There's one I've never heard before. Can we persuade you to expand on that idea a little?

Another great example of a small expenditure that adds to the total cost:

From yesterday's Bellingham Herald

==================================

Bus designs and art a waste of WTA money

At a small meeting several months ago I cited, with apologies to the WTA administrator present, the children's' drawings and other art on WTA buses as an example of something that should be considered in terms of cost and benefit to bus riders and the general public. This seemed reasonable; in a home or business most people consider the cost and benefit of a purchase.

After our little meeting, however, a lady approached the WTA administrator to state that, unlike myself, she liked the children's art. He responded by noting that the cost was "only: $3,000 per bus.

The lady, of course, missed the point; I like children's art - I enjoyed teaching art in public schools for 10 years, from kindergarten through grade 12. I was suggesting that adding decoration to the outside of a bus is not a requirement and cost should be considered.

Is a $3000 cost increase really of little consequence? Is it time to change this attitude in light of the fact that WTA fare increases and higher taxes are being considered?
I have ridden the bus and would submit that, for many riders, keeping fares low for those inside is more important than decorating the outside.

Niel Pfundt
Bellingham

---

I can't say I agree with your premise - that somehow raising impact fees so that growth pays for itself is sticking it to the newcomers. Seems to me if we don't, then newcomers are sticking it to taxpayers who already live here.

Also, I'm not sure it's a matter of what's more "simple". It's more a matter of what's more fair.



Thanks, glad you liked it!

Hello CARL,

It's my understanding that our local economy lags behind broader area trends by a year or more so this slow down was anticipated. I think the numbers that you call "profit" are what our Finance Office calls "reserves". Council has been told that we need to maintain a certain level of reserves to keep our, now very good, bond rating. Those reserves not only bring in needed revenue but, more importantly, they show that we are financially healthy which keeps our bond rating high which in turn keeps our cost of funds low which saves our taxpayers money. P. S. E is an example of a company with a poor bond rating cripling their ability to sell bonds and I'm guessing that may have something to do with their being up for sale.

Damon; the Art and Children's museum you used as an example of "fat" is not a COB project. It is being funded by the Public Facilities District which is funded by a small portion of the Sales taxes as authorized by the Legislature. Points well taken on bus art crosswalk fancyness. On your statement that public employees are protected and can't be laid off. I beg to differ. When Ken Hertz took office, I was a fire fighter at he time and he presented a budget that cut 27 city positions and the Council approved 26 of them. People went out the door including, firefighters. Attrition brought our fire personnel back but the positions remained cut; gone. When we hire a firefighter we are not only taking on a significant wage and benefit package but we spend several hundred dollars on uniforms and protective and safety gear and then there's the extensive training that we do to keep our employees safe from the harm they face every day at work. City employees represent a huge investment of our resources and they are over 80% of our budget. Any "fat" we cut has to be from the less than 20% that remains. Of that we have plenty of fixed utility and assest costs that can't be considered "fat".

I recently received a letter from a citizen complaining that we are not properly maintaining our Bayview Cemetary. Since it's a monument laden cemetary, maintenance is a major challenge. We were recently told that we can no longer utilize work release, community service folks so our slim Parks Maintenance workers will have to shoulder that load and it will be at the expense of something else that we need. Do we stop mowing lawns in our parks or doing trail maintenance. My point is that any significant cut in our budget, at least on the General Fund side will mean letting people go and the service they provided will not be maintained. Having worked at COB for thirty years I'm more than a little familiar with the workload our employees carry.

For example at Fire I was a Division Chief in charge of Training. I also was in charge of facilities and grounds, the department's records management system, the computer system, building and remodeling stations and we built three new stations on my watch and remodeled two others. All of these programs carried with them, major budget responsibilities. Additionally, I shared emergency administrative duties one week in four which meant being on call 24/7 for that week. And, all administrative officers reported to all major emergencies if we were in town.

This is my story but I'm sure you could hear a similar tale from Leslie Bryson, Planning and Development Manager for Parks and Recreation or countless other dedicated COB employees. I think it's safe to say that few citizens appreciate the dedication we have in City Government. One good way to gain insight is to volunteer on a COB advisory board, the Mayor's office has Applications or they are on line and there are usually vacancies on several boards. Damon was recently appointed to the Greenways Advisory Committee and I hope he'll report on his experiences on Eye on Whatcom.

Carl: I can be reached at Stansnapp@comcast.net

Part of Building both Safeco Park and Quest field was the creation of public facilities districts across the state of Washington. I'm not sure of the exact RCW's but I think that it is chapter 35 or 36. (I know that there are some link geeks who can find the exact chapters plus supporting documents as to the intent of these districts.)

The original intent of these districts was for youth athletics across the state.
This was for renovating existing sports facilities, stadiums and sports fields and for the construction of new athletics facilites.
In addition to that was for facilities to support these such as parking facilities and convention areas.

The intent of these public Facilities districts was to support our major pro teams and college teams by providing more opportunity for young athletes to participate in athletics, ultimately providing more home-grown athletes for our colleges and major pro teams.

It now seems as if this intent has been lost to several of the PFD's and especially in Bellingham, where there is a scheduling challenge for practices for many youth teams, especially for girls sports has always been tight.

These moneys for these districts was not intended for museums and pet projects that take away from our young athletes. How many kids visit the children's museum vs. how many kids are invloved in sports in our county with a real challenge of finding adequate locations and room to schedule teams for practice?

In this day and age of many youth becoming overweight and unhealthy, perhaps we ought to use the money for what the State legislature originally intended it to be used?

---

You better laugh at yourself,
Everyone else is.

www.parkenfarkergroup.blogspot.com

Hello Councilman Snapp,

Your single paragraph response to my post contained several points so I'll summarize them first and then respond:

1. "...so this slow down was anticipated."
2. "I think the numbers that you call "profit" are what our Finance Office calls "reserves"."
3. "Council has been told that we need to maintain a certain level of reserves to keep our, now very good, bond rating."
4.A "Those reserves not only bring in needed revenue but, ...
4.B more importantly, they show that we are financially healthy which keeps our bond rating high which in turn keeps our cost of funds low which saves our taxpayers money.

1. I believe your quote was in response to my comment, "The 2008 Adopted Budget shows (on page 7) the depletion of the General fund reserves over time through to the year 2013 but on page 49 they show NO reduction in the 2008 planned expenditures." If I am wrong I trust you will correct me. But my point is not just that the reserves are being depleted but that there is NO apparent reduction in spending planned. Budgeted spending for 2008 shows an increase. So, I don't understand your point. If hard times are apparently on the horizon, what expenses are being cut?

2. The numbers I call profit are indeed what the City Finance Office calls reserves. As I explained in my post, the Finance Office describes profits as a "Change in Net Assets" in the current year. Then, over time, as these profits accumulate they become "reserves." I get confused when multiple names and descriptions are given to the same thing...so I prefer to call profits exactly what they are. In a single year when taxes exceed expenses, that is a profit. When you have a series of years were taxes exceed expenses you have accumulated profits. My post was pretty clear. For 2006 the City of Bellingham's taxes collected exceeded all other costs, expenses, revenues and financing for a profit of over $27,000,000. From 2002 to 2006 accumulated profits for the City exceeded $130,000,000. Cash, equivalents and investments exceed $130,000,000 and reserves exceed $130,000,000 and unrestricted reserves exceed $80,000,000.

3. What "certain" levels of reserve has the council been told to maintain? Is it different from the "Goal" levels spelled out on page 38 of the 2008 Adopted Budget? From my calculations it looks like the City currently has more than 3.5 times the reserves it has been "goaled" for. That amounts to more than $50,000,000 more than goaled for. I could be wrong here but there is no schedule in the CAFR that spells out how the "goaled" amounts compare to actual reserves.

Here is how I got to my number. On page 38 of the 2008 Adopted Budget there is a chart that covers 21 of the City's 66 funds. This implies to me that the other 45 funds DO NOT have specific reserve goals. Of the 21 funds mentioned, 15 funds have goals stated as percentages of expenditures. The breakdown is as follows; one fund is 50% of expenditures, one fund is 15% of expenditures, one fund (the General Fund) is 12% of expenditures, one fund is 8% of expenditures and eleven funds are 5% of expenditures. The other six funds have unique goals. The breakdown is as follows; one fund is 11% of green fees, one fund is 75% of insurance claims, one fund is 5% of medical insurance paymants and three funds are specific amounts-$100,000 each.

So let's throw all that information out the window and instead let's cover the entire city operations for an entire year. (Before I do that I want to express my disagreement with using "expenditures" rather than "expenses" for the foundation of the reserve calculation. Expenditures include both capital outlays and financing maneuvers. I humbley submit that these items should NOT be covered in reserve calculations and that only "expenses" should be planned for in the reserves spelled out on page 38. More on that at another time and place).

In 2006 the City had costs and expenses that totaled $121,352,107 and net changes in capital investments of $33,032,913 for a total of $154,385,020. Of the five different reserve goals of 50%, 15%, 12%, 8% and %5 I'm going to use 15%. Fifteen percent of $154,385,020 is $23,157,750. The City has over $130,000,000 in reserves and over $80,000,000 in unrestricted reserves. That is more than 3.5 times higher than the "goaled" amount I just calculated at $23,000,000.

4.A I'm not so sure our reserves are really earning much for the City when you look at the City's debt and cost of debt. The City owes more than $73,000,000 in debt. I don't see in the CAFR any reference to the cost of that debt. I'm sure I'm just not seeing it.
4.B The City is currently rated "A1" by Moody's. My assumption is that the city set the "goaled" reserve limits (which I layed out above) to achieve the A1 rating. From my calculations our actual reserves are 3.5 times (that's 350%) higher than called for in the goals. (Actually, it is much, much, much higher than that because I used a straight 15% rather than the amounts spelled out for the 21 funds mentioned in the chart at page 38).

My reason for wanting to concentrate on City revenues and profits are this. "Once government has my money, the game is over." Look at the confusing conversations on this page/topic alone...projects are referenced, funding sources are referenced, rebates, taxes and statutes are referenced and it all becomes a blur. Everybody has a point of view. Everybody has their own set of facts.

While it is virtually impossible to have an impact on how the government spends your money once they have it you can, however, change the amount your government takes from you by simply changing your elected officials. And that is specifically why the public should focus on the revenues and profits the government takes from its citizens.

Sincerely,

Carl Olsen

Thanks 3P. That's the kind of argument I can support.

Unfortunately, "split-topic" functionality isn't available in this version of the forum. It is scheduled for the next release.

Just continue your discussion in the other thread, so that this discussion can continue unimpeded.