BULLSEYE
Alderman Steve Olson Responds to Tax Pledge Offer
Not surprisingly, District 1 Alderman Steve Olson (I'm a District 3 resident), was the first alderman to respond to my offer to all seated (with the exception of Alan Hammelman and Pete Kosovich) alderman, to sign a tax pledge to the citizens of Franklin, like the pledge signed by Mayor Taylor.
I have to respectfully decline his revised offer.
Follows is Alderman Olson’s email of April 2:
Fred:
This may surprise you that I fully support the goal and was the lone voice last year in reducing the budget, I can’t support a levy freeze like this for the following reasons:
- In a growing community, new growth pays (for the most part) the additional services that are required.
- In a growing community, new growth can reduce the cost born by current residents through a reduction in their tax rate (mixing of rate and levy).
- We are still in the middle of wrestling with a plan to fund our retiree benefits that were contracted for over the years. Prior to this year, the cost of retiree benefits were not required to be reflected in any financial reports nor were they required to be funded. On my motion (4 years ago and prior to the GASB 45 rule going into effect), Franklin was the first community in the state to perform an actuarial study on the financial impact of our retiree benefit plans. We must honor our commitment to the retirees.
- Our current labor contracts have year on year increases of about 3% each. Some are a bit higher. That compounds with escalating health care and retirement benefits on top of the pay increase. A 3% levy limit would require layoffs (I’m not opposed to that) and a potential reduction in service. Those decisions should be made in public and with rational basis as opposed to a relatively arbitrary levy limit number.
- We’re facing a huge number of imposed mandates based on the state and county shifting costs to the municipalities. Reconstruction of several roads within the city all are requiring city participation. We can, of course, not participate and get what we get and then deal with the effects. I’m a proponent of making things happen the way WE (the community) need and want them to happen.
- We (the community and common council) need to manage our money. There are times that we need to spend more, and time to cut back but those have to be discussions and thoughtful, not based on a relatively arbitrary percentage.
So… change the term to “rate” instead of “levy” and you have my full support.
Be aware that I am not one to use the rate/levy word shift political argument. I firmly believe that the levy should be the benchmark but everyone should know what were spending their money on.
Steve
This email followed a few minutes later:
Fred:
Two last points.
- I have begun to formulate a strategy to accomplish the 3% levy limit. Personnel will be impacted as will some of the “nice” programs that have gone through the city in the past.
- We’re facing the salt issue because of this past winter. We’ll make some pretty hard decisions relative to how we handle snow removal in the future.
Steve
To be continued...
Fred Keller
in City of Franklin, Franklin Common Council
|
1 Comment
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (1)
The travesty being played in Franklin’s Council chambers can aptly be titled: “A bad cause will ever be supported by bad means and bad men” ~ Thomas Paine
The Mayor has taken the high road with his pledge to hold a tax hike to 3%.
Then there are those like Ald. Sohns and Ald. Olson, who don’t like the idea of not having their usual “filet mignon”…something that has spoiled them far too long. It’s about time they and others learn what “hamburger” tastes like. Ald. Olson and Ald. Sohns, would you like some cheese with your whine?
While the working class has had to tighten their belts, these “trenchers” have the gall to belly-up to their “groaning table” of exorbitant taxation year after year.
There will always be grousing and excuses about the causes that shrink the city’s year-end fund balances. Ben Franklin nailed it when he said: “He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else”.
These excuses only exemplify the incompetent management and lack of foresight in connection with unforeseen contingencies. All along there should have been discriminate trimming in Franklin’s government spending…little by little. Yet, the most facile method was used year after year…throw money at it! An elementary student knows how to do that! Give them a pail of money and see how long it lasts!
The veneer is wearing off of the tacit threat of reducing the effectiveness of our police and fire departments. There is a myriad of places to start trimming without even considering these services. I am sure the revamped Finance Committee will employ more exacting eyes.
Last year the Mayor used the “life ring” [that sunk] of: “a nearly 75% decrease in home development” to justify a budget that went through the roof. If that is the condition in Franklin, why did Ald. Solomon infer that Franklin has inadequate police and fire protection when he asked the Finance Committee how the Mayor’s limiting tax levy increases would effect unfilled jobs in the fire and police departments.”
With such a drastic reduction in home development, does it make sense to increase protection for fewer residents? Ad nauseum…more scare tactics.
Maybe Franklin’s financial circumstance will bring out some creative methods to eliminate unnecessary spending…things that we can get along without…pass on the “filet mignon” and enjoy better “health” with “lean hamburger”.
I trust that the Finance Committee will meet the challenge. Nothing should be done that will cause next year’s taxes to surpass a 3% increase...and every year thereafter!
If the Finance Committee and the Council apply the same standards that we use in our family budgets…do without low priorities to balance the books…who can fault that?
DISCLAIMER: The opinions mentioned above are not necessarily those of certain politicians but certainly those of the author.