Open meeting to discuss the 2013-2014 budget

Issue 1: The City Council and Mayor would not state that they intended to fund a professional salary for a Fire Chief for the City of Windcrest. I made a presentation stating that I supported a professional salary for a Fire Chief as a POSITION initiative and not just because Dan Reese held the job. 

The POSITION requires a salary commensurate with that of the other Public Safety Department, which is the Police Department.  Parity in salary is justified for the Chief of Police and Fire Chief.

All I got from the Mayor, with the Council sitting on their lips as is their wont, is that the City of Windcrest is in NEGOTIATIONS with the Fire Chief on the matter of salary.  Those "negotiations"
should have been finished in time for the funding of the salaried position on the September 4 revision of the budget.

I believe that if the Mayor and Council wanted to pay a Fire Chief a professional salary, at least a base salary would have been in the budget for 2013-2014. 

Issue 2: I did not want the Council to take away one of the Patrol Corporal positions that have been in past budgets.  The new budget reduces the number of Patrol Corporals to 2 from 3.  I made the point that each of the three shifts needs a senior patrolman.  The Mayor said he'd get with the Chief to discuss adding a corporal and the Chief had to come forward and tell the Mayor and Council that he already had 3.  DUH!!!!  The point I was trying to make was don't cut the allocation. 

Issue 3:  Touchy subject. Compensation for the City Manager and Municipal Finance Officer.  I thought the CM was getting a merit raise of 18% (far above the 3% given to the other city employees). I believe I was told it was not a merit raise by a "new 3 year contract". I fail to see the difference. 
  The MFO position showed a raise in compensation to about $80K from about $67K, another large merit increase upon first inspection.  I was advised that the $80K wasn't a raise, but rather a projected figure of income available to the MFO if she worked more hours as approved by the City Manager.  If the MFO is anticipated to need to work about 20% more hours, what is different between 2013 and 2014 that so many more hours will be needed?  Let me be clear - I'm NOT opposed to pay for performance or merit raises.

posted 9.12.13 at 7:02 PM by Dennis

Open letter to City Council regarding 2013-2014 Budget

4 Sept 2013

Open letter to Council, CF Mayor:

I attended the “budget” meeting on September 3, as you well know.  Prior to attending that meeting I visited the City website to look at the information under the Budget tab.  I found instead a PR piece that most closely resembles a “State of the Union/City” and which ran to page 71 of 207 pages.  Those first 71 pages focused on showcasing recent initiatives or successes attributed to the current Administration. 

Make no mistake about my comments.  I do NOT object to PR postings, I support letting the public know how Windcrest is progressing.  Be clear that I am not writing this letter to you to dispute the accuracy of numbers or genesis of any success stories in the “Mayor’s Summary..”.  I simply do not believe that presentation belongs under the Budget tab, and the multiple pages of information did not help me understand HOW the upcoming budget would fund the future prioritized operations of this City (budgets being forward thinking documents).  

Please move the State of the Union/City briefing material to a more appropriate site on the City web. Replace those 71 pages with one page that clearly lists the priorities for the 2013-2014 budget (followed by all the required legalese and 2013-2014 spreadsheets). Ensure that readers know that priorities listed have been integrated into the 2013-2014 budget as proposed and presented to the citizens on 3 September, and will again be presented on 9 September, 2013 in a public setting.

At the meeting on 3 September I had hoped to see some briefing slides or perhaps even a couple of pages of handouts that would be useful for citizens to understand and comment on WHY specific budget line items were being amended from 2013.  Significant increases in line item expenditures are due to increased emphasis (defined priorities), or expected inflation.  Tell citizens which applies.   

I am working under the assumption that ALL of the Department Heads prepared their section budgets based on their knowledge of what it was going to take to sufficiently fund their department(s) operations in the coming fiscal year.  Most often, such budgets are padded a bit, but hopefully not egregiously so. I am also working under the assumption that the City Manager has directed integration of the Department budgets into the 2013-2014 projections as a reflection of internal consistency with the wishes of the Mayor and Council.  Those Department budgets are “signposts” on the road to a final budget.

I was disappointed in not hearing and seeing the budget “vision” for 2013-14 articulated with priorities clearly set. I’ve seen the Mayor’s “Future Vision” (page 40 of the 207 pages) on the website.  Since not all actions cannot be equally weighted, I’d hope to see (clearly stated in bullet form) the top three priorities from that “Future Vision”, most important presented as #1.  Such a format would allow the citizens present, or watching, or who intend to participate on the 9^th of September to weigh how closely the priorities of the Mayor matches their own needs and wants.   I was also hoping to see those top 3 priorities from the “Vision” discussed by the COUNCIL , with some dialogue as to whether each COUNCIL MEMBER agrees with the priorities.  I heard no such dialogue.

I found 3 initiatives on the Mayor’s Future Vision (I support the posted list pending learning how the list will be executed) which are consistent with my personal priorities. 

Additional police officers was the first bullet on the Mayor’s list.  My most basic need is one of security. If I and my property are not “safe”, then I won’t ever be comfortable in my environment and will move as soon as possible to an environment that is “safe”.  I’m willing to forgo a perfectly smooth street, pretty parks with serviceable tennis courts, put up with a lack of desirable retail shopping establishments and even willing to pay a high tax rate if I believe I’m “safe”.  In the presence of a threat (which we know requires constant vigilance and “boots on the ground” for patrolling) additional police officers gets my vote for the number one priority for future funding.  Establishing a secure environment is the most basic task of responsible government, and the foundation to quality of life in Windcrest.  I would support a budget expense that ensures our police force is not unduly constrained by short sighted financial allocations. 

The Mayor’s Future Vision also lists spending over $1 million ($1,320,000 in the 2014 budget) for maintenance and improvements to our streets.  That could fall under the second priority of Infrastructure Improvements. Implementation of only the street portion of infrastructure improvement will require significant funds transfer to the street CIP and needs to be defended on it’s merit relative to other actions such as “Parade of Homes” support or paying $38,000 for the “Light UP”.

The final priority in the top three taken from the Mayor’s list could be Employee Compensation and Retention.  Windcrest citizens don’t expect superior performance from inferior employees.  Philosophically, I reject compensation for the general population of workers being raised by only 3% (admittedly higher than a simple COLA) since 3% of $30,000 is only $900 (and that sum is taxed) while the City Manager will benefit from over 18% boost in compensation (see page 138 of 207 showing the City Manager receiving a raise of $17,385 [up to $112,385 from the current base of $95,000]).  I do support pay for performance, and don’t begrudge the City Manager a reward for carrying out his orders with dispatch.  However, I don’t believe that the QUALITY of the City Manager’s performance can be defended as deserving a percentage increase in compensation of more than 5 times the percentage of the most deserving staff person’s in a lower level job.  I anticipate many in this community will share my reluctance to bestow such disproportionate largess on selected individuals.

So Council Members, would you please articulate YOUR priorities for the 2013-2014 budget at the next public meeting?  Tell your constituency what you believe should receive significantly higher funding and why, even if your opinion is not 100% consistent with that of the Mayor who has already published his wish list.

Thank you for reading my letter. 

I don’t need, nor really want individual replies.  I watch what people do to ascertain their motives and values rather than simply listening to what they say.  I look forward to the coming meeting on Monday to learn what YOU believe and value.

Dennis Allen

 

Why is Dennis seeking a Council seat?

Why I’m running for Place #5 on the Council: I’m seeking a seat on the Council because the incumbents on the City Council have supported the dissolution of WD #10.  That one issue is enough to require some new balance on the Council.   

However, I have additional concerns with the Council’s performance and hope to be able to influence some changes to that performance when I’m elected to a seat on the Council.  

I object to the Council failing to require an initial and formal “needs” analysis for projects and making that needs analysis publically available for citizens to review.  The proposed “soccer field” is an example of a project that had no formal needs analysis yet blundered ahead until the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality sent the Mayor a certified letter to stop the dirt dumping because the City had not obtained the proper permits  for the construction site nor addressed other issues.  The letter is a public record.

  Note:  After some personal research and analysis, I wrote a justification (needs analysis with recommendation) for a soccer field and gave that justification and recommendation to both the Mayor and the Chairperson of Parks and Recreation.  I’ll support some land being designated for a multipurpose field upon which soccer could be played.  I'm not sold on the proposed location as the best site for such a recreational area.  If you want to see a copy of that analysis and  recommendation, I can post it to this site.  I believe it to be a general format that could be implemented by the City for future projects. 

 I object to the Council avoiding debating [in public] the merits or shortfalls of agenda items. 

I object to the passive acceptance of excessive personnel turnover without complaint from Council incumbents.  Experienced employees are too valuable to be treated like a commodity. 

I object to the Council failing to explain why they concur with the analysis of qualifications used for hiring decisions.  "Best qualified for the position because......."?

I object to the Council allowing official briefings to them by department heads, prospective vendors or contractors to be of a quality easily surpassed by high school students. 

I object to financial reports and budget data to be presented in formats that are difficult to comprehend (even for sophisticated consumers) and needing amendments when challenged for accuracy.

 

I believe that as a private citizen I have insufficient status to influence City Hall. 

I’ve made both public and private offers to help the City improve operations.  I did NOT ask for any compensation for my time.

 Those offers to help have been rejected.

I feel compelled to seek an elected public status that will help allow me to be more effective in helping this City upgrade operational procedures and gain more public trust through those changes.