meeting date from June 24 to June 21. As usual, haste makes waste. No matter how quickly Ford wants to push a budget and tax rate through, state law requires that certain procedures be followed and, in re-appraisal years, the certified tax rate must be set prior to tax rate and budget votes.
Stancil and all commissioners need to realize the importance in taking time to do things right and even check the math before attempting to pass a tax rate levy and a budget.
Just how important is it to get the certified tax rate and check the math in Hamblen County? In 2005, it was worth ONE MILLION DOLLARS in savings to taxpayers.
During the last re-appraisal year (2005), I was on County Commission. We received the certified tax rate in our budget packets, and the Finance Director, Trustee, Assessor, and County Mayor were using that certified tax rate in budget calculations. Just after one quick look at the "certified" tax rate that was being used, I knew something was wrong. It was clearly too high. I pulled out the old pencil and paper, checked the math, and found that the certified rate was indeed incorrect and that the miscalculated rate would result in overtaxing the property owners in Hamblen County in the amount of more than ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
I brought this miscalculation and tax overcharge to the attention of Assessor Keith Ely. Ely then pointed out the miscalculation that I had found to the state. After my one question, the 2005 tax rate was recalculated and the certified tax rate was reduced by about 10 cents, saving the taxpayers of Hamblen County over ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
Haste makes waste. Trust but verify. Follow state law--it is there for a reason.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
March 16, 2010 Public Notice: City of Morristown Looks To Borrow Up To $4 Million Dollars To Make It Through the Next 4-6 Months
The City of Morristown has gone out looking for money to borrow so it can make it through the end of the current fiscal year. Three years of robbing Peter (sewer fund) to pay Paul (general fund) without authorization or approval isn't going to fly this year,
How much is the City looking to borrow? Oh, anywhere from $2 Million up to $4 Million. Bids or proposals from banks will be opened on March 24.
What's the problem? Not enough cash to pay the bills---especially with debt payments coming up.
Where's the money from the 2008 sales tax increase? The City told you to VOTE YES for the sales tax increase. How's that sales tax increase working out?
Where's the money from the 2007 property tax increase? The City raised the property tax rate by 40-cents, then lowered it by 15-cents after the 2008 sales tax referendum was approved. That's still a 25-cent property tax increase. How's that property tax increase working out?
In less than three years, the City has raised property taxes, has raised the sales tax, has boosted sewer fees out the roof, and has cut expenses (supposedly). And they are still crying for more as they talk about a higher hotel-motel tax and a garbage fee and maybe another property tax hike.
The City taxpayers, trying to stay afloat themselves, sing aloud: "Where has all the money gone?" Good question.
How much is the City looking to borrow? Oh, anywhere from $2 Million up to $4 Million. Bids or proposals from banks will be opened on March 24.
What's the problem? Not enough cash to pay the bills---especially with debt payments coming up.
Where's the money from the 2008 sales tax increase? The City told you to VOTE YES for the sales tax increase. How's that sales tax increase working out?
Where's the money from the 2007 property tax increase? The City raised the property tax rate by 40-cents, then lowered it by 15-cents after the 2008 sales tax referendum was approved. That's still a 25-cent property tax increase. How's that property tax increase working out?
In less than three years, the City has raised property taxes, has raised the sales tax, has boosted sewer fees out the roof, and has cut expenses (supposedly). And they are still crying for more as they talk about a higher hotel-motel tax and a garbage fee and maybe another property tax hike.
The City taxpayers, trying to stay afloat themselves, sing aloud: "Where has all the money gone?" Good question.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
February 28, 2010 City Needs To Borrow $2 Million for April-June Operations + A $2 Million Line of Credit "Just in Case"
More info from last Thursday's City Finance Committee Meeting.
The $2 MILLION "loan" that new City Administator Tony Cox has said that the City must have in order to meet its everyday operating expenses came up. Tony Cox turned the explanation over to Brian Janish, City Budget Director. Click here for Cox's February 11 financial presentation to council and his proposal to get a $2 Million loan to make payroll and pay debt and other expenses through June 30, 2010.
On February 25, Janish said that the city needs to borrow between $2-$4 MILLION to meet its budgeted expenses (payroll, debt, etc) for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Janish added that the city needs to be able to access at least $2 MILLION of these borrowed funds by April 1 with the extra $2 MILLION as a line of credit that is available as, or if, needed.
Since all previous discussion was about a $2 MILLION short-term loan, Kay Senter asked about the extra $2 MILLION that Cox and Janish want as a line of credit.
Janish replied that the extra $2 MILLION is being requested so it can be in place if there is a need without the city having to go back and start another loan process.
Also, for the first time in public, Janish mentioned that the loan/line of credit would include the Sewer Fund in addition to the General Fund. That is an interesting development, but no councilmember asked why the Sewer Fund is being mentioned now in connection with the loan/line of credit.
[In the past three years the Sewer Fund has had excess cash that has been used by the General Fund to meet General Fund operating expenses. What has happened to the Sewer Fund?]
Jinks asked how repayment would be made in six months. Janish said that "after WE borrow the money," it will be up to YOU seven councilmembers to decide how to pay it back.
Janish and Cox then said it will require, drum roll please, "Revenue Enhancements!"
"Revenue Enhancements" is polite political code for "we messed up, now taxes and fees have to go up again."
How were things messed up? Let's look back.
Historic 40-cent property tax increase in the City in 2007. Click here.
Desperate push for sales tax increase in 2008 with a 15-cent rollback in the 40-cent property tax increase. Click here (Feb 2008 countywide sales tax increase defeated) and here (City came back with a city only sales tax referendum that passed).
Big sewer fee increases one after the other. Click here and here.
Council passes 2010 budget in summer of 2009 after City Administrator Jim Crumley recommends cuts of $1.7 Million. Click here.
Crumley canned despite Frank McGuffin's vote against the firing and Mayor Barile's protest that Crumley was being "railroaded." Click here.
Interim Administrator Lynn Wampler comes in and tells Council that they are on the road to bankruptcy (my word) and that the budget that they passed a few months before is a disaster.
Wampler and Council make additional cuts of $900,000 to stave off or at least postpone a deficit situation. Click here.
Mayor Barile admits that the City had no money in reserves (no rainy-day funds) in 2007 and that she and the Council were just becoming aware of this and a lot of other stuff. Click here.
Tony Cox comes in as City Administrator, looks at the finances, and says on February 12 that the City needs to "borrow" at least $2 Million for the General Fund to be able to meet its operational expenses, to pay its debts, and to make it to June 30, 2010, the end of the fiscal year. Click here.
Then on February 25, 2010, Cox and Janish say that the City needs to borrow $2-$4 MILLION for the General Fund AND Sewer Fund--most of which will be used between April and June 2010 and the balance of which will be a line-of-credit "just in case."
How bad could the city's budgeting be if the City can not make it to the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2010) without a $2-$4 MILLION dollar loan?
How can the City add huge amounts of additional taxes (property and sales) and additional fees (sewer) to its budget over the past 2-3 years PLUS make large budget cuts in the summer of 2009 and then more budget cuts in November 2009 but still can't make it to June 30, 2010, without a $2-$4 MILLION loan and line of credit?
Someone from way outside the tight-knit group needs to come in and see what's going on now and what went on in the past.
The budget that the Mayor and Council passed in June 2009 was nothing but a joke on the citizens and taxpayers. Who has to pay for this and the prior budget jokes? The taxpayers, of course.
Look for additional property taxes, new garbage fees, and/or increased stormwater fees---all under the name of "revenue enhancements." And there will be a few cuts, too, so the City will have "cover" to announce that we have looked at everything and made all the cuts we can.
Mayor and Council to taxpayers: Sorry for the mismanagement, but we still have a Wish List and a Master Plan. We have walking trails to build, brick pavers to lay, lots of chrome to buy, and a beautiful cage right in front on the City Center for bad signs! Now pay up.
The $2 MILLION "loan" that new City Administator Tony Cox has said that the City must have in order to meet its everyday operating expenses came up. Tony Cox turned the explanation over to Brian Janish, City Budget Director. Click here for Cox's February 11 financial presentation to council and his proposal to get a $2 Million loan to make payroll and pay debt and other expenses through June 30, 2010.
On February 25, Janish said that the city needs to borrow between $2-$4 MILLION to meet its budgeted expenses (payroll, debt, etc) for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Janish added that the city needs to be able to access at least $2 MILLION of these borrowed funds by April 1 with the extra $2 MILLION as a line of credit that is available as, or if, needed.
Since all previous discussion was about a $2 MILLION short-term loan, Kay Senter asked about the extra $2 MILLION that Cox and Janish want as a line of credit.
Janish replied that the extra $2 MILLION is being requested so it can be in place if there is a need without the city having to go back and start another loan process.
Also, for the first time in public, Janish mentioned that the loan/line of credit would include the Sewer Fund in addition to the General Fund. That is an interesting development, but no councilmember asked why the Sewer Fund is being mentioned now in connection with the loan/line of credit.
[In the past three years the Sewer Fund has had excess cash that has been used by the General Fund to meet General Fund operating expenses. What has happened to the Sewer Fund?]
Jinks asked how repayment would be made in six months. Janish said that "after WE borrow the money," it will be up to YOU seven councilmembers to decide how to pay it back.
Janish and Cox then said it will require, drum roll please, "Revenue Enhancements!"
"Revenue Enhancements" is polite political code for "we messed up, now taxes and fees have to go up again."
How were things messed up? Let's look back.
Historic 40-cent property tax increase in the City in 2007. Click here.
Desperate push for sales tax increase in 2008 with a 15-cent rollback in the 40-cent property tax increase. Click here (Feb 2008 countywide sales tax increase defeated) and here (City came back with a city only sales tax referendum that passed).
Big sewer fee increases one after the other. Click here and here.
Council passes 2010 budget in summer of 2009 after City Administrator Jim Crumley recommends cuts of $1.7 Million. Click here.
Crumley canned despite Frank McGuffin's vote against the firing and Mayor Barile's protest that Crumley was being "railroaded." Click here.
Interim Administrator Lynn Wampler comes in and tells Council that they are on the road to bankruptcy (my word) and that the budget that they passed a few months before is a disaster.
Wampler and Council make additional cuts of $900,000 to stave off or at least postpone a deficit situation. Click here.
Mayor Barile admits that the City had no money in reserves (no rainy-day funds) in 2007 and that she and the Council were just becoming aware of this and a lot of other stuff. Click here.
Tony Cox comes in as City Administrator, looks at the finances, and says on February 12 that the City needs to "borrow" at least $2 Million for the General Fund to be able to meet its operational expenses, to pay its debts, and to make it to June 30, 2010, the end of the fiscal year. Click here.
Then on February 25, 2010, Cox and Janish say that the City needs to borrow $2-$4 MILLION for the General Fund AND Sewer Fund--most of which will be used between April and June 2010 and the balance of which will be a line-of-credit "just in case."
How bad could the city's budgeting be if the City can not make it to the end of the fiscal year (June 30, 2010) without a $2-$4 MILLION dollar loan?
How can the City add huge amounts of additional taxes (property and sales) and additional fees (sewer) to its budget over the past 2-3 years PLUS make large budget cuts in the summer of 2009 and then more budget cuts in November 2009 but still can't make it to June 30, 2010, without a $2-$4 MILLION loan and line of credit?
Someone from way outside the tight-knit group needs to come in and see what's going on now and what went on in the past.
The budget that the Mayor and Council passed in June 2009 was nothing but a joke on the citizens and taxpayers. Who has to pay for this and the prior budget jokes? The taxpayers, of course.
Look for additional property taxes, new garbage fees, and/or increased stormwater fees---all under the name of "revenue enhancements." And there will be a few cuts, too, so the City will have "cover" to announce that we have looked at everything and made all the cuts we can.
Mayor and Council to taxpayers: Sorry for the mismanagement, but we still have a Wish List and a Master Plan. We have walking trails to build, brick pavers to lay, lots of chrome to buy, and a beautiful cage right in front on the City Center for bad signs! Now pay up.
Friday, October 30, 2009
October 30, 2009 Expect a Slow Revelation of Crumley's Handling and Mishandling of City Finances
The City of Morristown is in a financial mess--even more so than was previously admitted or known.
At least some of former City Administrator Jim Crumley's handling and MIShandling of city accounts is gradually coming out. The Mayor and Council may be looking at budget cuts and postponing projects as the true magnitude of the problems with the city's general government fund and sewer fund comes out.
The Trib will probably provide part of the story today.
Mayor Barile, Jim Crumley's staunchest supporter, was concerned in July that Crumley was "railroaded" out of his job, but she voted to "retire" him. Click here.
Councilman Doc Rooney also supported Crumley until it became apparent that the votes were there to "retire" him.
Frank McGuffin supported Crumley even at the end of Crumley's reign, casting the lone vote not to accept Crumley's offer to "retire."
Bob Garrett, Gene Brooks, Kay Senter, and Claude Jinks led the effort to fire Crumley and in the end they accepted Crumley's offer to "retire" with a nice going away package ($145,000+) from the taxpayers.
The Mayor and Council, regardless of their feelings about Crumley and regardless of what has happened in the past, need to look in the mirror and then look at the taxpayers and say never again. Then the Mayor and Council need to take action to lead the city toward true transparency and accountability and FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Forget the smoke and mirrors. Forget the spin.
Crumley was given way too much power to spend the city TAXPAYERS' money however he wanted to. Crumley was given way too much power to shift money around with little or no control and often without even having to make a report as to what he was doing or had already done. There was way too little oversight over his actions. The lack of checks and balances in city government is absurd.
Sure, it's efficient and easy to set a tax rate and then turn over the taxpayers' money to a city administrator. Sure, it's efficient and easy for the Mayor and Council to come to three or four meetings a month and act as a rubber-stamp for a city administrator. Now, we find that this efficient, easy, and laissez-faire style of governance leads to abuse, waste, out-of-control debt, perks for the "good old boys," interest-only payments, and, ultimately, financial disaster.
Mayor Barile was always concerned that asking questions or trying to actually take part in the management of the city's finance would be seen as "micro-managing"! Click here. So instead of asking pertinent questions and following through, the Mayor and councilmembers are just now finding out what a financial mess the City is in.
The system needs to change, so that this situation doesn't repeat itself with a new cast of characters. Policies and procedures should be tightened. A system of checks and balances needs to be put in place.
Strict and accurate financial reporting to the Mayor and Council by the Finance Director, Budget Director, and City Administrator needs to be provided on a monthly basis.
Questions need to be asked about all financial reports, revenue, debt, expenditures. And the Mayor and Council need to insist on answers--not namby-pamby, everything's OK answers, but answers that are backed up by financial reports that are provided to the council monthly and that are put on the city's website for the citizens and taxpayers, too.
You can bet that when there are financial problems, the Mayor and councilmembers will NOT be ponying up their own personal money to pay off the debt or to buy this property or that property or to clean up the sewer debacle. No, the Mayor and councilmembers will turn to others--taxpayers and ratepayers--for the money to take care of the city's finances.
Just since 2007, property taxes in the city have increased 25 cents. Sales taxes have increased by 1/4 cent. Sewer fees have gone up AGAIN. And red-light cameras have been installed to generate even more "revenue."
What happened?
Jim Crumley in 2006 said everything was fine. Click here for his glowing 2006 statement.
Then in 2007 (well BEFORE any national financial problems) Crumley and the council were saying there's a huge problem---a structural deficit in the city's finances. That's when property taxes went sky high. Click here.
Sales taxes went up the next year (mid-2008) as the City used taxpayer-money to help finance a political campaign to encourage city taxpayers to vote for the sales tax increase. In its political campaign to get a YES vote on the sales tax increase, the City used a little bit of what some would call tax "bribery" as the city promised to reduce the previous year's huge 40-cent property tax increase down to "only" a 25-cent increase if people would vote YES in the sales tax referendum. Click here to see the taxpayer-funded vote YES political campaign letters. For more info, click here and here.
The city took the county's "pick-your-poison" wheel tax referendum of years ago to a new level by giving city taxpayers the choice of just one big poison (40-cent property tax increase) or two smaller poisons (25-cent property tax increase plus a 1/4 cent sales increase)!
Of course, red-light cameras were also put up to enhance city coffers---and make an out-of-town company rich, too!
In 2009, sewer fees went up dramatically. Click here.
Where has all this additional revenue gone? When will someone step in and ask for a real, detailed audit of the city finances? The cursory sampling of financial transactions in the yearly audit has limited usefulness. Someone needs to get in there and find out what's really going on.
At least some of former City Administrator Jim Crumley's handling and MIShandling of city accounts is gradually coming out. The Mayor and Council may be looking at budget cuts and postponing projects as the true magnitude of the problems with the city's general government fund and sewer fund comes out.
The Trib will probably provide part of the story today.
Mayor Barile, Jim Crumley's staunchest supporter, was concerned in July that Crumley was "railroaded" out of his job, but she voted to "retire" him. Click here.
Councilman Doc Rooney also supported Crumley until it became apparent that the votes were there to "retire" him.
Frank McGuffin supported Crumley even at the end of Crumley's reign, casting the lone vote not to accept Crumley's offer to "retire."
Bob Garrett, Gene Brooks, Kay Senter, and Claude Jinks led the effort to fire Crumley and in the end they accepted Crumley's offer to "retire" with a nice going away package ($145,000+) from the taxpayers.
The Mayor and Council, regardless of their feelings about Crumley and regardless of what has happened in the past, need to look in the mirror and then look at the taxpayers and say never again. Then the Mayor and Council need to take action to lead the city toward true transparency and accountability and FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Forget the smoke and mirrors. Forget the spin.
Crumley was given way too much power to spend the city TAXPAYERS' money however he wanted to. Crumley was given way too much power to shift money around with little or no control and often without even having to make a report as to what he was doing or had already done. There was way too little oversight over his actions. The lack of checks and balances in city government is absurd.
Sure, it's efficient and easy to set a tax rate and then turn over the taxpayers' money to a city administrator. Sure, it's efficient and easy for the Mayor and Council to come to three or four meetings a month and act as a rubber-stamp for a city administrator. Now, we find that this efficient, easy, and laissez-faire style of governance leads to abuse, waste, out-of-control debt, perks for the "good old boys," interest-only payments, and, ultimately, financial disaster.
Mayor Barile was always concerned that asking questions or trying to actually take part in the management of the city's finance would be seen as "micro-managing"! Click here. So instead of asking pertinent questions and following through, the Mayor and councilmembers are just now finding out what a financial mess the City is in.
The system needs to change, so that this situation doesn't repeat itself with a new cast of characters. Policies and procedures should be tightened. A system of checks and balances needs to be put in place.
Strict and accurate financial reporting to the Mayor and Council by the Finance Director, Budget Director, and City Administrator needs to be provided on a monthly basis.
Questions need to be asked about all financial reports, revenue, debt, expenditures. And the Mayor and Council need to insist on answers--not namby-pamby, everything's OK answers, but answers that are backed up by financial reports that are provided to the council monthly and that are put on the city's website for the citizens and taxpayers, too.
You can bet that when there are financial problems, the Mayor and councilmembers will NOT be ponying up their own personal money to pay off the debt or to buy this property or that property or to clean up the sewer debacle. No, the Mayor and councilmembers will turn to others--taxpayers and ratepayers--for the money to take care of the city's finances.
Just since 2007, property taxes in the city have increased 25 cents. Sales taxes have increased by 1/4 cent. Sewer fees have gone up AGAIN. And red-light cameras have been installed to generate even more "revenue."
What happened?
Jim Crumley in 2006 said everything was fine. Click here for his glowing 2006 statement.
Then in 2007 (well BEFORE any national financial problems) Crumley and the council were saying there's a huge problem---a structural deficit in the city's finances. That's when property taxes went sky high. Click here.
Sales taxes went up the next year (mid-2008) as the City used taxpayer-money to help finance a political campaign to encourage city taxpayers to vote for the sales tax increase. In its political campaign to get a YES vote on the sales tax increase, the City used a little bit of what some would call tax "bribery" as the city promised to reduce the previous year's huge 40-cent property tax increase down to "only" a 25-cent increase if people would vote YES in the sales tax referendum. Click here to see the taxpayer-funded vote YES political campaign letters. For more info, click here and here.
The city took the county's "pick-your-poison" wheel tax referendum of years ago to a new level by giving city taxpayers the choice of just one big poison (40-cent property tax increase) or two smaller poisons (25-cent property tax increase plus a 1/4 cent sales increase)!
Of course, red-light cameras were also put up to enhance city coffers---and make an out-of-town company rich, too!
In 2009, sewer fees went up dramatically. Click here.
Where has all this additional revenue gone? When will someone step in and ask for a real, detailed audit of the city finances? The cursory sampling of financial transactions in the yearly audit has limited usefulness. Someone needs to get in there and find out what's really going on.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
June 3, 2009 After TWO Large Tax Increases, Morristown Is In Deep Financial Trouble
Yesterday's budget session at city council was lengthy as City Administrator Jim Crumley presented cuts of $1,775,700 to the previously proposed 2009-2010 general fund budget. I have already outlined most of those cuts here.
Police officers were in attendance--occupying about one-half of the seats. Several officers spoke out in opposition to a city budget that contains no raises for employees but does have cuts in perfect attendance bonuses, cuts in holiday pay, cuts in longevity pay, and cuts in educational supplements.
It appears that no one is very happy.
Now if we think back to 2006, Crumley was proclaiming that city finances were in great shape and that there would be no tax increase "in the foreseeable future." Click here for Crumley's statements. Be sure to click on the newspaper articles to enlarge them and read for yourself exactly what City Administrator Crumley said in 2006 and then in 2007.
In 2007, Crumley announced that the city was in dire straits and a 40-cent property tax increase was needed. [Yes, the city was about to collapse in 2007--- only one year after Crumley had proclaimed that there would be no tax increase "in the foreseeable future."]
That 40-cent tax increase in 2007 passed under threats of impending doom and collapse.
Then the city, desperately wanting to roll back part of the enormous and historic property tax increase, promised to shave off 15-cents of the increase if city voters would support a sales tax increase in 2008 ("pick your-poison"). The City left 25-cents of the property tax increase on the backs of the taxpayers.
When you put it all together....the City (allegedly) was in great shape in 2006, then the City was in disastrous shape in 2007, and now in 2009 the City---AFTER a property tax increase of 25-cents and AFTER a sales tax increase---is all gloom and doom and making cuts everywhere.
Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?
As I have said before, there needs to be a detailed review of city and county finances by the city council and the county commission. No one needs to be using the old worn-out "I relied on so-and-so" to give me financial information. No one needs to be saying "We are audited." Audits look at just a few of the previous year's financial transactions, so audits at best can only catch a few problems and the problems that are spotted are usually reported at least 8 months--and sometimes 20 months-- after-the-fact.
Questions--probing questions--need to be asked need to be asked at every budget session.
But the simplest and most informative way to find out what's going on would be to institute true zero-based budgeting in both city and county.
I have consistently pushed for this budget model (zero-based) because it allows for a COMPLETE review of each department and justification of each line item at the time the budget is presented. Zero-based budgeting prevents one-time money that is budgeted for a specific purpose in one year from becoming a recurring budget item that is then spent on who knows what in future years.
With zero-based budgeting, you recognize and take one-time budgeted money out of the budget when a temporary employee position is eliminated or when a one-time piece of equipment has been purchased.
An added bonus is that zero-based budgeting is almost like doing an audit or review of the previous year's spending at the same time that you prepare a spending plan for the next year.
Now that would be a nifty way for the Mayor and City Council and for Hamblen County Commissioners to earn their pay, their insurance, their benefits, and perks while they find out what's really being spent and for what!
Council members and commissioners already spend a lot of hours at budget time listening to others "explain" the budget. If council members and commissioners used those same hours to do a true hands-on examination of their respective city and county budgets, they would know far more than they could ever know from just listening to those who have led the city and county into big spending, BIG debt, layer upon layer of administration, and departmental kingdoms with perks, perks, and more perks.
When you run for office and are accountable for millions of dollars, you need to be willing to put in the time!
Police officers were in attendance--occupying about one-half of the seats. Several officers spoke out in opposition to a city budget that contains no raises for employees but does have cuts in perfect attendance bonuses, cuts in holiday pay, cuts in longevity pay, and cuts in educational supplements.
It appears that no one is very happy.
Now if we think back to 2006, Crumley was proclaiming that city finances were in great shape and that there would be no tax increase "in the foreseeable future." Click here for Crumley's statements. Be sure to click on the newspaper articles to enlarge them and read for yourself exactly what City Administrator Crumley said in 2006 and then in 2007.
In 2007, Crumley announced that the city was in dire straits and a 40-cent property tax increase was needed. [Yes, the city was about to collapse in 2007--- only one year after Crumley had proclaimed that there would be no tax increase "in the foreseeable future."]
That 40-cent tax increase in 2007 passed under threats of impending doom and collapse.
Then the city, desperately wanting to roll back part of the enormous and historic property tax increase, promised to shave off 15-cents of the increase if city voters would support a sales tax increase in 2008 ("pick your-poison"). The City left 25-cents of the property tax increase on the backs of the taxpayers.
When you put it all together....the City (allegedly) was in great shape in 2006, then the City was in disastrous shape in 2007, and now in 2009 the City---AFTER a property tax increase of 25-cents and AFTER a sales tax increase---is all gloom and doom and making cuts everywhere.
Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?
As I have said before, there needs to be a detailed review of city and county finances by the city council and the county commission. No one needs to be using the old worn-out "I relied on so-and-so" to give me financial information. No one needs to be saying "We are audited." Audits look at just a few of the previous year's financial transactions, so audits at best can only catch a few problems and the problems that are spotted are usually reported at least 8 months--and sometimes 20 months-- after-the-fact.
Questions--probing questions--need to be asked need to be asked at every budget session.
But the simplest and most informative way to find out what's going on would be to institute true zero-based budgeting in both city and county.
I have consistently pushed for this budget model (zero-based) because it allows for a COMPLETE review of each department and justification of each line item at the time the budget is presented. Zero-based budgeting prevents one-time money that is budgeted for a specific purpose in one year from becoming a recurring budget item that is then spent on who knows what in future years.
With zero-based budgeting, you recognize and take one-time budgeted money out of the budget when a temporary employee position is eliminated or when a one-time piece of equipment has been purchased.
An added bonus is that zero-based budgeting is almost like doing an audit or review of the previous year's spending at the same time that you prepare a spending plan for the next year.
Now that would be a nifty way for the Mayor and City Council and for Hamblen County Commissioners to earn their pay, their insurance, their benefits, and perks while they find out what's really being spent and for what!
Council members and commissioners already spend a lot of hours at budget time listening to others "explain" the budget. If council members and commissioners used those same hours to do a true hands-on examination of their respective city and county budgets, they would know far more than they could ever know from just listening to those who have led the city and county into big spending, BIG debt, layer upon layer of administration, and departmental kingdoms with perks, perks, and more perks.
When you run for office and are accountable for millions of dollars, you need to be willing to put in the time!
Monday, July 09, 2007
July 8, 2007 Taxes: Why The Public Doesn't Believe a Word the Politicians Say
"How do you know when a politician is lying?" Answer: "His/her lips are moving."
We laugh. But unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in that joke.
Another unfortunate truth is that local government spending is beginning a sharp upward spiral. And when spending goes up, taxes go up.
TAXES: On June 28, the Hamblen County Commission passed a budget that has around $1 million dollars in new spending out of the county general government fund. That new spending comes with a price tag ---a 10-cent tax increase.
After voting for the tax increase and new spending, Chairman Stancil Ford started the spin machine with political double-speak in which he proclaimed how proud he was that the budget had been CUT by $1 million dollars.
How do you increase spending by $1 million dollars and call it a "cut"? Answer: The first wish-list budget presented this year included over $2 million dollars in new spending. So when the commission only added $1 million dollars in new spending, Ford proudly termed this $1 million in new spending a "cut."
To quote another famous spinmeister: it all depends on what the meaning of "cut" is. To the taxpayer, it's pretty simple. If you are getting $10/hour and ask your boss for a $2/hour raise for the next year but only get a $1/hour raise, did you get a "cut" in pay? No. That's not a cut. That's just less of an increase than you asked for.
When politicians look at a similar situation on the government level, they think that if they spent $10 million last year and if someone proposes to spend $2 million additional dollars in next year's budget but instead they only add $1 million dollars of additional spending, then they have "cut" the budget. That's not a cut. That's just less of an increase than they asked for.
Bottom line: Government spending in the county's general fund is increasing by $1 MILLION DOLLARS from last year's level, and everyone's tax rate is going up by 10 cents from last year's level to pay for the added spending.
I was allowed to speak just before the June 28th tax-and-spend vote was approved. No other citizens spoke at that time although I have seen several letters to the editor opposing tax increases.
On June 28th, I knew the vote was set. My remarks were a reminder that looking for ways to cut or at least hold-the-line on new spending is long overdue. They also were a reminder that local officials, unfortunately, have a poor record for truthfulness about taxes and a poor record for accountability for tax dollars.
You are getting ready to raise taxes AGAIN.
The writing is on the wall. It's a done deal.
I am against the continual increase in taxes. Just like the average citizen, government has to learn to curb the constant desire to spend more and more.
In 1999, you passed a wheel tax. It was supposed to be a temporary tax to take care of a temporary general fund problem and then it was supposed to "sunset" and go away.
Well, the sun never did set on the wheel tax. As soon as the temporary general fund problem was taken care of, you decided that you still wanted to spend more tax dollars.
So in 2002 many of you currently serving on this commission decided to conduct a "pick-your-poison" referendum.
Taxpayers were given the choice of a wheel tax or a property tax increase. What a nifty choice. Too bad there wasn't a third choice---none of the above.
The taxpayers dutifully made their "choice." Continue the $27 wheel tax and they thought that was it.
Little did the taxpayers know that just three months after the wheel tax passed in 2002, many of you commissioners sitting here today or your predecessors would tack on a 15-cent property tax increase, too!
So much for straight talk. No wonder the public has such distrust for elected officials.
That's when people began to see that the government never gets enough.
Then a short time later, it was disaster time for the garbage fund. A 21-cent property tax increase.
Then there was a litigation tax increase.
Then pennies were shifted from the debt fund and put in the general fund. And more money was shifted around that many of you never even knew about until after it was already done.
Now, you're preparing to add another 10-cent increase to the general fund tax rate.
You may never see them and you may never talk to them, but there are people living on fixed incomes today. I have heard at least two or three of you mention these people in private conversations.
These people are living on $500 to $600/month. They are saddled with gas costing nearly $3/gallon. Milk that is nearly $5/gallon. Frequently, they have no health insurance and are faced with the choice of buying food or needed medicine.
And there is a middle class that is squeezed from all sides as well.
Taxes just go up and up and up!
The really sad thing is that there is so little accountability up here for the precious tax dollars that you have already taken and that you are preparing to take more of today.
Everybody can think of new ways to spend money, but suggestions for spending cuts are non-existent or few and far between.
Ignoring those who suggest ways to cut spending is the norm.
No-bid contracts are still the norm.
No questions are now the norm.
And, as a result, there will be a tax increase this year, next year, and probably for many years to come.
Government belt-tightening? Maybe when pigs fly.
Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
We laugh. But unfortunately, there is a lot of truth in that joke.
Another unfortunate truth is that local government spending is beginning a sharp upward spiral. And when spending goes up, taxes go up.
TAXES: On June 28, the Hamblen County Commission passed a budget that has around $1 million dollars in new spending out of the county general government fund. That new spending comes with a price tag ---a 10-cent tax increase.
After voting for the tax increase and new spending, Chairman Stancil Ford started the spin machine with political double-speak in which he proclaimed how proud he was that the budget had been CUT by $1 million dollars.
How do you increase spending by $1 million dollars and call it a "cut"? Answer: The first wish-list budget presented this year included over $2 million dollars in new spending. So when the commission only added $1 million dollars in new spending, Ford proudly termed this $1 million in new spending a "cut."
To quote another famous spinmeister: it all depends on what the meaning of "cut" is. To the taxpayer, it's pretty simple. If you are getting $10/hour and ask your boss for a $2/hour raise for the next year but only get a $1/hour raise, did you get a "cut" in pay? No. That's not a cut. That's just less of an increase than you asked for.
When politicians look at a similar situation on the government level, they think that if they spent $10 million last year and if someone proposes to spend $2 million additional dollars in next year's budget but instead they only add $1 million dollars of additional spending, then they have "cut" the budget. That's not a cut. That's just less of an increase than they asked for.
Bottom line: Government spending in the county's general fund is increasing by $1 MILLION DOLLARS from last year's level, and everyone's tax rate is going up by 10 cents from last year's level to pay for the added spending.
I was allowed to speak just before the June 28th tax-and-spend vote was approved. No other citizens spoke at that time although I have seen several letters to the editor opposing tax increases.
On June 28th, I knew the vote was set. My remarks were a reminder that looking for ways to cut or at least hold-the-line on new spending is long overdue. They also were a reminder that local officials, unfortunately, have a poor record for truthfulness about taxes and a poor record for accountability for tax dollars.
You are getting ready to raise taxes AGAIN.
The writing is on the wall. It's a done deal.
I am against the continual increase in taxes. Just like the average citizen, government has to learn to curb the constant desire to spend more and more.
In 1999, you passed a wheel tax. It was supposed to be a temporary tax to take care of a temporary general fund problem and then it was supposed to "sunset" and go away.
Well, the sun never did set on the wheel tax. As soon as the temporary general fund problem was taken care of, you decided that you still wanted to spend more tax dollars.
So in 2002 many of you currently serving on this commission decided to conduct a "pick-your-poison" referendum.
Taxpayers were given the choice of a wheel tax or a property tax increase. What a nifty choice. Too bad there wasn't a third choice---none of the above.
The taxpayers dutifully made their "choice." Continue the $27 wheel tax and they thought that was it.
Little did the taxpayers know that just three months after the wheel tax passed in 2002, many of you commissioners sitting here today or your predecessors would tack on a 15-cent property tax increase, too!
So much for straight talk. No wonder the public has such distrust for elected officials.
That's when people began to see that the government never gets enough.
Then a short time later, it was disaster time for the garbage fund. A 21-cent property tax increase.
Then there was a litigation tax increase.
Then pennies were shifted from the debt fund and put in the general fund. And more money was shifted around that many of you never even knew about until after it was already done.
Now, you're preparing to add another 10-cent increase to the general fund tax rate.
You may never see them and you may never talk to them, but there are people living on fixed incomes today. I have heard at least two or three of you mention these people in private conversations.
These people are living on $500 to $600/month. They are saddled with gas costing nearly $3/gallon. Milk that is nearly $5/gallon. Frequently, they have no health insurance and are faced with the choice of buying food or needed medicine.
And there is a middle class that is squeezed from all sides as well.
Taxes just go up and up and up!
The really sad thing is that there is so little accountability up here for the precious tax dollars that you have already taken and that you are preparing to take more of today.
Everybody can think of new ways to spend money, but suggestions for spending cuts are non-existent or few and far between.
Ignoring those who suggest ways to cut spending is the norm.
No-bid contracts are still the norm.
No questions are now the norm.
And, as a result, there will be a tax increase this year, next year, and probably for many years to come.
Government belt-tightening? Maybe when pigs fly.
Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
September 22, 2005 Same song, umpteenth verse, "more money"
Hamblen County School Board to Hamblen County Commission: We know the county budget is not balanced and the school budget is not balanced, but could we have $50,000 or $60,000 more, please?
The Hamblen County Commission passed all county and school budgets on August 4. The County General Government Fund has a deficit 05-06 budget, the County General Debt Fund has a deficit 05-06 budget, the County Road Department has a deficit 05-06 budget (with each of these departments planning to spend more than it expects to receive in revenues and hoping that revenues will somehow be higher than expected or expenses will be lower than expected.)
The Hamblen County School System also has a deficit 05-06 budget in spite of the fact that it received a total of $3.1 million in new money to spend in 05-06---$1.5 million of which came from a county (Hamblen County) that can't balance its own general government budget and $1.6 million of which came from new state BEP funding.
Now, seven weeks after all budgets were passed, the Hamblen County School System is coming hat in hand to the County Commission to ask for a "donation" of $50,000 or $60,000 for its International School. The International School was announced many months ago with grant funding from the Niswonger Foundation out of Greeneville.
The idea for this "school" is to take the growing ELL (English Language Learners) student population and bus these students from their home schools to a new "school" at Walters State for 1/2 day of instruction and then bus them back to their home schools.
Jefferson Federal Foundation has apparently offered to give the school system $50,000 or $60,000 toward the International School, but there are strings attached to this gift. They say they will only give the money to the school if the City of Morristown provides a matching amount and if the County provides a matching amount. Hence, today's request for a "donation."
I had one person ask why Jefferson Federal didn't challenge other area banks to match its contribution. I was talking to someone else who thought that Jefferson Federal should consider the $1.5 million in new local money that has already been provided to the schools as the county's "match."
What will happen when the time comes to vote on the donation? Who knows?
It was just a little over 3 years ago (May 2002) that voters were persuaded to vote for extending the temporary wheel tax in the infamous "pick your poison" referendum.
Since then, the wheel tax has been made permanent, there have been two recent property tax increases, subdivisions have been added to the county's tax rolls, debt has been refinanced, money has been switched from fund to fund, and a litigation tax has been added. End result of all this new and extended tax revenue and growth: the county still cannot balance its government budget, its road budget, or its general debt budget.
The School Board is doing no better. It can't balance its budget even though it has new state and local money totaling $3.1 million dollars for 05-06.
If you have more and more taxes and revenue and you still cannot balance your budget, that is a spending problem-- a spending problem that is marked by little, or no, fiscal discipline.
With government at all levels, if something sounds good, the vote is do it, buy it, spend, borrow--go in debt, whatever it takes.
It seems like the only people who have to live within their means are the taxpayers.
The Hamblen County Commission passed all county and school budgets on August 4. The County General Government Fund has a deficit 05-06 budget, the County General Debt Fund has a deficit 05-06 budget, the County Road Department has a deficit 05-06 budget (with each of these departments planning to spend more than it expects to receive in revenues and hoping that revenues will somehow be higher than expected or expenses will be lower than expected.)
The Hamblen County School System also has a deficit 05-06 budget in spite of the fact that it received a total of $3.1 million in new money to spend in 05-06---$1.5 million of which came from a county (Hamblen County) that can't balance its own general government budget and $1.6 million of which came from new state BEP funding.
Now, seven weeks after all budgets were passed, the Hamblen County School System is coming hat in hand to the County Commission to ask for a "donation" of $50,000 or $60,000 for its International School. The International School was announced many months ago with grant funding from the Niswonger Foundation out of Greeneville.
The idea for this "school" is to take the growing ELL (English Language Learners) student population and bus these students from their home schools to a new "school" at Walters State for 1/2 day of instruction and then bus them back to their home schools.
Jefferson Federal Foundation has apparently offered to give the school system $50,000 or $60,000 toward the International School, but there are strings attached to this gift. They say they will only give the money to the school if the City of Morristown provides a matching amount and if the County provides a matching amount. Hence, today's request for a "donation."
I had one person ask why Jefferson Federal didn't challenge other area banks to match its contribution. I was talking to someone else who thought that Jefferson Federal should consider the $1.5 million in new local money that has already been provided to the schools as the county's "match."
What will happen when the time comes to vote on the donation? Who knows?
It was just a little over 3 years ago (May 2002) that voters were persuaded to vote for extending the temporary wheel tax in the infamous "pick your poison" referendum.
Since then, the wheel tax has been made permanent, there have been two recent property tax increases, subdivisions have been added to the county's tax rolls, debt has been refinanced, money has been switched from fund to fund, and a litigation tax has been added. End result of all this new and extended tax revenue and growth: the county still cannot balance its government budget, its road budget, or its general debt budget.
The School Board is doing no better. It can't balance its budget even though it has new state and local money totaling $3.1 million dollars for 05-06.
If you have more and more taxes and revenue and you still cannot balance your budget, that is a spending problem-- a spending problem that is marked by little, or no, fiscal discipline.
With government at all levels, if something sounds good, the vote is do it, buy it, spend, borrow--go in debt, whatever it takes.
It seems like the only people who have to live within their means are the taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)