Why wouldn't the $1.2M deficit in the snow and ice account be covered in the FY 2007 budget plan?

Why would the account run such a deficit in a below average snow season last winter?

$6.3M transferred to the taxpayers would be significant, that is if you live in Lowell, or haven't hit it big at the races!

Agree with your handicaping on Democratic primary.

JP, $1 added to the tax rate raises approximately $8 million in revenue in Lowell. In my case, my taxes at my condo would rise between $130 to $150 a year depending on the property assessment. I think I can afford that, even if I did leave half my bankroll in Saratoga. The snow and ice account is the only one, by law, that can run a deficit in municipal government. I don't know if that was a carryover from the previous year, but you raise a good point. I will have to check it out. I also agree with you that any tax increase in Lowell is a source of concern because of the financial demographics of our population. We are not a wealthy city. Still, higher taxes are inevitable wherever one lives.

In looking at the FY 2007 budget, there is a line item expense entitled "overlay". My understanding that overlay surplus is the equivalent to free cash, so I would expect that an overlay expense may be the opposite, and since snow and ice is the only carryover expense allowed, this may well be the accounting of the snow and ice deficit carried from FY 2006 to FY 2007. If that is true, then $1.0M has been accounted for in the Fy 2007 budget. So, the question is, is there really a $1.2M problem here, or is it but $0.2M?

To a much less significant extent, the final Cherry Sheets (July 25th) are somewhat different than the budget. The receipts in the Cherry Sheets exceed the budget number by about $44K, whereas the charges of $12.623M (Cherry Sheets) are difficult to compare with the budget (two lines, one $12.434M and another of $256K). If the latter are added to compare, there would be another $57K available for cutting the budget.

Jim, I think most taxpayers won't be as willing to pony up their money as you are. I agree, we must share the cost. That means all of us though. Not just the taxpayers.

All those issues we've been discussing here must be addressed. Police, teachers, firefighters, everyone in government must sacrifice something. The abuses also have to stop. Not to single anyone out, but as an example, those officers stealing money with fake injuries need to be taken care of.

When we the people are assured that government waste has been eliminated, we might be just as willing as you are to do our part. We'll bitch about it of course, but we'll still do our part.

JP, good job. You know your numbers and your way around the budget. I should have taken you to Saratoga with me, instead of the treasurer of G-Biscuit Stables. You make several good points.. Once again, I will have to check it out. I question, however, whether that snow-and-ice number is for a bill that was run up in the previous budget, leaving the 2006 bill open. In any event, I trust City Manager Bernie Lynch to come up with "real" ballpark figures. It will become clearer once the city's official audit for 2006 is completed by Powers and Sullivan..

CB, you are exactly right. The onus is on government to prove that it deserves the citizen's trust and tax money. For too long, the unions have gotten favorable treatment. If not through pay raises, than through perks: 15 sick days, longevity pay, sick-leave buy-back provisions, low health-care costs, etc. It is now time that the city receives concessions for some of these perks. Every line item and job should be justified. Every officers on 111F should be evaluated by a city doctor and given a recommendation as to when and how that injured person can return to work. No one should get a pay raise until the deficit is wiped out. What do you think? Am I being too harsh? I don't think so. I think the council needs some guts to make the tough, but right decisions forr Lowell's future financial stability and success.

The trade off with a public sector job is often that benefits make up for the lack of a true free market salary system. Hiring practices (like civil service) make it more difficult to go from job to job in government occupations, you more or less have to stay where you are to stay in the same field you are trained in, which doesn't give much leverage at the negotiating table. Legally most goverment unions can't strike either. In government there are no guaranteed raises, relatively few performance bonuses (except for managers and administrators of course!) and no holiday bonus. (Though I would like to point out and thank Councilor Caufield for being one of the only ones to ever stop in around the holidays, drop off a little something and thank us). In years when unions didn't get significant raises government typically gave better benefits.

However the city HAS made some inroads in getting concessions on benefits.

City workers pay 25 percent of their healthcare now and have the option to take an HMO, which many do because its cheaper for them. This was not the case in the not too distant past. Any change in healthcare costs means a pay cut for city workers. That is a tough sell in negotiations when you offer small or no raises. Healthcare costs have gone up universally, that's not the workers fault. (The flawed healthcare system is a whole other thread) When health insurance costs went up this year, city workers bore a share of the increase too (2 percent increase).

The city has not enforced sick leave policy enough or even asked for stronger language in recent negotiations that I am aware of. However, sick leave buy backs have been reduced to one third of all days workers accumulate and have been capped in actual dollars within the last decade.

I think the initial reasoning for 15 sick days is that many of the jobs are physical in nature. You can't work with a physical injury if you are a firefighter, police officer or DPW employee. (Try chasing someone or fighting a fire with a head cold even) The sick leave policy was designed to be a short term disability program, making sure people don't go without a paycheck. The more sick time you accumulate as you get older (and presumably less healthy) the longer you can protect your job and pension if you get sick or hurt off of work. Most of these jobs aren't sitting at a desk, where you can come in and work with a sprain or broken bone. Better enforcement and stronger language would ensure that sick days are used only when people are sick.

Longevity pay was stopped and frozen it the late 80s or early 90s. No one hired after that period of time (like me) has been given that benefit and those who still receieve it get the same dollars as the year it was frozen. As older workers retire the amount declines in the budget. The numbers will bear this out. Soon longevity will be a thing of the past.

By the way Jim you forgot super holiday pay. City workers don't get that anymore either. The Sun had a part in that as well if I recall.

If the city isn't sending workers to the doctor when they are on injury shame on them, its already within their rights.

While I think government in general does a bad job of justifying its expenditures to the public, I'm not sure goverment deserves complete distrust either. Maybe I missed the memo that went out to all employees and elected officials that we were instituting a new policy of screwing the taxpayer (maybe they didn't send it to city residents on the payroll?). I don't know very many concerned citizens who take the time to stop and ask questions of goverment workers before they complain either. The more people become involved in their government the better informed they are on the decisions made. Just as ignorance can be bliss, it can also lead to uninformed complaints. Those us who take the time to be involved and discuss the issues are in such a minority its probably more frightening then we'd care to admit.

I'm pretty sure the raises won't be forthcoming easily this current year. Manager Lynch is a tough negotiator based on his work in Chelmsford. I'm sure he will have a point by point negotiating strategy, where everything is broken down on a cost basis for any increase given to unions. I think this is one of the biggest reasons the council hired him.

What really disturbs me though is the change in perception of Americans that we don't all deserve good benefits. That somehow because private companies and corporations have slashed benefits for most workers(but not for CEOs) in the name of profits and shareholders then government workers shouldn't get them either. That's when companies haven't sent our jobs overseas outright. I always thought government had a higher moral responsibility to do right by people. The public seems to think if I can't have it, then you can't have it. Instead of fighting for what they deserve in their own jobs they would rather bring down the other guy. Why would you blame city workers for getting the best standard of living for themselves and their families? That's the American way and the basis of capitalism (Paul Sullivan wrote a good column in the Sun on this a long while back). Why would you blame them for fighting to keep what they have? Concessions on anything but language issues mean a pay cut. If you would easily give up what you have let me know, I might hire you when I start my new corporation.

As for government waste, its a great buzz word but no one jumped at the chance to point it out. Check out my post on the Lowell Seeing Red thread. (Where somehow Jim and I share similar views on the fiscal policy and the tax rate)

http://www.thesunblog.com/political/archives/2006/08/lowell_seeing_r.html

The budget is available for anyone who wants to take a crack at it.