The Mayor and his staff are quietly working on the budget package for 2010.
It is up to the Mayor to present HIS (the city budget) to the City Council soon.
There is no doubt that sales tax revenue is down becuase of the economy and the city will have to make some hard decissions on who and what to cut from next years expenses.

If you were Mayor, what would you do?

Where would you cut?

Who would you cut?

How would you save a $1 or $2 million dollar revenue shortfall?

Hard times are ahead. If you have ideas for the City and the Mayor, now is the time to share them.

After all, YOU PAID FOR IT!

No Budge Games wrote:

The Mayor and his staff are quietly working on the budget package for 2010.
It is up to the Mayor to present HIS (the city budget) to the City Council soon.
There is no doubt that sales tax revenue is down becuase of the economy and the city will have to make some hard decissions on who and what to cut from next years expenses.
If you were Mayor, what would you do?
Where would you cut?
Who would you cut?
How would you save a $1 or $2 million dollar revenue shortfall?
Hard times are ahead. If you have ideas for the City and the Mayor, now is the time to share them.
After all, YOU PAID FOR IT!

We could start by cutting out the mayor's salary and his lunch allowance. That should cover a big chunk of the shortage.

In order to make meaningful, sustainable budget adjustments, particularly to the expense side, it requires permanent cuts.
One time and single cuts are fine for temporary fixes, but permanent and sustainable improvements require real cuts in reoccuring expense line items.
Such as permanent head count reductions.
Such as payroll cuts and roll backs.
Such as position eliminations.
Such as daily expense reductions in energy use.
Such as wasteful spending elimination.
Such as line by line expense review for flaws.
Such as services reduction.
Such as hours of availability reduced.
Such as Overtime elimination.

Failure to do all of these, some of these, or most of these, will lead directly to Tax and Fee increases to sustain old and bad habits.

Budget cuts are painful and unpleasant, but tax increases are unfair and unnecessary.

Good leadership will do the right thing.

Sustainable cuts wrote:

"tax increases are unfair".

I hear this often.
What is "unfair" about a tax increase?
We all want "social order".
We need that "social order" to make money and gain wealth because, the alternative, "chaos and anarchy" means anyone can take what we have built or acquired.
What is that "social order" worth?
What should it cost?
Should those who receive more protection from that "social order" pay more than others who have far less to protect?

Nick O wrote:

<quoted text>
I hear this often.
What is "unfair" about a tax increase?
We all want "social order".
We need that "social order" to make money and gain wealth because, the alternative, "chaos and anarchy" means anyone can take what we have built or acquired.
What is that "social order" worth?
What should it cost?
Should those who receive more protection from that "social order" pay more than others who have far less to protect?

Taxes are regressive for many.
Florissant has many seniors, retired older adults, and young families. Increase taxes will be a huge hardship on them. In this time of recession, it is not time to raise taxes, and further hurt those who are already struggling.

Marcus Welby wrote:

<quoted text>
We could start by cutting out the mayor's salary and his lunch allowance. That should cover a big chunk of the shortage.

Using that as an example. Let's say we reduce the Mayors salary by $50,000 per year.

Let's say (conservativly) the city shortfall on revenue is now at $1 million a year, because of a sales tax shortfall county wide.(Florissant receives most of its revenue from the county wide sales tax pool)

Conservatively, it would take the cutting of at least 20, full time people earning $50,000 per year to achieve this adjustment to the budget.

I realize this is simple math, but, it demonstrates the seriousness of the problem. Adjusting budgets down, is difficult and painful.

Conversly, if Florissant doesn't make the cuts, using the same loss of $1 million in revenue, it would take about $50 each for each home in Florissant to make that up in new taxes or fees to cover it. That is based on approximatly 20,000 homes in Florissant X $50 each =$1 million

This years budget money is about gone,they can,t buy anything. Like salt for the streets which they need.

WHY is it our problem the city can't manage its funds?

Who is going to give me money if I can't manage my money? Not a damn person, so you get the idea.

Everyone wants your money for nothing. I don't GAF if we have any parks since they will be taken over by gangs soon.

This is no longer the 1970's and 80's. We cannot spend, spend, spend because we have less revenue. We need to retrench and revisit each and every salary, service, and amenities that we, the people, pay for.

Yes, the mayor's salary should be reduced to a comparable salary for other mayors in town of a similar size. His salary should not have been equal to Eagan's. Would anyone hire a replacement at the same salary as a 20 year veteran? Of couse not. Then why did Lowery get the same salary as Eagan had?

The VOF, JJE Center, pools, and all services provided to Florissant residents should be reviewed by an independent group of citizens.

If this was my house, we would reduce expenses and attempt to find other source of revenue such as taking on a second job.

How can Florissant do these two natural, reasonable tasks? Reduce service, and salaries. Increase revenue?????????

Regressive wrote:

<quoted text>
Taxes are regressive for many.
Florissant has many seniors, retired older adults, and young families. Increase taxes will be a huge hardship on them. In this time of recession, it is not time to raise taxes, and further hurt those who are already struggling.

If the tax is regressive then it is a problem with the way we are applying the taxes. A tax in itself is not unfair, it is the way it is applied.
If we want police protection or fire protection or any other government provided services we have to pay for them. We don't expect the sew service to show up and auger our clogged drains and do it for free.
We decided a long time ago that we should pool our money to get certain things done like police protection. It made more sense than having a lot of "private guns for hire" running about doing "the bidding" of their employers.
Taxes are a necessary part of that social contract we all have with each other. The problem always seems to come up when it comes to "who" should pay and "how much".

hater wrote:

I don't GAF if we have any parks since they will be taken over by gangs soon.

Sorry hater, hate to disappoint you. They already have been. The curse and spread of downward spiraling demographics has now found a new place to call home. In a matter of a few years, it will be just like Kinloch.

Nick O wrote:

<quoted text>
If the tax is regressive then it is a problem with the way we are applying the taxes. A tax in itself is not unfair, it is the way it is applied.
If we want police protection or fire protection or any other government provided services we have to pay for them. We don't expect the sew service to show up and auger our clogged drains and do it for free.
We decided a long time ago that we should pool our money to get certain things done like police protection. It made more sense than having a lot of "private guns for hire" running about doing "the bidding" of their employers.
Taxes are a necessary part of that social contract we all have with each other. The problem always seems to come up when it comes to "who" should pay and "how much".

You are correct, Tax(es) of and in itself are not the problem. It is, like you say, what they are collected on, and how they are applied and spent. Taxes are necessary, and can provide necessary resources collectivly. But when misapplied and abused, then the outrage surfaces.
But in these economic times, balance and application must be used judisciously.
That includes, federal government, state government, county government, local/municipal government, fire districts, school districts, sewer districts, etc.
Make the best use of the tax resource collected and apply accordingly.

IT Guy wrote:

This is no longer the 1970's and 80's. We cannot spend, spend, spend because we have less revenue. We need to retrench and revisit each and every salary, service, and amenities that we, the people, pay for.
Yes, the mayor's salary should be reduced to a comparable salary for other mayors in town of a similar size. His salary should not have been equal to Eagan's. Would anyone hire a replacement at the same salary as a 20 year veteran? Of couse not. Then why did Lowery get the same salary as Eagan had?
The VOF, JJE Center, pools, and all services provided to Florissant residents should be reviewed by an independent group of citizens.
If this was my house, we would reduce expenses and attempt to find other source of revenue such as taking on a second job.
How can Florissant do these two natural, reasonable tasks? Reduce service, and salaries. Increase revenue?????????

IT writes = The VOF, JJE Center, pools, and all services provided to Florissant residents should be reviewed by an independent group of citizens.

A good cross section of Florissant Residents could be a great source of budget help. But, who is going to listen?

ham hocks and greens wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry hater, hate to disappoint you. They already have been. The curse and spread of downward spiraling demographics has now found a new place to call home. In a matter of a few years, it will be just like Kinloch.

In some areas, yes. I couldn't tell you the last time I went to any park, not even the zoo. They are all for gays.

Yes, let Florissant tax gays, blacks, and obese rednecks. That will fill up the reserves

More Taxes wrote:

Yes, let Florissant tax gays, blacks, and obese rednecks. That will fill up the reserves

Now we're talking!

Too bad all the brownies live in apartments and won't have to pay the tax.

The mayor is not going to increase taxes. He did not support that emergency radio tax because he said people can't afford a raise in taxes during this recession.

And see how readily he promises some people who are considering his Sunset Park annexation proposal that he "will not raise their taxes." Mayor Lowery never lies.

http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com/articles...

Maybe we could use the money the city got from the sale of the water company. Wasn't that somewhere around $14M? Surely the city saved most of that money instead of squandering it on useless expenditures. I would think that a fiscally responsible city manager would still have $10M -$12M of that money invested where they could get their hands on it.

Marcus Welby wrote:

Maybe we could use the money the city got from the sale of the water company. Wasn't that somewhere around $14M? Surely the city saved most of that money instead of squandering it on useless expenditures. I would think that a fiscally responsible city manager would still have $10M -$12M of that money invested where they could get their hands on it.

What you talkin about Willis?

I heard that the Florissant police are getting pay cuts. Anyone know if that is so? It would save money and there would be no need for increased taxes.