Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(1) Lawrence Taylor, 7472 Stanford <br />Mr. Taylor noted that two-thirds of the budget is personnel. He said <br />from 2007 to the proposed budget of 2010 the increase was 3.8 <br />percent. Mr. Reynolds stated that in total revenue, the City is down 15 <br />percent. His observation, if projecting forward, the City’s revenues are <br />relatively down and the projection for income of people cost has risen <br />from 70 percent of total revenue to 81 percent. Mr. Taylor stated that <br />soon the City will have to do something serious as General Motors just <br />did in today’s news. He felt the City’s budget was not sustainable. <br />(2) Sheila Webster, 425 N. New Ballas, Ste 200 <br />Ms. Webster was representing the Wynncrest and Haefner Place <br />apartments. As she had calculated, they pay 16 percent of the real <br />estate taxes in the City. Along with this they pay $60 fee for inspection <br />and another $25 for an occupancy permit. She felt if the inspection fee <br />was good for three years the landlords might be interested but noticed <br />that the fee would still be paid with a turnover but the inspection would <br />only occur every three years. Mr. Webster asked if the landlord <br />owners could be involved in any discussion of changes as this. <br />(3) Michael Boland II, 7311 Dorsett <br /> Mr. Boland addressed this to Mr. Wagner. He stated that the new <br /> budget had no real spending cuts, so thought the City should tighten its <br /> belts as it deals with loss revenue. <br />(4) Stephen Kraft, 7275 Creveling <br /> Mr. Kraft urged Council to delay action on this budget as it is opaque. <br /> He stated that the budget does not say what the City proposes to do <br /> with the tax money, as how many police cars is it going to buy, is there <br /> money for a flood buy-out etc. Mr. Kraft stated that there are no <br /> footnotes to explain the change in accounting practices in 2008 and <br /> 2009, making it impossible to do year to year comparisons. Pension <br /> revenue and expenditure are included with no explanation and his <br /> guess is that they do not really belong in parts of this document and <br /> are presented in a misleading way. He stated that the citizens protest <br /> against taxation without a transparent spending plan. <br />(5) David Olander, 7114 Kingsbury <br />Mr. Olander stated the citizens approved an Economic Development <br />Tax. He stated this was a breach of public trust for the Council to <br />misuse those funds. He said it allowed for administrative cost related <br />to development but not to pay for electric bills and general <br />administrative costs. He asked that instead, the City make some <br />serious spending cuts and asked why the City has a City Manager, a <br />Deputy City Manager, and an Assistant City Manager. <br />(6) Paulette Carr, 7901 Gannon <br />Ms. Carr was present to urge the Council to reconsider the part of the <br />budget that raids the Economic Development Sales Tax fund. The <br />amount allocated by the City Manager is against the recommendation <br />of the Economic Development Sales Tax Board. She stated that the <br />City Manager also had allocated an excessive amount from the <br />Economic Development Sales Tax fund for electricity which only <br />increase by $18,000 not $120,000. Ms. Carr stated that the City <br />Manager needs to find ways to cut her personal spending. If Council <br />approves this against the advice of the Economic Development Retail <br /> <br />