Detweiler offers more on the Corvallis levy (02-74)

Research and letter by John H. Detweiler - submitted to the Corvallis Gazette-Times 3/21/2011 (Published by the GT on 3/25/2011 as Letter: Passing city’s levy won’t solve Corvallis’ real fiscal problems.

The levy that will appear on the May ballot will not solve our budget problems. Local households and local business cannot support our local government. Therefore we must reduce costs. Personnel costs, amounting to 55% of current costs, are good place to start.

The mean total compensation (salary and benefits) per full time equivalent for the FY 10-11 budget year is $100,000. In five years, the mean total compensation has gone from $80,000 to $100,000. The total salary and benefits increases over this period are: 5.29% and 7.44% per year respectively.

In 2008, the ratios of Corvallis employee salary to Corvallis citizen salary and Salem government worker salary were 1.57 and 1.31 respectively -- higher than I had thought they would be. The notion in setting pay rates is to pay sufficient compensation to attract and retain qualified competent employees. The total package does not have to be excessive.

Negotiations need to be conducted with our unions to constrain and reduce total compensation. And, if we have to take a strike, so be it. If reasonable contracts cannot be worked out, we can contract with private business to perform the commercially oriented functions and lay off employees - foregoing their services -- we can't afford. Details and the sources of these numbers can be found at www.peak.org/~detweij.

This levy, and the ones that will be required in the future if we don't get our costs under control, will not solve our budget problems. Join thinking citizens in voting against this levy.

John H. Detweiler
Corvallis
www.peak.org/~detweij

Read More......

Re: Corvallis Levy

Research and letter by John H. Detweiler (submitted to the Corvallis Gazette-Times 3/13/2011)

The levy that will appear on the May ballot funds the lower priority items but not the highest priority items. If the levy passes, we will fund: the Osborn Aquatic Center - the service with the lowest priority, the Senior Center - part of the Parks and Recreation Department which has a priority just above the Aquatic Center, some social services, and marginal cuts in library services - which have a priority just above Park and Recreation.

On page III-13 of the Financial Plans, given to the Budget Commission, shows that the ending budget fund balance is a negative $3.1M. On the reduction possibilities-matrix, also given to the Budget Commission, there are three groups of services -- A-Levy services, B-Remaining Order of Magnitude Packages, and C-Alternate Order of Magnitude Packages -- listed in the order, by group, which they would be cut.

The property tax fund amounts for group A, group B, and group C are $1.8M, $1.0M, and $1.6M respectively. The first two groups (A&B) will be cut for total of $2.8M and $0.3M cut from the third group (C).

If the levy passes, the cuts contained in group A will be restored but the cuts contained in groups B and C will not be restored. Groups B and C include cuts to the fire and police departments - the services with the highest priority.

My analysis of priorities is based on the 2010 Citizens Attitude Study and the survey conducted by Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall and can be found at www.peak.org/~detweij.

John H. Detweiler
Corvallis
www.peak.org/~detweij

Read More......