Main image
30th December
2009
written by Downtown Dudette

Proposed Budget Balancing for FY 2010 & 2011 from:
City Manager Mike Letcher dated 12/28/2009
 

Here is my take on the plan.  I also offer my own observations and recommendations:
 
The plan is likely to avert insolvency
The plan is almost certain to lead to a significant drop in our credit rating
The plan reduces the level of core services
The plan does not produce a budget that is ‘structurally balanced’
Liquidity has been evaporating and necessitates quick action to avert insolvency
The plan ignores many potential areas of cost savings
 
 
We must make structural changes to our cost structure
Arizona State Treasurer, Dean Martin, has stated that revenue levels have dropped back to levels seen in 2004/2005.  2007 marked the high water mark of economic activity and we will not see these levels again for 6 to 7 years or longer.  This is a long-term, structural drop in revenue -and- expense levels must also adjust.  We do not have 7 years of one-time fixes.  We must begin immediately to make structural changes to our cost structure.  This can be augmented with revenue sources that have a more stable profile.  Taxpayers have a very limited stomach for new revenue sources or taxes.
 
Landlord/Renter Tax
One the positive side, this revenue source is more stable than sales tax revenue and this helps with sustainability.  The tax does hit a specific demographic segment that tends to be a lower socio-economic profile.
 
Utility Tax
The Utility Tax was increased for FY 2010.  This tax is broad-based as it impacts almost every demographic profile -and- is a more stable revenue source.  If new revenue sources are to be imposed, I recommend they meet these 2 criteria: broad-based & more stable.
 
Parks and Rec Fees
Councilman Glassman has frequently spoken of ‘Cost Recovery’.  Currently, many Park and Rec activities are offered at no cost to participants or very low cost (example 25¢/day to swim).  This is not consistent with ‘cost recovery’.  We must immediately begin to recover a larger portion of the actual cost of every program.  If our target is simply 50% cost recovery; this would produce additional revenue of over $7 million/year.  (source: FY 2010 Adopted Budget; pgs B-67to B-77)
 
Sun Tran – Van Tran
The general fund subsidizes bus service with $32 million/year; this is in addition to large subsidies from other governmental entities.  The actual cost to offer the service is almost 5 times the fare paid by riders.  We must reduce this subsidy through a combination of reduced routes and fare increase.  If our target is 50% cost recovery; this could have a positive impact on the budget of as much as $15 million/year.  (source: FY 2010 Adopted Budget; pgs B-91 to B-98)
 
Outside Agencies
This area is ripe for favoritism and facilitating ineffective agencies.  This needs to be a thorough and arms-length competitive process.  If you are effective you receive more, if you are ineffective you get nothing.  There is a perception that once your organization gets on the list you are on the list forever.  There needs to be political will to remove ineffective agencies.  I work with and financially support the Community Foundation for Southern Arizona (CFSA).  CFSA has in place a competitive process to evaluate grant applications from charitable organizations.  This includes site visits, program evaluations, financial review, effectiveness evaluation vs. similar organizations, fundraising…  Perhaps CFSA would be willing to directly assist the City with applications.  At the very least we need to adopt this model.
Credit Rating
The rating agencies are very clear about what we must do to maintain our credit rating.  We must:  1) Produce a budget that is ‘structurally balanced’, i.e. not reliant on one-time fixes;  2) Rebuild the rainy day fund to 10% of general fund ‘promptly’ to about $42 million.
 
The plan proposed by the City manager does NOT produce a ‘structurally balanced’ budget for several years.  The plan leaves the rainy day fund at the current level of about 2% to 3% of general fund.  In addition, the Self Insurance Fund remains with a large deficit which is sure to catch the attention of the rating agencies.  I expect our credit rating will drop several notches within the next few months.
 
(Source: Fitch, Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s reports from May 2009)

5 Comments

  1. Delusional Bill
    30/12/2009

    Again the question should be asked every day of every government official. Are you serving the true needs of the public or just a small group of privileged folk? There should not be a single line in any governments budget that should not receive daily scrutiny. If the media won’t, then the citizens will. The government is formed to provide some level of protection for the community as a whole. If the government is doing something that harms the whole (taxes too much, provides inefficient services, provides roadblocks to businesses or individuals) then that part of the budget is not needed and should be cut.

    There is not a single person working for the City of Tucson that will not endure ‘pain’ in the event their position/salary is eliminated in a budget cut. However, there is not a single job on the City payroll that is more important than the safety of the citizens of Tucson. That is the only priority that the council should consider when determining any possible cuts to the budget.

  2. k.
    30/12/2009

    good analysis…

  3. Mikki
    03/01/2010

    Mr Letcher

    Please consider these instead of raising taxes. We can not afford any more taxes.

    Here is a suggestion.

    1. Look at the Non Departmental, that has a 145 million bottom line. There are many things their.

    Payment to Rio Nuevo, Convention center rental 3.7 million

    Payment to El Campo

    Other general expenses 2 milliom

    Other general government 1.1 million

    Debt service 102 million that is 1/4 of the budget.

    I asked you last week “What is the total debt service being paid by the city? Rio Nuevo? How much is principal and how much is interest? Are the lenders willing to take less interest?

    Response was on 12/18 that another department was going to respond. I never heard anything. What are we paying for all this debt service that it takes 1/4 of the budget?

    2. Cut salaries, other people are being fired and have salary cuts better to cut than lay off

    Here is a proposal that was put forth at the last budget hearings. It is a 1% cut per $10k. It saves $14million. No one loses their job. There is a TON of waste but no one is held accountable.

    Sign up for a free login account and then download the .xls file to see the 2008 payroll for the city.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/24138955/Tucson-City-Payroll-2008

    Here is another suggestion

    3.
    One thing that would cut and cut more fairly than layoffs/

    1. People making $30,000 or less 5% cut in pay.
    2. People making $50,000 to $30,000 7.5% cut in pay
    3. People making $50,000- $75,000 10% cut in pay
    4. From 75% -$100,000 15% cut in pay
    5. From $100,000 to $150,000 20% cut in pay
    6. Over $150,000 25% cut in pay.

    I don’t want to see these high paying jobs, come from my tax money and cut cops, and firefighters and others.

  4. Peggy
    04/01/2010

    Dear Mikki:

    Let me answer some of the questions you posed in your January 3rd post.

    Thank you for your comments. Please let me offer some thoughts:

    On 12/30/2009, the Office of Budget and Internal Audit produced a response to your questions and many others. If you have not seen it, give them a call.

    You and many others asked for detail behind many of these numbers. The 12/31/09 response provided some detail, but I think we could use more detail. I suspect there may be some unproductive expenses buried in there.

    Be a little careful with your numbers. Debt service is nowhere near $102 million and is not ¼ of the budget. The 12/31 response indicates debt service is about $21 million on FY 2010. The Adopted Budget for FY 2010 indicates ‘Debt Service’ is $52 million (pg B-133). I’m not sure why the numbers are so different, but they are much less that $102 million. Make sure you count General Obligation and Certificates of Participation (COP) debt service. You need to differentiate debt service from Enterprise Funds (Water, Trash, Golf) as these are not paid from the general fund.

    No, bond holders are not willing to take less interest. Bonds are issued in a very competitive environment and are a legally binding contract. This is a market where even 0.03% interest is a big deal for bond holders. You start messing with bond holders and our bond rating goes into the toilet.

  5. 08/01/2010

    Sun Tran has been a loser for years-Why oh why do we keep subsidizing it???
    Let the private sector provide the service and dump it! We should have cut our losses long ago!

Leave a Reply

Powered by WP Hashcash

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

  • Pages

  • Categories

  • Archives

  •  

    December 2009
    M T W T F S S
    « Nov   Jan »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Should We Build The Downtown Hotel?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...
  • Tags