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......

LETTER: (Council punts on 2010-11 budget)

LETTER TO THE EDITOR (Submitted to the Corvallis Gazette-Times, 2/17/2010 by John H. Detweiler) - In the February 17th Gazette-Times we were treated to an above-the-fold article telling us that the Corvallis City Council is punting on the 2010-11 budget. The Council is going to proceed with programs such as community sustainability and give proportional cuts to police and fire. ∴ Sooner or later, Corvallis is going to have to establish priorities and make choices. This will not be a pleasant experience; but there is no other choice. The alternatives are for us to not fund basic services (e.g. police and fire) or for all of us to ride our own hobbyhorses all the way to bankruptcy. ∴ The purpose of local government is to provide quality services to the most people possible with the money that is available.

To establish priorities, we need to know how often citizens use the services provided and what their perceptions are of the relative quality of these services. I estimated service usage and relative perceptions of quality with the raw data collected for the 2009 Corvallis Citizens Attitude Survey. My analysis can be found at http://www.peak.org/~detweij.

Services that are used more often should receive more funds. Tax money should flow to the services that are used the most often by the most people where the quality can be improved and users cannot be identified in a cost effective manner. Where the users can be cost effectively identified, user fees should be imposed to recoup the cost of these services.

To continue on our present path is foolhardy.

John H. Detweiler Read More......