Lipstick on a Pig

Rebel

Diamond Member
#81
doesn't take long to find stuff....

police department - number of officers has increased by 2 over 2014 - but apparently we need 4 new sergeants and 4 new lieutenants and an admin person to oversee this increase in staff... (pg 110)

similarly, the fire department adds 2 new firefighters , but also adds 4 new admin positions and 3 new fire prevention positions (pg 114) as well as a couple of others.

and this little gem buried on page 212 (note that funding for arts fund 18k annual until this year when it pops up to almost 100k):


also note that the CDC, FDC and TIF have total outstanding bonds of close to $300 million - not counting the interest that will be paid - that creeps the number up closer to $500 million. My guess is that does not include all the monies promised that have yet to have bonds issued to pay for...
The mix of line level vs supervisor additions (in all areas of the budgets) is something I'm asking about. Valid question. I haven't done a detailed comparison yet, but I don't believe we've added much in the way of those positions in past years. At some point, as with any service business, you have to add some amount of supervision after you've been adding those line positions. With the amount of additional...well everything we've added, at some point your line workers can't do the administrative stuff they may have been able to do before. Generally speaking.


So I was not able to attend meeting Monday as I had work commitments. The job that allows me to pay th ever increasing taxes takes priority. I have emailed the city directly and expressed my concerns about the budget.

They are adding to many nonessential heads- HR, Assistants, park workers, irrigation specialist, education coordinators for environmental services just to name a few.

They have forgotten how to distinguish between a nice to have and a need to have.

Almost 50% of $7.3M increase is being used for market adjustments. Over $3M. Sorry that needs to go. You want to get paid market? Go get a private sector job.
So you want a well maintained, exemplary type city, but want to pay the workers below market? Keep in mind "market" in this case is a comparison to other cities/governmental agencies, not necessarily the private sector.

Let me ask you, if you are the lowest paying employer around do you believe you will attract the best (or even average) qualified candidates? Or do you think you'll attract those that are less than qualified?

If employees are paid below market do you think they would be more or less inclined to do their jobs well and have a vested interest in doing their job above average?

If you're attracting less than qualified candidates, how well do you think a City would continue to be run and maintained long term?
 
#82
Top talent simply is not attracted to a city government environment. They will never get the best.

The $3M just keeps on giving as you now have a higher salary base going forward. They already have a 3% merit assumed in the budget. Cut that back to $750K or so and just give to your top talent. If the average or poor performers leave who cares.

If those under market don't perform on the job, fire them. You trade a better work/life balance and an overall easier work environment for a lower pay.
 

Rimrock

Double Platinum
#83
Valid points TL94. And if they stick around long enough they will receive a pension. Who gets that today? So they are getting market rates + a pension. Man.....
 

bizguy

Diamond Member
#84
Your perspective is wrong. 5 folks on FOL that claim the multi use center is Too expensive, or can't be justified is not a quorum, or a fact. It's just your opinion you have a right to. But stating that we are 'sensitive' is dead wrong. I think you are the one that has the sensitivity to it. I think it's a great deal for the FISD, good deal for the city, good deal for the cowboys, and is a win-win-win deal. I think the development around it would what is going on, without that catalyst. You disagree. No facts can change that either way, other than watching what happens over the next 10 years.

I don't think anyone is 'Overprotective of it' because it's happening, like it or not.
So how do you feel about the half billion or more (my guess is substantially more once incentives are paid to companies to fill up those shiny new buildings ) the city is taking on for this magical $5 billion mile?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 

andygump

Platinum Member
#85
Top talent simply is not attracted to a city government environment. They will never get the best.

The $3M just keeps on giving as you now have a higher salary base going forward. They already have a 3% merit assumed in the budget. Cut that back to $750K or so and just give to your top talent. If the average or poor performers leave who cares.

If those under market don't perform on the job, fire them. You trade a better work/life balance and an overall easier work environment for a lower pay.
But here is the real problem. The best leave to make more money or because they get tired of "issues". Then you are stuck with mediocre performers, low seniority and being understaffed...now what?
Now you have staff working OT trying to do the job, work / family balance gets
Messed up and people leave or "lower" their performance because it is acceptable.
 
Last edited:

Piiilot

Platinum Member
#86
If y'all don't like it just bugger off and live somewhere else.
This response does not surprise me at all. It is exactly the type of response I would have expected from a community that doesn't vote or participate in government. Just to provide some perspective on what you are blowing off. The "Trophy" everyone seems to tout is the "5 Billion Dollar Mile." Sure sounds sexy ! Right ?
At what cost though ? Have you really ever considered WE are 2 Billion Dollars in debt +or-.
3-500 million dollars of that is spent by the EDC and CDC in nearly opaque fashion. You have a budget that includes a 50% increase over 2 years ago in expenses for the Mayor and Council - and they no longer publish their expense reports on the city website - and have not done so in a year. according to the budget, that money is for increased travel. Are we going to see them at Dancing with the Stars again ? Do they need to go back to Dubai ? Or are they going to the NTMWD or Brazos Power to fight for infrastructure ?

Really I guess my point is this. Many of you rail against our current Federal Government and that idiot in the White House for his tax and spend fiscal irresponsibility - yet you want to give your own city leaders a complete pass spending tax dollars unchecked.
There is nothing wrong with giving them a pass, but it is inappropriate to criticize the handful of people that ask questions, and try to learn what's happening with our money.
 

bizguy

Diamond Member
#87
so no city cheerleaders are able to explain why city needs annual revenue increases greater than the population growth and inflation rate? Its pretty simple I would think - revenue from new builds pays for the increased services that are needed while the baseline should grow no faster than inflation - say 3%. Instead baseline increases 10%. Shouldn't these "fabulous" deals done by the EDC be paying off in the form of lower taxes? If not, what's the point...
 

pearceg

Diamond Member
#88
... the baseline should grow no faster than inflation - say 3%. Instead baseline increases 10%. Shouldn't these "fabulous" deals done by the EDC be paying off in the form of lower taxes? If not, what's the point...
Hey man, world-class photo ops don't just pay for themselves you know....

 
#91
so no city cheerleaders are able to explain why city needs annual revenue increases greater than the population growth and inflation rate? Its pretty simple I would think - revenue from new builds pays for the increased services that are needed while the baseline should grow no faster than inflation - say 3%. Instead baseline increases 10%. Shouldn't these "fabulous" deals done by the EDC be paying off in the form of lower taxes? If not, what's the point...
I sent that same question to Ms Lange over a week ago but apparently she can't be bothered to answer the question. Guess when there is no good answer you just ignore the question.
 

Piiilot

Platinum Member
#92
I sent that same question to Ms Lange over a week ago but apparently she can't be bothered to answer the question. Guess when there is no good answer you just ignore the question.
My perception - based on many of the comments made in this thread - is the city leaders and elected officials believe that if they ignore us we will go away. There are enough people in the city that will "cheer" on whatever the leaders say without asking questions, they don't care, or feel any obligation to respond to questions they don't want to answer. I have asked twice about the expense reports, and those requests have fallen on deaf ears. I don't blame them though. This community is apathetic, and uninformed, these folks can get away with a lot, because we allow it.
 

Mom+4

Silver Member
#93
so no city cheerleaders are able to explain why city needs annual revenue increases greater than the population growth and inflation rate? Its pretty simple I would think - revenue from new builds pays for the increased services that are needed while the baseline should grow no faster than inflation - say 3%. Instead baseline increases 10%. Shouldn't these "fabulous" deals done by the EDC be paying off in the form of lower taxes? If not, what's the point...
Gotta say....I'm in agreement with you. I don't understand why the city council is celebrating that we "toed the line" on not increasing taxes, when we have a record $$$$ coming from these sweet deals and increased rooftops AND the sharp increase in our property taxes.
 

bizguy

Diamond Member
#94
Gotta say....I'm in agreement with you. I don't understand why the city council is celebrating that we "toed the line" on not increasing taxes, when we have a record $$$$ coming from these sweet deals and increased rooftops AND the sharp increase in our property taxes.
welcome to the dark side.... we have cookies... :welcome:
 

whatsthat

Diamond Member
#95
We got so many schools....the whole west side of the city is about to be reduced to a 20MPH school zone

Drive Teel south from El Dorado to Stonebrook ......you are in a near constant school zone
 

pearceg

Diamond Member
#96
... when we have a record $$$$ coming from these sweet deals ...
The sad truth is that in the real world, these sports developments universally deliver far far less actual revenue than their chambers of commerce, marketing consultants, citizen cheerleaders, and flyover animators claim they will.
 

Mom+4

Silver Member
#97
The sad truth is that in the real world, these sports developments universally deliver far far less actual revenue than their chambers of commerce, marketing consultants, citizen cheerleaders, and flyover animators claim they will.
Except this is NOT a typical sports arena (a la AA Center or the Jerry Dome in Arlington). This one IS different and it shouldn't be lumped into the same category.

We already have major development around this practice facility and HQ. And don't try to compare this one with Valley Ranch (built when JJ was re-building the Cowboys on his credit card) and the original facility (never meant to be an economic driver).


The income from THIS project pretty much pays the bond for the project for the next decade. I get that. And this deal was never touted to lower our taxes.

The issue I have with the city NOT lowering the tax rate is the $5Billion mile and that revenue (not realized yet, though...but coming), the sharp increase in our home values (equaling new revenue for the city RIGHT NOW) and the increase in rooftops with MUCH higher price points than in years past (revenue now). Even a token small reduction would have been better than "Yippee, we didn't raise taxes!!".


On the ISD front - they have the lowest rate around. Allen, Anna and others are trying to get their rate INCREASED over the cap. Hopefully, our ISD will toe the line and not have to go that route.
 

bizguy

Diamond Member
#98
Except this is NOT a typical sports arena (a la AA Center or the Jerry Dome in Arlington). This one IS different and it shouldn't be lumped into the same category.

We already have major development around this practice facility and HQ. And don't try to compare this one with Valley Ranch (built when JJ was re-building the Cowboys on his credit card) and the original facility (never meant to be an economic driver).


The income from THIS project pretty much pays the bond for the project for the next decade. I get that. And this deal was never touted to lower our taxes.

The issue I have with the city NOT lowering the tax rate is the $5Billion mile and that revenue (not realized yet, though...but coming), the sharp increase in our home values (equaling new revenue for the city RIGHT NOW) and the increase in rooftops with MUCH higher price points than in years past (revenue now). Even a token small reduction would have been better than "Yippee, we didn't raise taxes!!".


On the ISD front - they have the lowest rate around. Allen, Anna and others are trying to get their rate INCREASED over the cap. Hopefully, our ISD will toe the line and not have to go that route.
A. How is it different - most all these things are touted as multi use and sold with the idea that additional development comes with it? That is almost exactly what was said about the AA center.

B. Please don't tell me you are relying on that "economic" analysis that was so flawed that it doesn't even pass the smell test...
 

Piiilot

Platinum Member
#99
Except this is NOT a typical sports arena (a la AA Center or the Jerry Dome in Arlington). This one IS different and it shouldn't be lumped into the same category.

We already have major development around this practice facility and HQ. And don't try to compare this one with Valley Ranch (built when JJ was re-building the Cowboys on his credit card) and the original facility (never meant to be an economic driver).


The income from THIS project pretty much pays the bond for the project for the next decade. I get that. And this deal was never touted to lower our taxes.

The issue I have with the city NOT lowering the tax rate is the $5Billion mile and that revenue (not realized yet, though...but coming), the sharp increase in our home values (equaling new revenue for the city RIGHT NOW) and the increase in rooftops with MUCH higher price points than in years past (revenue now). Even a token small reduction would have been better than "Yippee, we didn't raise taxes!!".


On the ISD front - they have the lowest rate around. Allen, Anna and others are trying to get their rate INCREASED over the cap. Hopefully, our ISD will toe the line and not have to go that route.
Would you mind elaborating on the income you mention. Specifically, how much income, and where exactly will it come from. With respect to the tax rate - you do understand that is nothing more than smoke and mirrors right ?