A Difference of Opinion on How to do Business

Hi,

This past Monday we held .  At that meeting, and after hearing some comments from the public in the days following, I realized that I have a different opinion than some on how we should do the business of University City.

As you may know, when our current City Manager Lehman Walker arrived last August, he was presented with a budget for this fiscal year that showed a $1.2 million dollar deficit, and with an anticipated budget for FY2012 that showed a $900,000 deficit.  With a reorganization within City Hall, more oversight of expenses, and a settlement from the T-Mobile litigation, this year’s budget is now balanced. And he has presented the Council with a DRAFT FY2012 which anticipates not only a balanced budget, but a $761,000 surplus.  And there have been no cuts in services and there is no recommendation for a tax increase.

Great news – especially when you remember that two years ago the previous Administration went to the residents of University City TWICE to ask for tax hikes saying that services would be cut if the hikes were not approved. They were not approved, even with the implied threats of massive service cuts.

One person at the public meeting on Monday questioned Mr. Walker as to why he would continue to recommend ways to increase revenue for the City, including a charge of $1 for parking on city-owned lots in the Loop during the evening, if we have a surplus.  Others stated their strong interest in saving city jobs.  And in a public forum, another commented that University City is not a business and should not be run like one.

Hmmm…..I beg to disagree.

The City of University City is a not-for-profit organization.  We are not in the business to make money.  We are in the business of providing services to our residents.  We are a corporation and need to be run with attention to the bottom line and efficient operations.  The difference is, we don’t provide profits to stakeholders, but use available funds to improve or expand services or return them to our residents in the form of lower taxes.

I have long said that the City Council and staff have to determine what services we want to offer our residents and provide them in the most efficient way possible. Unsaid in that phrase is that we have to be thinking of how to do this for the long-term.  We can’t just think about today, about this budget. We must always think about how we will continue to provide these services over the long-term, particularly in an economic situation when City revenues are not keeping up with expenditures.

I’d like to point out a few instances where I think the City has not been managed in a way that ensures our residents are getting the biggest bang for their bucks, and that will put us on a good fiscal path for the long-term.

• In the initial reorganization of City staff, two department director positions were eliminated.  We had two managers, each making over $100,000 with salary and benefits, managing a total of two people.

• For a number of years, we have known that we will need to purchase a new fire pumper in 2014. That pumper will cost approximately $575,000.  We have not set aside any funds for that purchase up to this point.

• We set aside, in our Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) $350,000 for street resurfacing, and $175,000 for sidewalk and curb maintenance. Yet we still get calls from residents complaining that their streets/curbs are not being properly maintained.  Are we not setting aside enough money for this important task?  Do we need more staff to handle the workload?

• For this fiscal year, the initial budget for our Information Technology department was more than $700,000, with more than $400,000 of that going to hire outside contractors to handle the work our staff members were not qualified to do.

• Next year we are facing a decision on fire dispatching.  If we stay with the same provider, our cost will increase from $77,000 to more than $300,000.  We should have been planning for this transition for years.  I am pleased to write that now the new Fire Chief is looking into other options that we can afford, and that will provide our residents with the protection they need.

• For the past three years there has been talk of renovating the current fire/police station behind City Hall for the Police Department if/when a new fire house is built.  That would be a $1.5 million expenditure and yet, again, no money has been set aside for it.

• Back in April of 2009 the City hired a consultant to produce an urban forestry strategic plan to discuss how to protect our urban forest, which is valued at more than $25,000.000.  (Please see that plan at: http://mo-universitycity.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1053)  One of the major recommendations was to hire more staff to protect this resource.  That has not been  implemented, or even discussed. (NOTE: According to this report we plant 185 fewer trees every year than we remove.  At that rate, University City will be deforested by 2060.)

I would argue that these are examples of business practices/decisions that, if they happened in the for-profit world of business would have led to some very poor profits indeed, if profits at all.  Our residents deserve the same attention to detail and good business practices as the stakeholders in any publicly-held company.

I would also argue that some of the items on that list can/could and would happen if and when the City has more revenue.  We can’t look at a budget one year at a time – not look for additional revenues for the City when we are able to balance the budget for one year.  We have to be looking at the long-term, keeping in mind what can’t happen in the City because of lack of revenues.  We have to be on the lookout for funds that can finance what should be happening.  We can’t be content with the status quo.  We have to look at making University City a better place for our residents in the future, and to find the funds to do that.  One year’s balanced budget is not the end.  It’s a start for the next five, ten and twenty years.

Of course I am aware that some of the changes that have occurred at City Hall have personally impacted, in a negative way, some of our employees – they have lost their jobs.  I’ve been laid off in the past.  I know how hard that is, even if you have advance notice that layoffs are coming. But I repeat a previous comment:  what services do we want to provide and how do we provide them in an efficient manner.  That is what our residents expect and deserve. I firmly believe that the vast majority of our residents see that as our job – not to protect positions that are not necessary for the efficient delivery of City services.

It’s my hope that the City Council will work with staff to develop a detailed long-term strategic plan, implementing the very initial plan that we created in May of 2010, but going far beyond that to get into specifics of what the City will be doing for its residents for the next 15-20 years.

This City administration is dealing with financial challenges that took root during the past five, ten and twenty years of previous administrations. We are on the right path now.  We now have an administration that is looking at the long-term implications of staffing and budgeting decisions.

We owe that to each and every resident of University City.

Mayor Shelley Welsch