Make no mistake about it, the budget crisis facing the state is going to have a direct impact on Oil City and the region, and it is not likely to be good.
The question is how bad will it get?
We need to be prepared and we need to fight for those programs we think critical to our future.
Among the state programs high on my priority list are the Main Street Program and Weed and Seed.
In the budget proposals now floating around Harrisburg both are slated for significant cuts, in some proposals to virtual elimination. Both programs have had real success in local communities, revitalizing many of the state’s older cities. Oil City is poised to be a beneficiary, but will largely lose that opportunity if deep cuts are made to those programs, flushing countless hours of local work down the tubes.
The Oil City Weed and Seed program was just approved and funded by the state after months of local efforts to make it a reality. It makes no sense to me for the state to initiate the program and then cut it just as it begins to make a difference.
Main Street is much the same story. The community really came together to develop a Main Street Program application, including detailed five-year plans and raising more than $100,000 in local money to match and leverage state funding. We – the community – did our part in good faith. The state legislature needs to follow through.
I recognize the financial problems facing the state and nation. We are in an era of tough choices and we must get our fiscal house in order. But if we don’t save our communities what do we have?
I also recognize that I am like most and somewhat hypocritical when it comes to state and federal government programs. What benefits me and my community I view as essential, what benefits someone else’s community (especially if it is Philadelphia or Pittsburgh) is pork and waste.
We are all going to have to make compromises and that means a willingness to look at the needs of others.
And that comes back to prioritizing based on real needs and real value.
I wonder if our legislature is up to that or if this year will be like past years; simply Pennsylvania politics as usual – posturing for political gain, acting on personal animosities and a concern for “what can I get” rather than what will benefit the Commonwealth.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
On Being Back and On Not being Snide
It’s been way too long since I’ve blogged – 11 weeks to be exact since I put up a new blog and seven since the last post on the subject.
A regular reader/commenter made that clear with the following note:
“John,Time for a new blog buddy.”
He’s absolutely right. And I need to make a commitment to blog more regularly. To do so you might see a slight change in format on occasion where I will put up more of random thoughts on a variety of topics, rather than focus on one basic subject. I might even veer off of government and local issues on occasion. But more than anything, I hope that all of you will participate, but remember the basic ground rules and understand that when the end of a subject is reached I reserve the right to call a halt so that we don’t simply continue going round and round.
So to get back in the saddle I thought I would write a bit about the writing exercise that runs in the Derrick on Fridays called the Spray.
Simply put, I don’t like it. I’m not sure what it is supposed to be or what purpose it is supposed to serve, but so often I find its comments snide.
Among the primary definitions of snide are: derogatory in a malicious, superior way; contemptuous; disdainful; supercilious. The secondary definitions include: counterfeit; sham.
(I might add that if I spoke or acted in any of those ways growing up it would have resulted in pretty serious lecture from my mum, if not also a crack on the rear. They are not admirable traits.)
I think both the primary and secondary definitions pretty much describe what is too often found in the Spray. Certainly, at least from my point of view, that was the case last Friday with a remark regarding the Main Street Program.
Main Street volunteers interviewed in a recent article said one way to brighten up the downtown would be to put up window displays in vacant buildings. They were not suggesting that as the ultimate idea or a long-term solution to our downtown’s ills, but simply a quick stop-gap measure that could clean things up a bit. It makes sense to me, both as a resident and a member of the Main Street Steering Committee.
But apparently the anonymous staff writer at the Derrick who commented in the Spray, which is always anonymous, did not think much of it, and did not put it in context. If you read the comment, you understand. I’m not going to bother repeating it because it isn’t worthy of repeating. I will say it was derogatory in a malicious, superior way contemptuous, disdainful, supercilious and counterfeit and sham -- in a word, SNIDE.
Positive and effective criticism is not snide. It is important and beneficial. It is how ideas and concepts are fully vetted and lead to the best outcome possible. I strongly wish the Derrick/News would do more of that with real editorials, a willingness to take a stand, more local columnists with signed commentary and by supporting in-depth reporting.
I’m not bashing the Derrick/News Herald. There is a strong tendency to do that, and it’s unfair. Actually, there is a long tradition in this country of loving to hate your local paper wherever you happen to be.
We are blessed to have a local daily newspaper. It is important to the community. It remains the best way to stay informed on local issues and its reporting is pretty good.
It would be a better paper if it dropped the snide comments in the Spray and stepped up to the plate and put some thought and effort into developing real editorials and adding some thoughtful local commentary and we would be a better community for it.
A regular reader/commenter made that clear with the following note:
“John,Time for a new blog buddy.”
He’s absolutely right. And I need to make a commitment to blog more regularly. To do so you might see a slight change in format on occasion where I will put up more of random thoughts on a variety of topics, rather than focus on one basic subject. I might even veer off of government and local issues on occasion. But more than anything, I hope that all of you will participate, but remember the basic ground rules and understand that when the end of a subject is reached I reserve the right to call a halt so that we don’t simply continue going round and round.
So to get back in the saddle I thought I would write a bit about the writing exercise that runs in the Derrick on Fridays called the Spray.
Simply put, I don’t like it. I’m not sure what it is supposed to be or what purpose it is supposed to serve, but so often I find its comments snide.
Among the primary definitions of snide are: derogatory in a malicious, superior way; contemptuous; disdainful; supercilious. The secondary definitions include: counterfeit; sham.
(I might add that if I spoke or acted in any of those ways growing up it would have resulted in pretty serious lecture from my mum, if not also a crack on the rear. They are not admirable traits.)
I think both the primary and secondary definitions pretty much describe what is too often found in the Spray. Certainly, at least from my point of view, that was the case last Friday with a remark regarding the Main Street Program.
Main Street volunteers interviewed in a recent article said one way to brighten up the downtown would be to put up window displays in vacant buildings. They were not suggesting that as the ultimate idea or a long-term solution to our downtown’s ills, but simply a quick stop-gap measure that could clean things up a bit. It makes sense to me, both as a resident and a member of the Main Street Steering Committee.
But apparently the anonymous staff writer at the Derrick who commented in the Spray, which is always anonymous, did not think much of it, and did not put it in context. If you read the comment, you understand. I’m not going to bother repeating it because it isn’t worthy of repeating. I will say it was derogatory in a malicious, superior way contemptuous, disdainful, supercilious and counterfeit and sham -- in a word, SNIDE.
Positive and effective criticism is not snide. It is important and beneficial. It is how ideas and concepts are fully vetted and lead to the best outcome possible. I strongly wish the Derrick/News would do more of that with real editorials, a willingness to take a stand, more local columnists with signed commentary and by supporting in-depth reporting.
I’m not bashing the Derrick/News Herald. There is a strong tendency to do that, and it’s unfair. Actually, there is a long tradition in this country of loving to hate your local paper wherever you happen to be.
We are blessed to have a local daily newspaper. It is important to the community. It remains the best way to stay informed on local issues and its reporting is pretty good.
It would be a better paper if it dropped the snide comments in the Spray and stepped up to the plate and put some thought and effort into developing real editorials and adding some thoughtful local commentary and we would be a better community for it.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The ORA, the County and Just What Do We Expect
This morning (Feb. 25) I attended the annual meeting of the Oil Region Alliance as a representative of the city.
(I think I was the only Democrat there, which is not unusual for Venango County.)
Of course, the ORA was also in this morning’s paper with the announcement that the county intended to close this morning on the purchase of the West Unit from the Alliance. The deal has come under a great deal of criticism, as does the ORA on a somewhat regular basis.
Frankly, most of the criticism is not constructive and much of it unwarranted if not simply specious. My personal opinion is that more of the non-constructive criticism has to do with personalities and politics than the work of the economic development agency and that is not good for the county and our future.
I was not privy to the details when ORA purchased the West Unit and in turn leased it to the county, nor am I privy to all the background and details of the current deal selling the West Unit to the county.
My understanding is that the previous board of commissioners asked the ORA to structure a package to obtain the West Unit so that the county could centralize all its human service agencies. The county thought it would be able to cover the lease costs through state reimbursements, avoid the burden of owning the building and in turn the ORA would have an income stream.
However, circumstances changed with the decrease in state reimbursements and the county found the state funds would no longer cover the lease costs. It then determined it would be better to own the building. The ORA struck a deal to sell the West Unit to the county. The deal gives the ORA $1 million for the buy out of the county’s lease. A lot is being made of that, claiming it is a bad deal for county taxpayers.
But is it? As I understand it, the county still saves money in the long term, and just as importantly the ORA is left with some money to undertake economic development.
How exactly are we to do economic development if we are unwilling to pay for it? To me, the county deals, both the original one and this one, sound like a win-win – maybe not perfect, but better than anything else I’ve heard.
I understand there can be differing views of the deal between the county and the ORA, and of the agency itself.
Still, I’ve not heard the critics suggest a better way of funding economic development or any specifics of how to do a better job. I have heard a lot of potshots claiming the ORA is a failure. That’s not constructive criticism, but rather meaningless chatter.
The absolute most BS criticism I’ve heard was from a local businessman who said – and I paraphrase – “our unemployment has gone up under the ORA’s watch.” We are in the midst of the worst economic times since the Great Depression; just what would one expect?
ORA officials can point and did this morning to a number of very specific successes over the past year. Among them: Conair and WS Packaging (formerly Seneca Printing). Both companies could have been lost, but were kept here and are growing. They need to be given some credit for what they have done and continue to do.
I’m not beyond criticizing the ORA. I believe the leadership has too often been tone deaf and unable to grasp how some things they do individually or as an agency will be perceived and what the implications of that will be. High on my list of examples is ORA executives making personal political contributions to local candidates. That is bound to create political enemies. More importantly, the agency must strive to be absolutely politically neutral and perceptions play a huge role in that.
I have a real fear that the critics of the ORA/County deal will never let it go, that they won’t be able to say we lost, but let’s move on. That does not seem to be the way things are done in Venango County and we pay a price for that. (Think of the never ending threats of lawsuits whenever a decision is reached that some people don’t like)
The ORA is not perfect, but it is the economic development agency we have. Let’s work to strengthen it, not destroy it. If we criticize, let’s have workable suggestions for improvement in hand. We need everyone’s help.
(I think I was the only Democrat there, which is not unusual for Venango County.)
Of course, the ORA was also in this morning’s paper with the announcement that the county intended to close this morning on the purchase of the West Unit from the Alliance. The deal has come under a great deal of criticism, as does the ORA on a somewhat regular basis.
Frankly, most of the criticism is not constructive and much of it unwarranted if not simply specious. My personal opinion is that more of the non-constructive criticism has to do with personalities and politics than the work of the economic development agency and that is not good for the county and our future.
I was not privy to the details when ORA purchased the West Unit and in turn leased it to the county, nor am I privy to all the background and details of the current deal selling the West Unit to the county.
My understanding is that the previous board of commissioners asked the ORA to structure a package to obtain the West Unit so that the county could centralize all its human service agencies. The county thought it would be able to cover the lease costs through state reimbursements, avoid the burden of owning the building and in turn the ORA would have an income stream.
However, circumstances changed with the decrease in state reimbursements and the county found the state funds would no longer cover the lease costs. It then determined it would be better to own the building. The ORA struck a deal to sell the West Unit to the county. The deal gives the ORA $1 million for the buy out of the county’s lease. A lot is being made of that, claiming it is a bad deal for county taxpayers.
But is it? As I understand it, the county still saves money in the long term, and just as importantly the ORA is left with some money to undertake economic development.
How exactly are we to do economic development if we are unwilling to pay for it? To me, the county deals, both the original one and this one, sound like a win-win – maybe not perfect, but better than anything else I’ve heard.
I understand there can be differing views of the deal between the county and the ORA, and of the agency itself.
Still, I’ve not heard the critics suggest a better way of funding economic development or any specifics of how to do a better job. I have heard a lot of potshots claiming the ORA is a failure. That’s not constructive criticism, but rather meaningless chatter.
The absolute most BS criticism I’ve heard was from a local businessman who said – and I paraphrase – “our unemployment has gone up under the ORA’s watch.” We are in the midst of the worst economic times since the Great Depression; just what would one expect?
ORA officials can point and did this morning to a number of very specific successes over the past year. Among them: Conair and WS Packaging (formerly Seneca Printing). Both companies could have been lost, but were kept here and are growing. They need to be given some credit for what they have done and continue to do.
I’m not beyond criticizing the ORA. I believe the leadership has too often been tone deaf and unable to grasp how some things they do individually or as an agency will be perceived and what the implications of that will be. High on my list of examples is ORA executives making personal political contributions to local candidates. That is bound to create political enemies. More importantly, the agency must strive to be absolutely politically neutral and perceptions play a huge role in that.
I have a real fear that the critics of the ORA/County deal will never let it go, that they won’t be able to say we lost, but let’s move on. That does not seem to be the way things are done in Venango County and we pay a price for that. (Think of the never ending threats of lawsuits whenever a decision is reached that some people don’t like)
The ORA is not perfect, but it is the economic development agency we have. Let’s work to strengthen it, not destroy it. If we criticize, let’s have workable suggestions for improvement in hand. We need everyone’s help.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Two Down
Well, here we are in 2010. I have completed my first two years on council.
I think everyone would agree that 2009 was a daunting year. We dealt with the retirement of long-time city manager Tom Rockovich and found Ryan Egleston to replace him. I think we did well.
Council faced a huge budget deficit largely as a result of a 30 percent increase in health insurance costs as it began development of the 2010 budget, and Ryan was thrown into it on his first day on the job. Cuts were made – some only delaying the inevitable such as paving – and taxes were raised to balance the budget. It was something no one wanted to do, but it was what had to be done – at least that’s my take.
Obviously the state of the economy impacts our community just as it does elsewhere. That no doubt will make 2010 equally as troubling from an economic perspective.
We must try to find additional operating efficiencies and perhaps all new ways of delivering services and doing business. Success in that endeavor is not guaranteed. There are no magic wands or pixie dust, nor a pot of gold to be found. I’ve said only half in jest that perhaps the best thing would be to put a line item in the budget of $104 dedicated to the purchase of a Powerball tickets every Wednesday and Saturday.
Still, I firmly believe the city is moving forward. The Main Street Program is advancing rapidly. The Waterways study will be wrapping up. The Arts Revitalization has succeeded in bringing people to Oil City and promises to have much more success. There are many other examples.
It will be an interesting, difficult and exciting time for our two new councilmen, Bill Moon and Venice Lewis, as it will for all of us on council.
I think everyone would agree that 2009 was a daunting year. We dealt with the retirement of long-time city manager Tom Rockovich and found Ryan Egleston to replace him. I think we did well.
Council faced a huge budget deficit largely as a result of a 30 percent increase in health insurance costs as it began development of the 2010 budget, and Ryan was thrown into it on his first day on the job. Cuts were made – some only delaying the inevitable such as paving – and taxes were raised to balance the budget. It was something no one wanted to do, but it was what had to be done – at least that’s my take.
Obviously the state of the economy impacts our community just as it does elsewhere. That no doubt will make 2010 equally as troubling from an economic perspective.
We must try to find additional operating efficiencies and perhaps all new ways of delivering services and doing business. Success in that endeavor is not guaranteed. There are no magic wands or pixie dust, nor a pot of gold to be found. I’ve said only half in jest that perhaps the best thing would be to put a line item in the budget of $104 dedicated to the purchase of a Powerball tickets every Wednesday and Saturday.
Still, I firmly believe the city is moving forward. The Main Street Program is advancing rapidly. The Waterways study will be wrapping up. The Arts Revitalization has succeeded in bringing people to Oil City and promises to have much more success. There are many other examples.
It will be an interesting, difficult and exciting time for our two new councilmen, Bill Moon and Venice Lewis, as it will for all of us on council.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The 2010 Budget -- Take 2
After council’s budget directives to City Manager Ryan Eggleston on Monday, I’m not sure where we are going with the 2010 budget.
The city manager came to the Monday meeting with a pared down budget/tax proposal as requested by city council at its Nov 23 meeting.
Largely as a result of a 34 percent increase in health insurance costs, the city’s 2010 expenses were greatly inflated even as some revenues dropped. To maintain the status quo required a 1.5-mill hike in real estate taxes. On first reading council approved the budget and accompanying tax hike on a 4-to-1vote. However, council also directed the manager to try to cut costs and pare down the tax increase.
By negotiating some savings in health and other insurance costs Ryan got the tax hike down to 1.25 mills and then gave council two additional options. Cut the money for paving in half, bringing the tax hike needed to balance the budget down to 1 mill and the second option was to do that and not fill a vacancy in the police ranks, which would bring the tax increase to .8 mills.
The majority of council held out for a no-tax-hike budget. So Monday night council on second reading approved a no-tax-hike budget by decreasing the budget’s bottom line. How to achieve that was left up to the city manager.
I went along and voted for it to keep the budget process on schedule. I voiced my concerns, but not as forcefully as I should have. (A long-time friend made the latter comment to me after the meeting and I’ve been reflecting on it ever since).
I know that every member of council is troubled and sincere in believing the position they have taken is best for the city.
I think there are worst things than a tax increase. Among them the further decline of the services and conditions of the city. I fear that will be the outcome if we insist on a no-tax-increase budget –we just dig a deeper hole. Certainly I hope someone finds a magic wand and brings about an easy way to cut costs the necessary additional $232,000, but that is not my expectation.
To me, the mandated no-tax-hike approach we are using is reactionary. We don’t know what the real consequences are since the cuts are not fully vetted, nor can they be over the next three weeks. There is no strategic planning to the process. The lack of strategic planning has long been a weakness of city government.
Any cuts that force a fundamental restructuring, and it is likely some would, are also unfair to the new city manager. We need to give him the opportunity to see how the city operates and make his own recommendations for the long-term. Four weeks on the job does not allow for that.
Councilman Neil McElwee has a good point about our real estate tax rate putting us at a competitive disadvantage, especially against the neighboring townships. Raising our taxes will only make that worse.
Still, if our core services and the conditions of the city continue to decline are we not also becoming less competitive?
I don’t know what I will or will not accept at next Monday’s council meeting either in terms of cuts or tax increase. Right now, I’m favoring a tax increase over further cuts. Right now, that is the minority opinion on council, but things change.
The city manager came to the Monday meeting with a pared down budget/tax proposal as requested by city council at its Nov 23 meeting.
Largely as a result of a 34 percent increase in health insurance costs, the city’s 2010 expenses were greatly inflated even as some revenues dropped. To maintain the status quo required a 1.5-mill hike in real estate taxes. On first reading council approved the budget and accompanying tax hike on a 4-to-1vote. However, council also directed the manager to try to cut costs and pare down the tax increase.
By negotiating some savings in health and other insurance costs Ryan got the tax hike down to 1.25 mills and then gave council two additional options. Cut the money for paving in half, bringing the tax hike needed to balance the budget down to 1 mill and the second option was to do that and not fill a vacancy in the police ranks, which would bring the tax increase to .8 mills.
The majority of council held out for a no-tax-hike budget. So Monday night council on second reading approved a no-tax-hike budget by decreasing the budget’s bottom line. How to achieve that was left up to the city manager.
I went along and voted for it to keep the budget process on schedule. I voiced my concerns, but not as forcefully as I should have. (A long-time friend made the latter comment to me after the meeting and I’ve been reflecting on it ever since).
I know that every member of council is troubled and sincere in believing the position they have taken is best for the city.
I think there are worst things than a tax increase. Among them the further decline of the services and conditions of the city. I fear that will be the outcome if we insist on a no-tax-increase budget –we just dig a deeper hole. Certainly I hope someone finds a magic wand and brings about an easy way to cut costs the necessary additional $232,000, but that is not my expectation.
To me, the mandated no-tax-hike approach we are using is reactionary. We don’t know what the real consequences are since the cuts are not fully vetted, nor can they be over the next three weeks. There is no strategic planning to the process. The lack of strategic planning has long been a weakness of city government.
Any cuts that force a fundamental restructuring, and it is likely some would, are also unfair to the new city manager. We need to give him the opportunity to see how the city operates and make his own recommendations for the long-term. Four weeks on the job does not allow for that.
Councilman Neil McElwee has a good point about our real estate tax rate putting us at a competitive disadvantage, especially against the neighboring townships. Raising our taxes will only make that worse.
Still, if our core services and the conditions of the city continue to decline are we not also becoming less competitive?
I don’t know what I will or will not accept at next Monday’s council meeting either in terms of cuts or tax increase. Right now, I’m favoring a tax increase over further cuts. Right now, that is the minority opinion on council, but things change.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The 2010 Budget -- Take 1
I suspect everyone is acquainted with the budget/tax issue facing the city.
On first reading, the 2010 budget required a 1.5-mill increase in property taxes, which was approved on a 4-1 vote. That amounts to an increase of $72 a year for the owner of the average residential property in the city.
(The median residential property value in the city is $48,000. Each mill is one-tenth of a cent. To find how much a 1.5- mill real estate tax increase would come to on any specific property, multiply the assessed value by .0015.)
The 2010 budget-buster is an increase of about 34 percent, or roughly $250,000, in health insurance premiums. The city is also seeing a slight drop in revenues from both real estate taxes due to a decline is assessment value and from the Local Services Tax, the $52 charged everyone who works in the city.
The proposed 2010 budget as given initial approval does nothing more than marginally maintain the current level of city services and activities. The 1.5-increase in real estate taxes balanced it on first reading as is required by law.
Everyone on council found the budget and tax increase troubling. And I can tell you with certainty that no one on council relishes the prospect of a tax increase. First of all it affects each of us just as it does every other property owner and to a person we have a deep understanding of the financial difficulties faced by many of our citizens. Secondly, I’m reasonably sure no one on council looks forward to the anger and criticism that will be directed at them if there is a tax increase.
I suspect each of us has different thoughts and approaches to dealing with the budget challenge. We will need to find a consensus, or at least a majority will.
It is easy to say “cut costs,” but it is much harder laying out a reasoned and successful way to do that.
My best guess is we might have some success in doing a bit of paring here and there and with the help of the city’s workforce be able to reduce our expenditures a bit and the amount of any tax increase, but unless we significantly reduce services there is no option but a tax increase. Already many of the long-term needs of the city are not being met, with street paving high on that list.
People live in the city for the services and amenities we offer – certainly I do. But as Councilman Neil McElwee pointed out our real estate tax rates can make us less competitive in attracting new residents and businesses. It is the space between the rock and the hard place.
Furthermore, I think we owe it to our new city manager to provide him a “status quo” budget and operations so that he can fully evaluate how we are doing things and come up with his own long-term strategic recommendations. Moving rashly now to cut costs would now fully allow him that opportunity.
Although I’m personally committed to maintaining our services and amenities, that does not mean I’m opposed to finding ways to do that more efficiently and less expensively.
Unfortunately, our financial inability to undertake major capital investments makes it that much harder. If we had a lot of capital money, there are quite a few things that could be done to improve efficiencies and lower long-term operating costs.
Beneath all our local budget woes, which are identical to cities across the state, are structural issues that can only be addressed by the state legislature. I don’t expect that to happen anytime soon.
On first reading, the 2010 budget required a 1.5-mill increase in property taxes, which was approved on a 4-1 vote. That amounts to an increase of $72 a year for the owner of the average residential property in the city.
(The median residential property value in the city is $48,000. Each mill is one-tenth of a cent. To find how much a 1.5- mill real estate tax increase would come to on any specific property, multiply the assessed value by .0015.)
The 2010 budget-buster is an increase of about 34 percent, or roughly $250,000, in health insurance premiums. The city is also seeing a slight drop in revenues from both real estate taxes due to a decline is assessment value and from the Local Services Tax, the $52 charged everyone who works in the city.
The proposed 2010 budget as given initial approval does nothing more than marginally maintain the current level of city services and activities. The 1.5-increase in real estate taxes balanced it on first reading as is required by law.
Everyone on council found the budget and tax increase troubling. And I can tell you with certainty that no one on council relishes the prospect of a tax increase. First of all it affects each of us just as it does every other property owner and to a person we have a deep understanding of the financial difficulties faced by many of our citizens. Secondly, I’m reasonably sure no one on council looks forward to the anger and criticism that will be directed at them if there is a tax increase.
I suspect each of us has different thoughts and approaches to dealing with the budget challenge. We will need to find a consensus, or at least a majority will.
It is easy to say “cut costs,” but it is much harder laying out a reasoned and successful way to do that.
My best guess is we might have some success in doing a bit of paring here and there and with the help of the city’s workforce be able to reduce our expenditures a bit and the amount of any tax increase, but unless we significantly reduce services there is no option but a tax increase. Already many of the long-term needs of the city are not being met, with street paving high on that list.
People live in the city for the services and amenities we offer – certainly I do. But as Councilman Neil McElwee pointed out our real estate tax rates can make us less competitive in attracting new residents and businesses. It is the space between the rock and the hard place.
Furthermore, I think we owe it to our new city manager to provide him a “status quo” budget and operations so that he can fully evaluate how we are doing things and come up with his own long-term strategic recommendations. Moving rashly now to cut costs would now fully allow him that opportunity.
Although I’m personally committed to maintaining our services and amenities, that does not mean I’m opposed to finding ways to do that more efficiently and less expensively.
Unfortunately, our financial inability to undertake major capital investments makes it that much harder. If we had a lot of capital money, there are quite a few things that could be done to improve efficiencies and lower long-term operating costs.
Beneath all our local budget woes, which are identical to cities across the state, are structural issues that can only be addressed by the state legislature. I don’t expect that to happen anytime soon.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Election
What a low-key election cycle this is and yet we have an important three-way race for the two available seats on Oil City Council.
I know and like all three of the candidates: Charles T. “Chad” Rosen; Venice Lewis and William P. “Bill” Moon.
I consider all three friends. Bill is my neighbor, and you couldn’t ask for a better neighbor. I’ve known Chad most of his life, coached him in high school and of course I serve with him on council where he is filling an unexpired term. I’ve often enjoyed Venice’s company. He personifies energetic.
Oil City couldn’t go wrong with any of them.
Still, I’m sure each has some very different views on issues facing the city and differences in approach. I’m not sure if anyone knows exactly what they might be.
It is unfortunate that there has not been a candidates forum and media profiles to help draw out the differences so that voters have more to go on.
Personally, I believe moderated candidate forums with appropriate media coverage are one of the best approaches.
Each of the candidates is working hard. Voters will have to do some work as well to ensure that the ballots they cast reflect their personal beliefs in the future of the city.
I know and like all three of the candidates: Charles T. “Chad” Rosen; Venice Lewis and William P. “Bill” Moon.
I consider all three friends. Bill is my neighbor, and you couldn’t ask for a better neighbor. I’ve known Chad most of his life, coached him in high school and of course I serve with him on council where he is filling an unexpired term. I’ve often enjoyed Venice’s company. He personifies energetic.
Oil City couldn’t go wrong with any of them.
Still, I’m sure each has some very different views on issues facing the city and differences in approach. I’m not sure if anyone knows exactly what they might be.
It is unfortunate that there has not been a candidates forum and media profiles to help draw out the differences so that voters have more to go on.
Personally, I believe moderated candidate forums with appropriate media coverage are one of the best approaches.
Each of the candidates is working hard. Voters will have to do some work as well to ensure that the ballots they cast reflect their personal beliefs in the future of the city.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)