Jump to content



Photo

Clark County Budget


  • Please log in to reply
165 replies to this topic

#81 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 25 February 2015 - 12:40 PM

Kevin --- can the City post all paid claims to the city website after approved by the Council please?



#82 Kevin Vissing

Kevin Vissing

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts

Posted 25 February 2015 - 12:54 PM

I am with the county. The commissioners check our claims.

#83 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 25 February 2015 - 02:28 PM

Sorry -- but you are running for city council, right?   If elected, I hope you will make sure they get posted.  Thanks



#84 Diogenes

Diogenes

    BANNED

  • Account Closed
  • Pip
  • 49 posts

Posted 26 February 2015 - 06:03 AM

Our courthouse IT department has social media blocked during working hours.

So, you want our employees where many make under $35 k per year to not get benefits?

Social Media maybe blocked but does that still allow net surfing or other private web activities?

 

Excuse me but in the private sector there are plenty of workers, millions I would guess at that make that amount and less and have no benefits, and the benefits that they have they pay for their selves no tax payer 100% funding. The private sector has its retirement plan its called "Social Security" paid by employee and matched by employer and the public sector has Gov't retirement program funded by the tax payers to what degree is debatable and open to validation of exact percentage. No kind Sir when you add up all the pay and beneifts that "our people" make the $35 k per year starts to look more like $50k plus per year and "We the People" are left toting that note and more on a lot less income for the most part.

 

we have cut our workforce to the bone. Many offices are understaffed. Some offices do stay open during lunch.

Alright if this is accurate please which departments according to your 3 references are cut to the bone, understaff and open during lunch, and by how much cut, understaff.



#85 Diogenes

Diogenes

    BANNED

  • Account Closed
  • Pip
  • 49 posts

Posted 26 February 2015 - 06:14 AM

And yet many have plenty of employees that it would not be difficult to stagger lunches.  Even if they only have 3 employees, there is no reason why all three need to go at the same time.  One can go at 11, one at 12 and one at 1.  (or 10:30, 11:30, 12:30)  At the very least, they should be required to have at least 1 person available during business hours.  They already get  pretty sweet hours and a paid lunch so I don't think it is an extreme request that they serve the public that pays them.  Sometimes, due to the 8:30-4:30 time already, the only time people can go is during their lunch hour.  I think it's rude as can be to close the public's offices during that time.

 

I honestly think it should be something that the commissioners draft as an ordinance.  They could simply say "no doors within the courthouse will be closed during the hours of 8:30-4:30, except in cases of emergency."

 

And Diogenes is also right about empty halls on Friday.

I agree there should be an ordinance drafted up by the Commissioners stating the same suggestion the "The People's" offices should not be closed during stated business hours and paid lunch is also a benefit that seems to not ever be included when talking about what the "public servants" gets that the private sector workers don't see but do pay for on the "public servant" end, where is that pesky pay equality brew ha ha at?



#86 Diogenes

Diogenes

    BANNED

  • Account Closed
  • Pip
  • 49 posts

Posted 26 February 2015 - 06:28 AM

I do agree with some of Diogenes points.   Open on Saturdays -- at least 1/2 day would be good and then close at noon on one of the weekdays.

I also agree that the departments should NOT be closed over the lunch hour but stagger their lunch breaks like most other businesses do.

Also, no problem with # 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.

Not all employees should be cut below 30 hours a week -- but there are probably some that could.  It is never a bad idea to evaluate staff and see if a position needs to be cut.  Often businesses hire people and then as procedures are streamlined, they do not let anyone go -- they think that because they have always had "10 people in the office" that they "need" 10 people in the office.  I don't want anyone to lose their job but I do believe that government could be more efficient.  For-profit companies certainly wouldn't keep people if they were overstaffed -- govt. shouldn't either.

 

Also, I asked Rick Stephenson in the other thread if the county could post all paid claims by department to the commissioners website -- like the school system posts all paid claims at each board meeting to the school website.  So far Rick has not responded but hope he will.   I think the City should post all their paid claims as well.   

i agree, post the all paid claims, how else can the "People" see that things are done at a cost efficent manner and what truly each department contributes in means of revenue to its operation as well as supports openness, no surprises or secrets to jump out and cause a degree of "what else ain't they telling us" as well as see what departments are wasteful with frivolous expenditures that need not to have been done or what was not done that now causes a costly change order.



#87 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 26 February 2015 - 08:16 AM

i agree, post the all paid claims, how else can the "People" see that things are done at a cost efficent manner and what truly each department contributes in means of revenue to its operation as well as supports openness, no surprises or secrets to jump out and cause a degree of "what else ain't they telling us" as well as see what departments are wasteful with frivolous expenditures that need not to have been done or what was not done that now causes a costly change order.

 

Diogenes, I was pleased to learn that the City Clerk, Vicki Conlin, posts the paid claims to the city's website.  You can go to www.cityofjeff.net and then click on "government" and then "city clerk"  -- then click "Click here for access to public documents database".   You can find claims listings back for several years.    I am hoping that the commissioners will put the same on their website soon.  


  • Donna likes this

#88 SIwatcher

SIwatcher

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 26 February 2015 - 06:20 PM

I saw a township Annual Report in the Evening News - they report all claims - why wouldn't every office ?



#89 BrianLenfert

BrianLenfert

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 08 November 2015 - 09:34 AM



http://www.newsandtr...tm_content=READ

Edited by BrianLenfert, 08 November 2015 - 09:35 AM.


#90 Matt

Matt

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts

Posted 08 November 2015 - 12:44 PM

The solution is simple. Cut services and let the people fend for themselves.

It's not a popular decision, especially with politicians who count on services to get votes, but its a decision the people will either adopt or change their thinking and lend support for higher taxes (IE The old wheel tax).

http://www.newsandtr...tm_content=READ


  • Dougie likes this

#91 BrianLenfert

BrianLenfert

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 08 November 2015 - 02:09 PM

Which county service would you like to cut? I'll look up how much is budgeted for each service you'd cut, and let you know when you've reached $8,000,000 in cuts needed.
  • Donna likes this

#92 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 08 November 2015 - 05:54 PM

Could the legislature also limit how much AV can be TIFd by a taxing unit while they review our request?
  • kelley likes this

#93 BrianLenfert

BrianLenfert

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 08 November 2015 - 06:12 PM

I guess that'd be up to the legislators.

#94 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 08 November 2015 - 08:49 PM

We know that all parties that benefit from using TIF money will be fighting tooth and nail to stop the levy request if it contains any language addressing TIF's.

#95 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 08 November 2015 - 11:03 PM

So if you raise the levy -- and ask for a additional $8 million -- how much will this raise the tax rates? And I assume those people who are already at the 1% cap will not be affected, right?

#96 BrianLenfert

BrianLenfert

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 08 November 2015 - 11:55 PM

Correct, the levy increase would not exceed the tax caps (1%, 2%, 3%). 

 

In fact, there should be no significant change in the county tax rate.  Tax payers are already getting the current State certified tax rate, plus the previous year's court mandadated tax rate.  What I am asking for is the State legislators to set our tax rate to an appropriate amount, therefore additional expenses (bond attorneys, bond issuance costs, interest, bond rating agency, etc.) will not be incurred for the additional mandate tax rate. 



#97 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 09 November 2015 - 09:27 AM

So when you say "set our tax rate to an appropriate amount" --- what would that be??   Will this push most taxpayers to the max - 1%? 
 


  • Dougie likes this

#98 OpenEars

OpenEars

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 09 November 2015 - 11:46 AM

Question: How often are the levy's reviewed and updated by the state? 



#99 BrianLenfert

BrianLenfert

    Resident

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts

Posted 09 November 2015 - 02:13 PM

Levies are not reviewed or updated, other than specific legislation affecting a specific unit of government.

A revised levy should not push anyone closer to caps than they already are. We (taxpayers) are already paying an increased rate because of the mandates. I'd rather have the rate upfront to avoid the unnecessary and costly mandates.

#100 IntegrityMatters

IntegrityMatters

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,995 posts

Posted 09 November 2015 - 02:18 PM

So explain how this will increase revenue if no one is pushed closer to the caps and taxpayers are already paying an increased rate because of the mandates.   Where will the additional revenue come from?   I think you have confused several people.


  • apirateatheart likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users