I read with interest the proposed solutions to the budget funding crisis that the town is confronting and it is all about getting “increased revenues,” but not a word about decreasing expenses!
This sounds like my former state of Illinois, that also has a real funding crisis with over $150 billion dollars – billion, not million – in unfunded pensions. Similar to Arizona, but on a much larger scale. So what is their proposed solution? Increase the income tax on higher earners with a state constitutional amendment. But, did they tie a change in the state constitution to help reduce the ballooning pension obligations? No! Keep hiring new employees with the same unsupportable pension obligations.
So what are we going to do here? Increase revenues, but not reduce expenses? What do we do next year, or the year after? Increase revenues again, but no thought to control expenses. We need real reductions in future expenses. Let’s get public safety obligations reduced.
Two 24/7 firehouses that are three miles apart? How many fires did we have last year? Medical emergencies? Rural Metro provides these same EMT services at an additional budget cost. Plus, 32 officers and captains and four full-time detectives in a town with almost no serious crime?
We have contracted for too much public safety and cannot afford it. And MCSO has a 14 percent annual increase built into their contract. Who agreed to this contract? Would you sign a contract that increased your costs by 14 percent every year? Sounds like a Visa or Mastercard account.
Let’s get some reduction in expenses along with the proposed increases in revenue, with this proposed solution. That is a longer-term solution!
