Detweiler on voter turnout in Corvallis regarding measure 02-74

LETTER TO THE EDITOR submitted to the Corvallis Gazette-Times today, June 4, 2011 by John H. Detweiler

On May 17, 2011, Corvallis voted on measure 02-74 - a levy to fund various programs that does not solve our financial problems. The numbers describing voter participation on the Benton County web site are at the county level and do not describe participation at the city level. They need to be massaged to get participation numbers at the city level.

The voter had three choices: Yes, No, or Abstain. Many people abstained and the levy passed by a wide margin -- by an almost 2 to 1 ratio. However, only 48% of the 27,678 voters bothered to vote. The rest abstained. In other words, the levy was passed by only 31% of the total voters in Corvallis -- an abysmal performance by the Corvallis voter.

At the sub-precinct level, the performance is both better and worse. Some sub-precincts voted in greater numbers and other sub-precincts voted in lower numbers. In the sub-precincts with the best turnout only 32% of the voters abstained. In the sub-precinct with the worst turnout 95% of the voters abstained. The definition of sub-precincts and details on performance of all Corvallis sub-precincts can be found at www.peak.org/~detweij

My conclusion is that not enough people care about local government to bother to send in their ballot -- which is sad. As always, we get the government we deserve and not necessarily the government we need.

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

Read More......

Detweiler submits another letter to the editor regarding levy

Via email: 4/27/2011 - John H. Detweiler submitted another letter to the editor (untitled) regarding the Corvallis Local Option Levy 02-74:

The levy that will appear on the May ballot will not solve our financial problem. What it will do is restore cuts that have been made to lower priority services - the Osborn Aquatic Center is the lowest priority service -- leaving the cuts to higher priority services stand. If the levy passes, next year we will be told that if we want higher priority services - fire and police - funded, we will have to pay more taxes. Details on priorities can be found at www.peak.org/~detweij.

Our problem is that expenditures have been above revenues in property tax funds since FY07-08 and we are running out of reserves. We knew that this was going to happen many years before it did happen but we did not do anything about it. If the levy passes, it really won't give us an opportunity to decide how to reshape our city government because the City Council won't take that opportunity because we don't elect people to the City Council who will say "NO". Our City Council has to be pressured to make good financial decisions and voting against the levy will increase that pressure.

Join me and others who worry about the financial sustainability of our wonderful city in voting against the levy - entitled Local Option Levy 02-74.

John H. Detweiler; web page => www.peak.org/~detweij

Read More......

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......

JHD Comments for City Budget Committee

A big thank you to John Detweiler. I meant to post this earlier but the information John submitted to the Corvallis Budget Committee on 12/10 is still pertinent and important. --bc

To: Budget Commission
From: John H. Detweiler
Subj: Comments for 12/13/10 Budget Commission meeting.
You are about to go through the agony of establishing priorities and deciding what to cut from the Corvallis 2011-2012 budget. You will hear the advocates of the library, aquatic center, senior center, police, fire, and other services tell you that the service they are advocating is more important than any other service and that Corvallis can't live without that service.

I encourage you to put more weight on the results of the Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc. (DHM) telephone survey of voters conducted in October than the words of individual service advocates because the survey represents the priorities of Corvallis as a whole, not the priorities of the noisy few. The priorities of Corvallis as a whole, extracted from DHM are, in order: public safety (fire and police), social services and the library, followed by parks & recreation with the aquatic center being of lesser priority than other parks & recreation programs. The details of my
analysis can be found at: http://www.peak.org/~detweij.

Any cuts made to lesser priority services should be made in addition to cuts resulting from more efficient operations and reductions in personnel compensation. Moreover, user fees - not taxes cleverly disguised as user fees - should be charged so that the people who actually use the service pay for the service. For example, the entrance fees to the aquatic center should be raised enough to replace the subsidy from property taxes.

You are also going to consider putting a levy on the May ballot to fund city services. If a levy is put on the ballot, and is not too high for the likely voter - who has a higher household income than the population of the Corvallis MSA -- it will probably pass. However, if local taxes are increased, the increase will hurt many people with lower incomes. Moreover, the number of people with lower incomes has increased between 2008 and 2009. The details of my analysis of Corvallis household incomes can be found at: http://www.peak.org/~detweij.
--
John H. Detweiler; web page => http://www.peak.org/~detweij Read More......