There dropping like flies.....

Perhaps the trials and the tribulations of being hammered over the past couple of years has worn them out, or the process of seeking another term when the writing is pretty much on the wall has made this decision easier for those NOT seeking re-election. When political leaders do the business of the people in the proper manner the job of council or any other political office should be able to be fulfilled with minimal harassment. When as a political leader you go off track and think the people work for you instead of vice versa then the bickering become more promounced which in turn makes the job so much tougher.

It is easy to see why Collette and Deaver have withdrawn from their positions as the casualties from there reign is very evident now. The police and fire pension system bleeding red ink to the tune of 140 MILLION, a container ordinance which will if passed mean even more government intrusion into the businesses in this town, the pending waste haulers agreement that will force those companies NOT using the city landfill to pay a tonnage fee for hauling the trash elsewhere, a newly instituted health inspection fee onto the food handling establishments in this town which in essence is requiring they pay for a service that is MANDATED by government. Of course ONLY government can do the inspection as well.
Perhaps I should look into having the city mandate water treatment systems at the point of use for every home, apartment, and business in this city as well that way we can truly be environmentally friendly.

What else is looming in the background that a different city council is going to have to deal with that was started under this reign of dictators ???

Springfield mayor pro tem not seeking re-election

By Wes Johnson • wjohnson@news-leader.com • September 22, 2008

• Read Comments(9)
• Recommend
• Print this page
• E-mail this article
• Share
  • Del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine
  • Buzz up!
• 

City councilman and mayor pro tem Gary Deaver confirmed this morning he is not planning to run for re-election in April.

Deaver joined the council in 2003, serving out the last two years of Councilman Gary Gibson’s term after he died in office.

Deaver said he is satisfied with the council’s accomplishments over the past six years, and said he has some personal projects he wants to undertake.

Deaver joins Councilwoman Mary Collette in deciding not to run for another term on council.

Councilman Denny Whayne said he will run for re-election. Councilman John Wylie, whose seat also is up for election, could not be reached for comment.

Earlier today, Jim O’Neal, a former Springfield city councilman and owner of O & S Trucking, said he is running for mayor of Springfield.

O’Neal picked up a petition form from the city clerk’s office this morning.

According to City Clerk Brenda Cirtin, O’Neal represented the General D city council district from 1987 until 1994, when he resigned because he moved outside the city limits.

His area later was annexed into the city, permitting him to run for city office.

He is the first person to announce a run for the mayor's office. Current Mayor Tom Carlson is not running again because he has served four two-year terms, the maximum allowed under the city charter.

9/15/08 council meeting

The statement that I read last night is posted below and the research that went into this statement is accredited to Greg Sokerka.

Last night city council was presented with the perfect opportunity to turn the page of wasteful government and near abuses of power into something Springfieldians could have been proud of. Last night council was presented with evidence that C.U. hasn't given them all the information as it pertains to the proposed gas rate increase and yet not one council member challenged the presentation of Mrs. Officer of City Utilities.

Mrs. Officer clearly stated during questioning from Denny Whayne that the 40% rate increase in Southern Star pipeline rates had been approved but were being challenged by various energy companies. Nothing could be further from the truth as the FERC hasn't even heard this case yet as was pointed out by Greg Sokerka, Fred Ellison and myself. This should have been a signal to at least challenge John Twitty and city utilities to present factual information showing the rate increase had been passed but was under dispute. KUDOS to Denny Whayne for having the fortitude to at least question along these lines.

Later in this very same council meeting an item on the agenda was the approval of Mr. Greg Burris' salary, to which is excessive in the manner of his experience level in how a city operates and his over all management ability. Just like NFL teams will pay someone unproven massive amounts of money in hopes they perform up to expectations, the city of Springfield has done the very same by over paying a man who has yet to show he can handle the job or work this city out of management mediocrity. His lone claim to fame since accepting the position of City Manager is telling the people he plans on placing a 1 cent tax increase on an off election ballot, and requesting that everyone except the city "put some skin in the game".

The approval of this salary structure should be a slap in the face to one Bob Cumley. Never mind what he achieved or didn't achieve at this position at least the man had EXPERIENCE and that experience was worth approximately $150K to the city and the citizens who paid his salary. Let's fast forward to yesterday when with the approval of council bill 2008-208 gave Mr. Burris a base salary of $197K with incentives and allowances that make this compensation package worth about roughly $240K on an annual basis. Granted Councilman Deaver used the excuse that this was the middle ground on a recommended salary and thereby shouldn't be questioned because this salary is in line with this position. Keep in mind however this is also the same individual that likes projects where we get federal or state matching funds so the taxpayer isn't burdened with paying the complete cost of the project. Yes you read that right.
To her credit Councilwoman Rushefsky stayed principled and once more voted NO on this salary just like she voted NO on the hiring of Mr. Burris, with that said, I guess I can say the rest of council was principled as well since NONE of them changed their vote either. The main difference is Rushefsky voted in the manner of fiscal responsibility while the rest of council voted the status quo of larger more expensive government.

If I'm wrong in my assessment of this situation I'll be more than glad to admit my mistakes but it appears that generally business as usual is the moniker of even this newly elected city council, unless the term "green" is mentioned.

Two Council Bills on the 9-15 agenda pertaining to City Utilities

1. Bill # 2008-263, a general ordinance to approve the City Utilities Annual Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2009; and,

2. Bill # 2008-264, a general ordinance to approve establishing gas rates and repealing previously established gas rates.

• As set out on the Agenda, approval of the Annual Operating Budget first, would require the passage of the requested natural gas rate increase also. The Operating Budget, which was established to support the Annual Operating Plan, can not support attainment of the goals set out in the Operating Plan without the additional funds generated by the natural gas rate increase and an anticipated 2% annual growth in population. The Board of Public Utilities, in support of the General Manger, approved the Annual Operating Plan as presented without considering the fact that the natural gas rate increase request could be “tabled” again or voted down. And, without City Council’s approval of the rate increase, City Utilities would not be able to achieve everything set out in the Operating Plan, in the predetermined time frame, therefore the city would suffer as a result of the gas rate increase being denied. Of course, in addition to the rate increase being passed there would also have to be a 2% growth in population, which cannot be controlled or dictated by City Council, City Utilities, the Chamber of Commerce or the Board of Public Utilities. Consider: due to various tax and utility rate increases in the recent past, out-sourcing to the surrounding communities has occurred. In the past, there may have been a 2% population growth in Springfield, however it’s presumptuous to think that that will continue. Thereafter, transference of responsibility will occur with lots of ‘finger-pointing’ taking place. City Utilities would fault City Council, who would fault City Utility customers, who would then be cited as the reason why City Utilities was unable to accomplish what had been set out in the Annual Operating Plan that had been approved by the Board of Public Utilities; when in fact, the Operating Plan that had been approved by the Board of Public Utilities was done so in a totally irresponsible manner based on material misrepresentations made by the General Manager.

• Material misrepresentation: (J. T. Memo, 9-12-08)

1. Rate increase adjustment is necessary beginning in Nov. 2008, in response to a rate increase for pipeline storage and transportation charges from the primary pipeline provider (Southern Star Central) to Springfield.
   

Fact: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approves rate increase requests, pipeline-by-pipeline, and no such rate increase has been granted to Southern Star Central. Pipelines must go through a lengthy, public process whenever they request a rate increase, and the FERC sets rates on a pipeline-by-pipeline basis, approving for each pipeline what amounts to a maximum allowable rate, or a rate cap. Pipeline customers can and often do demand discounts from these maximum rates, with the net outcome being that many pipeline customers pay less than the maximum rate a pipeline has been given permission to charge by the FERC. Further, since Southern Star Central only utilizes approximately 21% of its pipeline capacity in its’ Kansas/Missouri operations Springfield City Utilities would certainly be in a strong position to negotiate a lower rate than one that might be approved by the FERC. In the alternative, other inter-state and intra-state pipeline companies (35 total) serving the Central Region might want to meet the needs of Springfield’s natural gas customers and be more willing to negotiate.

Bottom-line: No rate increase for storage and transportation charges currently exists from Southern Star Central.

• Natural gas prices have been on the decline, with the lowest year-to-date prices realized on September 3^rd and again on September 11^th, and nearly a 40% rate decease since June 6, 2008. Further, the Energy Information Administration, official energy statistics from the U. S. Gov’t. , indicate a 10% decrease in the price of natural gas in 2009. Springfield City Utilities management would have consumers believe Natural Gas prices will increase.

• Natural gas production figures, as well as natural gas stocks in storage, are both UP.

• Natural gas consumption, by retail customers, is DOWN. The only increase in consumption is in natural gas-generation for electricity production. City Utilities is well aware of this fact, as borne out at City Councils’ public hearing hosted in April, questioned by Councilman Whayne, and resulting in the rate increase request being “tabled”.

• By purchasing natural gas on the commodity futures market, rather than the “options” market, Springfield City Utilities could lock-in a fixed rate today, ensuring a constant fixed price for natural gas through Dec. 2020, taking delivery on any quantity purchased at any time in the future. Thereby passing the savings on to the City Utility customers who use natural gas. Purchases made in the past, on the options market, have resulted in millions of dollars ($2.5 million in ’07) in losses.

• Rate comparisons done between City Utilities and peer utility companies are generally performed in January, when C.U.’s rates are at their lowest. It’s not until later in the year, when gas rate adjustments are added-in, and higher electric rates are in effect that a factual comparison could be made. However, the rates that are in effect currently have absolutely no bearing on what rates “should be” in the future. It’s merely supply/demand economics based on the utility’s cost of goods, along with distribution to the customer. At this time, City Utilities is behaving like a spoiled-brat child: Bob gets a quarter, but I only get fifteen cents!

• Rate increases “should be” granted only after consideration is given to other factors impacting the utilities’ customers and the utility itself. All people, not only C.U. customers, are experiencing actual – not projected – increases in rents, mortgages, utilities, insurance on homes, autos, health, and life; groceries, taxes, school tuition, and trash service. There are some CU customers that have difficulty currently paying their utility bills, then have a 10% late fee added-on and then compounded if left unpaid, who could not afford any rate increase at all, let alone what CU is requesting. In February, 2008, 24.5% (25,970) had late fees, and in June ’08 there were 15+% (15,900) customers who still had late fees being tacked-on to their bills.

• With natural gas prices down, consumer usage down, production and storage figures up, continued price declines being forecasted by the U. S. Gov’t, and other economic factors taken into consideration there is no justification for City Council’s passage of, or City Utilities request for, a rate increase.

• Bottom-Line: Leadership, at City Council and the municipal utility are responsible and accountable to the citizens, the Board of Public Utilities have failed in that responsibility, hopefully City Council won’t.

B.O.H.I.C.A.

Monetary compensation for Springfield's new city manager

Base pay with city: $195,000 Occupational Series pay, a 2 percent boost for certain city employees to upgrade pay due to a salary survey: $3,900 Car allowance, regardless of use: $5,160 Deferred compensation, which is an unmatched city contribution toward a 401(k)-like retirement fund: $15,500 LAGERS pension contribution: $36,796 Paid life-term insurance: $1,000
Standard employee health insurance: $4,584
Total cost, annually: $261,940
Current base pay at Missouri State University: $126,223

Burris plans to seek vote on sales tax to solve police-firefighters pension shortfall

Wes Johnson • News-Leader • September 9, 2008

• Read Comments(4)
• Recommend
• Print this page
• E-mail this article

• Share this article:
• Del.icio.us
• Facebook
• Digg
• Reddit
• Newsvine
• What’s this?

He won’t start the job until Monday.

His salary still hasn't been approved by a vote of the people such is required by the city charter, I guess another "emergency" will exist in this vote.

But Springfield City manager Greg Burris already plans to seek a sales tax vote early next year to deal with a huge shortfall in the pension system for city police and firefighters.

A termite with minimal education knew this was coming.

In an interview with the News-Leader, Burris called the $140 million pension shortfall “the 800-pound gorilla” in the city’s budget, and a problem that has to be solved soon.

Mr. Burris has been a member of this community for how long ?? Never seen nor heard him mention anything about this issue, considering it has been being ignored for a decade.

His game plan: Putting a sales tax referendum before Springfield voters ahead of next spring’s budget deliberations.

Why not the (m)asses have shown they will fall for anything.

“I know that this is a problem that only gets worse every day we’re not fixing it,” Burris said. “And we’ve got to fix it quickly, so, yeah, before April.”

$26,000 a day by the figures I've seen.

And if voters say no?

“Then we know that what we’ve got ahead of us are massive budget cuts, which equate into massive service cuts,” Burris said.

The scare tactics are being deployed already, prepare for this as it will only get worse the closer to election time.

“So again it goes back to that issue — we’ve got to determine what kind of city we want to be, and this is going to be a bellwether moment for the city.”

This has already been determined by those serving on city council. We are a city of parks and to hell with those serving the citizenry such as police and fire. Again isn't Mr. Burris a long time resident of this city ?

Burris, 46, will waste no time transitioning from his job as a vice president at Missouri State University to Springfield city manager.

I'm quite surprised he waited this long, I mean after all everyone knew when his name was in the final three that he would be the ONE.

After 25 years at MSU, Friday will be his last day. More than 200 MSU employees gave him a farewell sendoff Tuesday afternoon.

Asked why he won’t take any time off, Burris said “that’s not true.”

“I’m taking a Saturday and a Sunday,” he said.

He wasn’t being flippant.

Burris said the lack of a break between jobs is an indication of how seriously he takes finding a solution to the pension issue.

It wasn't that important when he wasn't being paid to speak about it, now it is a priority. Funny how 200K will change the minds of men.

“Because the pension issue needs to be addressed so quickly, I couldn’t look myself in the mirror and say I could take five days off while this thing looms,” Burris said. “Knowing we’re going to try to get something before voters in the near future, those five days may become critical. We’re on a short time line.”

It wasn't important until he got the position, this speaks volumes about the man.

As he’s said in the past, Burris believes Springfield residents will only support a sales tax hike for the police/fire pension if it has a sunset clause — and only if it truly fixes the problem.

The sunset clause is a HOAX, the management of this city will convince voters that the money should be used for furthering development of the city and since it isn't a NEW tax.....

“I don’t think the citizens are going to stand for us to develop something and come back five years later and say ‘OK, we’ve got a problem again,’” Burris said. “It’s got to be a total solution.”

Why not ? much of the citizenry sleeps while Nero fiddles.

It’s unclear how much of a sales tax increase will be proposed.

Anything less than a half percent would be a WASTE of time.

A pension expert the city hired has said a 1 cent sales tax increase could bring the pension to solvency within three years.

This is only HALF a sentence, the portion they left off goes as follows; if the city of Springfield maintains the current level of revenue generated and collected on the sales tax.

A half-cent sales tax would do the same in eight years, while a quarter-cent sales tax would take 19 years.

See above once more half a sentence.

At a recent pension presentation, Assistant Fire Chief David Hall said the sales tax should automatically end when the retirement plan reached a 90 percent funding level.

With numerous conversations with Mr. Hall, he wants this mandated however it will be redirected into another fund that would benefit the city, see above where I already answered this.

At that point, interest from invested pension funds should be enough to sustain it without additional sales tax revenue, Hall said.

This once again is half a sentence because if the pension fund fails to meet projections during this time frame we could still be in the same place. Also don't forget the city also needs to MAINTAIN funding the obligatory portion promised these men and women.

Burris said city taxpayers won’t be the only ones asked to help save the pension fund.

Your right because those visiting the city will also be paying for this as well.

“All the stakeholders are going to have to have skin in the game,” he said.

“Maybe part of a package solution is one where everybody is contributing — police and fire contribute a little more, the city is contributing more, taxpayers are contributing a little more — and we can identify some time range that this solution will sunset after X number of years.”

Excuse me how many times are we going to screw over the police and fire department personnel ??

Several city council members said Burris was on the right track with a sales tax referendum.

SEVERAL ??? Don't you mean ALL

“I couldn’t agree more,” said Councilman Gary Deaver.

We knew this before you opened your mouth.

“I was concerned this year when we scraped together an additional $5.2 million to make that full pension payment,” Deaver said. “But we’d have to do that 28 to 30 years in a row — with favorable economic times — to make whole the pension fund.”

Haven't you served since the beginning of this fiasco ?? Suddenly your concerned as well.

Deaver said he hopes voters will support a sales tax to fund the pension, which would allow the city to get out of the job of managing a pension fund.

Of course you would, since we already funded it once. Imagine those in charge of the city actually taking some responsibility for the problem they created.

Burris would like to roll the police/fire fund into the state-managed LAGERS pension plan, which has had significantly better investment returns than the city’s pension fund.

I seem to recall a time where the pension was funded enough to do this, however with a LACK of management promises were made that left the taxpayer on the hook for a MASSIVE amount of $$$$.

“But we can’t get out of ours until it’s fully funded,” he said.

Councilman Doug Burlison said he wants to see more details about Burris’ plan, but supported the sales tax concept.

No I'm not surprized

Burlison, however, said he wouldn’t back any suggestion that police and firefighters contribute more into the fund.

Careful he's flexing his back bone.

“Police and fire have been contributing ‘skin in the game’ when others haven’t,” he said, referring to the council’s decisions not to make full pension contributions in recent years.

“The police and fire folks are not going to like that at all, nor should they.”

Despite that conflict, Burlison said he admired Burris’ decision to tackle the pension problem “head on.”

$200K will make people do something they thought NOT important just a few months ago

Cindy Rushefsky, the only council person to vote against hiring Burris, said she would back a pension sales tax vote.

See I said ALL of them were in favor of a sales tax.

“A sales tax is the only way we’re going to get out of this problem, depending on what his sales tax proposal is,” she said. “The pension fund needs to be fully funded as quickly as possible, but it also needs safeguards so that this can’t happen again.”

This once more is a red herring since I see NO willingness on behalf of the city to restructure anything to alleviate some of the peoples burden.

Rushefsky voted against Burris’ hiring because he lacked city manager experience.

She was the only intelligent one present that day the vote took place.

However, she has been encouraged by Burris’ efforts.

Remember that 200K ??

“I’m very pleased with what I’ve seen so far,” Rushefsky said. “He’s talking to people, going to places and events ahead of time to learn about them. I’m encouraged by that.”

He is only listening to those that he has been counseled to listen to.

my impression of council meeting 6/16/08

There were visitors in the common area from Wyandotte County Kansas (home of Kansas Speedway), these young folks were taking part in a program put on by Missouri State University and were a welcome addition to the audience. Ralph Manley handed out some of his books to these students and was his very merry self.

This bill was quite odd in nature as the city will start using money granted to the city as a means to repay the loans of which the grants cam from, but it still leaves money left over to help provide for lunches to children since the schools are closed. "yes I know my parents were required to feed me as well and did this without government assistance even though we were dirt poor".

The night was kind of hum drum until council bill 2008-153, this is the ordinance which assesses fees on restaurant owners for the government mandated inspection from the Greene County/Springfield Health Department. This fee schedule has been on the books since 1993 however the restaurants have been given this inspection at no cost. Most people feel that these restaurant owners are paying taxes for this service, however council and the health department say that people who don't eat out are subsiding the restaurant owners via taxation for this "service".
I really don't believe you can call a government mandated inspection a service since the restaurant owners cannot opt out of this or pay a private sector entity for this inspection.

Councilmen Burlison made a motion to delete the section of this bill which assess these fess onto the restaurant owners, this motion was seconded by council lady Rushefsky.

I have been extremely hard on Doug since he was elected since it didn't appear to me or many people I know that he is a smaller government type individual. The tricycle park is one issue people point to on how he has turned into one of the good ole boys, however upon further review Springfield/Greene County Parks Department has there own funds so spending this $$$ didn't impact the general fund, and council really has little to say in the expenses of the parks department when the issue comes to point.

She was not in favor of removing the fees completely however she mentioned a phase in period would be appropriate and with some incentives if the restaurants received a clean bill from the health department upon inspection.
This is where the meeting got fun. Councilman Whayne spoke out about the ever increasing cost placed on businesses and how the health department should look at other ways to phase this in.
Council members Deaver, Colette and Mayor Carlson all spoke out in favor of the fees as a means for these restaurant owners to start paying for a service that is provided to them for nothing, once more see bold portion of this blog.
A vote was taken and on a 7-2 vote the measure was defeated, then the vote on the actual wording of the council bill was taken and passed unanimously.

Another item on the docket was COUNCIL BILL 2008-170. (Collette) A special ordinance amending the budget for the Springfield-Greene County Health Department for the fiscal year 2007-2008 in the amount of $35,000 to provide spay and neuter assistance to local animal rescue organizations.

This was another contentious issue as Councilman Manley jumped on this like a snapping turtle after a fig leaf. He along with Burlison and Whayne were opposed to giving this organization this money since the cities revenue coffers aren't in the best of shape right now nor will they be for years to come.
Rushefsky snarled this up like a trained pitbull going after a robber and by the time she was finished Collette almost felt foolish for trying to follow up her comments. Once more this issue was sold to the people as a means to save money since it will cut down on the stray population of animals which ravage the city by night. This measure will also be able to limit the amount of animals which are being "put down" and hauled off to the city dump. Measure passes 6-3 and that about wraps up the meat part of the council meeting.

Upon thinking this through quite thoroughly I have discovered a way to save money for the taxpayers of this fair city. Simply by taking the animals of which have been "sentenced to death" anyway, we grind up the remains of these animals after they are skinned and deboned and give the meat to the poor children which have no food to eat since the schools are closed. The money saved from the grant fund is then used to help pay off the loans faster thus costing the taxpayer less money.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!!!

Storage issue delayed until next year

Springfield business owners upset about container proposal pleased with action.

Jaime Baranyai • News-Leader • April 3, 2008

Much to the appeasement of business owners, Springfield's proposed storage container ordinance will be put on hold for more than a year.

The City Council Community Involvement Committee on Wednesday afternoon decided to put an administrative delay on the ordinance until Sept. 11, at which time the delay will be formally extended for a year.

"That is the smartest, wisest thing that the city leaders of Springfield can do with that issue," said Tom Martz of Mozark Environmental. "Anything the city can do to maintain the businesses here is a wise future investment."

Many other business owners have sat through multiple public meetings during the past two years fighting with the city over the storage containers.

The matter eventually became so confusing and nettlesome that Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver suggested a "cooling off" period after a meeting with business owners last month turned contentious.

Business owners said Wednesday they're thankful the storage container issue has been officially put on the back burner.

Brenda Teeslink, who owns Mobile Storage Solutions, said she is thrilled the issue has been put on hold.

"This is the right thing for them to do at this time," she said. "It's an issue that does not deserve the attention it got to begin with. It snowballed into something that was unnecessary."

Rita Needham, executive director of the Southwest Area Manufacturers Association, said she too was happy with the administrative delay put on the storage container issue.

"That's probably the best thing that could have happened today, and I was pleased to see it get done," Needham said after Wednesday's meeting.

"It will be a cooling off period that gives everybody time to step back and rethink it."

She said by the time the council is ready to revisit the issue, hopefully the new city manager can offer a new perspective.

Jim Pretti, who owns Ozark Flag Distributors and uses storage containers to hold some of his merchandise, said he's glad the issue has been delayed but would like to see it done away with altogether.

"There's so many other things Springfield has to worry about right now besides those trailers ... let's worry about the police department and the fire department," he said.

Councilman Dan Chiles, who has opposed the ordinance from the beginning, echoed those sentiments. He said dealing with the city's budget crisis is the biggest priority right now.

Chiles said he can live with the decision to delay any action on the storage container issue.

"Life is a compromise ... I would have preferred to just do away with it, but this is OK," he said.

In the meantime, it seems there's been enough light shed on the issue to make business owners aware of the regulations surrounding storage containers, according to Needham with the Southwest Area Manufacturers Association.

"There are a lot of companies that once the storage container issue was discussed and brought to light, they became aware of the proper placements and made adjustments accordingly," she said. "Once they find out what the right thing is to do they're going to comply with that."

Deaver said he's already noticed a change.

"I have noted significant improvements in the placement and use of the containers throughout the community and believe we can delay action on this issue for a period of time," he said.

Teeslink with Mobile Storage Solutions said she's happy to hear that.

"They've realized that the businesses out there are not knowingly breaking any of the codes -- and when they were taught what to do they corrected them," she said.

Teeslink said when the storage container issue is eventually taken up again, she hopes the city will approach it with a different perspective. She said she wants them to treat it as a training and educational issue.

"Any safety training that they are willing to take the time to do, I'll be there with bells on. That's what we want. We want them to educate instead of regulate."

Container Ordinance

http://www.springfieldmo.gov/pdfs/container_draft_12A240.pdf


It all started innocently enough as Gary Deaver spun the tales of days gone past and how he is just looking for a solution to a problem which for all intended purposes doesn't exist. Storage Containers run amok in the city and they must be controlled for the sake of everyones safety. Never mind that there have been NO accidents in the city with these containers and I would imagine accident rates for personal injury in and around these devises is quite minuscule.

The comparisons were made to the garage sale and residential parking ordinances which it didn't occur to me until today why this is.
Few if any people raised a fuss when the city regulated garage sales because this is a minority of the population and NO one came to their defense. Then it was parking in residential neighborhoods and once more this didn't affect a good percentage of the population so it as well sailed through.
Now were onto containers and this brought out much more weight then the city had imagined. 65 people attended the meeting last night and it seemed like the topic of discussion is stuck in a revolving door. On one side the business leaders are asking why such an ordinance is needed since placing a container already comes under the building & fire codes already in place. The flip side of the coin proclaims it has to be done for safety and to control the means by which these containers are used. Never mind in most cases these containers are placed on PRIVATE PROPERTY not governments.
Mr. Deaver kept on bringing up issues such as parking them too close to structures, except this already violates fire code. Dropping them to close to fire hydrants, once more a fire code violation. Blocking access in driveways and to other businesses, once more a violation of this matter is already in city code.
The crux of the matter is that someone thinks that the containers are unsightly and they are trying to use the force of government to prevent having to look at one from their back deck or bedroom window. A word of advise would have to be not to purchase a home near a business park. This is quite similar to purchasing a home in an area near an airport then complain because your home is in the landing pattern area when the wind is blowing.

It appears this issue should be tabled however I get the inclination the city will keep in at the top of the docket

Did we really get change

Seems to be the question that many are asking now that the current city council has been seated for a year. Of course I'm not talking about those that weren't changed only those seats that changed hands.


Cynthia (Cindy) Rushefsky defeated Sheila Wright in a race that was decided quite easily. Ms Rushefsky showed promise early on when it came to the pension fund monies and those agencies, however recently she hasn't voted any different from the person she replaced. Cindy was also endorsed by the firefighters and police department as the person most likely to work with them. And the knife gets turned with every council meeting as she hasn't done anything which would avert a financial crisis for the city.

Douglas Burlison defeated Conrad Griggs in a close race but not a nail biter. This is perhaps the biggest disappointment of the newly seated council members, as Mr. Burlison has always proclaimed to be for individual liberties and freedoms and a smaller less intrusive government that was fiscally sound. His voting record says just the opposite. During his one questioning moment of decision he cow tailed to the majority and allowed for an extreme $575 million Capitol Improvement project to be approved unanimously. You may think I'm being hard on Mr. Burlison but I had NO reason to believe that Cindy or Dan would do what was the most fiscally sound policy for the taxpayers of this city. Mr. Burlison campaigned on such and has done the exact opposite since that time.

Dan Chiles defeated Jack Steck, the firefighters and police departments choice to fill this seat. Bob Jones filled this seat before this race. Mr. Chiles fits my definition of 'ecolation' to a "T". He doesn't care how much money is spent as long as the project includes LEED certification or bike paths. Mr. Chiles has shown himself to be the typical democrat with rhetoric about the War on Iraq at a recent energy conference and if it weren't for this war we could've spent this money on renewable energy resources. NO !!!! Dan if we didn't have this stupid war in Iraq then this money wouldn't be getting spent at all .

All in all the firefighters and police agencies are shaking their heads trying to figure out why our newest three council members are no different then from the ones they replaced. The citizens of Springfield, those that give a damn, also are shaking their heads because they swore they voted for change not more of the same.

my address to city council

Screw the little guy !! after all if they default on their taxes because of over inflated property values then the city can seize the property for non payment

I appreciate the opportunity to speak in front of the city council on an issue which I and many others feel have repercussions into the next generation of taxpayers. I firmly believe that the area outlined in the Commercial Street TiF commission report needs to undergo redevelopment, but at what cost ?

It appears the school board would like to see bonds issued to pay for this to speed up the process which will allow for the schools to reap the benefits of an area with higher taxation rates and much higher property taxation levels. In essence what could transpire is that through government involvement people could lose their property because of the forced increase in property values. To artificially inflate property values to create commerce in an area where the businesses themselves do minimal advertising shouldn’t be compliant upon the taxpayers of Springfield to write off these possible business losses.

The city of Springfield continues to spend in areas which have NO relevance to projected revenues. The past few years have been quite challenging to Springfield. Consumer cost have sky rocketed which in turn increases revenues for the city, however the dilemma remains that the surrounding areas are developing and with this development creates a tax void for this city. Springfield is beginning to experience that shoppers from the surrounding areas NO longer have to drive here to meet their consumer needs and the internet also impacts the revenue structure of this city.

The elected and selected leaders of this city seem to believe that revenues into the area are an unlimited source and will increase exponentially with every development, but this is a fallacy that can be easily dispelled by looking at the amount of office space not leased throughout this city and to the current financial problems that need to be fixed. Development can bring many facets of economic gain into the area as long as the revenues received are properly managed and as long as the figures of this economic gain are not spent based on assumptions of greater projected revenues then what are actually received. It wasn’t that long ago that many on this very council scoffed at the cost of an $80,000 state audit of the books and yet unnecessary expenditures such as the $20,000 for the Partnership for Sustainability, a $350,000 Tricycle Park, close to 3 million to redevelop a square that needs cosmetic surgery not a facelift, and to top of this list $575 million for the recently approved Capitol Improvements Project

The city through the use of infrastructure projects can control how an area develops and whether or not it is successful. Recently projects in this area have been undertaken by entities in the private sector, which goes to show the area can be redeveloped and made a viable portion of the city as the influx of more private money become available to the area. I commend those businesses that have invested their capitol into an area that has spent years being distressed, you have the spirit of the pioneers who settled in an area not knowing what to expect and they worked hard to provide a living for themselves and their families.

"The idea of entering public service as an elected official in order to limit the power of government, and maximize the freedom of individual citizens, is an obsolete concept." As said Henry Lamb and we see that currently in this area as well.

In closing I and the taxpayers of Springfield expect our elected and selected city leaders to manage tax revenues as if it were coming out of your very own wallets and checkbooks. Ask yourself if you had to pay for a project out of your own money would you do it ? If not then don’t force the rest of us to foot an expenditure that you yourself wouldn’t be willing to risk your money on.

"it's for the children"

The Larry Rice issue was raised this evening, I didn't stay for the whole part of that discussion due to a severe migraine. All of the speakers I personally heard used the age old adage "it's for the children" a phrase taken out of the democrat play book to spend millions of dollars on a substandard education
It appeared that no one is comparing apples to apples in this debate including the few council members I heard make remarks. Here is the skinny, when one of Larry Rice's facilities has something go down that causes a death or injury Larry Rice gets blamed NOT the perpetrator, however when someone in a school gets injured or killed then why don't we blame the administrators or at the very least the government that would be along the same lines.
The argument to keep this homeless shelter from becoming a reality is nothing more than knee jerk reactions by a vocal minority that truly hasn't researched the subject. The probability of anything happening in or near this veterans homeless shelter isn't any greater than going downtown to one of our many bars.
Personally this shelter doesn't affect me in any manner although there are some half-way houses in and around my neighborhood and as of yet I haven't heard any complaints from anyone that lives near them.

Based upon the arguments I heard this evening if just one child that attended Central H.S. has been convicted of a robbery then shouldn't we send ALL children going to Central to jail now before they have the opportunity to commit a crime.
You may feel that statement is extreme however it is the very same argument turned around against those that are against the homeless veterans shelter.
I believe the shelter should be given the go ahead with stipulations that make it a very secure place to be and to verify that the neighborhoods will continue to be as safe as possible. I usually like vocal minorities when they make a point that is conducive and well thought out, however when they go off half cocked like those that spoke this evening on this issue they do nothing except move a conversation into the extreme.

So city council has a choice on this matter and it appears they are once again going down the wrong direction.

City announces hiring freeze, budget cuts

In an interview with Jason Wert of lifeofjason.com our Mayor Pro Tem Gary Deaver decreed that the city has a balanced budget and is required to have one. In understanding how the budgeting process works the city based on the best criteria possible proposes a budget based upon ASSUMPTIONS of revenue that MIGHT be generated. This my dear friends isn't a balanced budget unless the revenue projected is ACTUALLY received

© 2008, Springfield News-Leader

Springfield city government has been placed under an immediate hiring freeze, and city departments are being asked to cut their budgets by 7 percent because of an unexpected drop in sales tax revenue.

Deputy City Manager Evelyn Honea said today that city department heads must have their proposed budget cuts in by next Friday. She confirmed a hiring freeze was in place and would remain until the budget shortfall was fixed.

“The hiring freeze is putting some departments in a bind,” Honea said. “The fire department had five firefighters they were ready to make offers to, but we’ve asked them not to make those offers until this is resolved.”

The city has four other open positions affected by the hiring freeze.

Honea said she and City Manager Bob Cumley will review the proposed cuts and deliver a report to the City Council in March.

It will be up to the council to decide how to proceed, but she said the city needs to cut at least $4 million, she said.

While gearing up for the 2009 budget, the city had projected sales tax revenue would increase 3 percent, but it actually decreased 1 percent.

Honea said the city also was facing a $3.5 million shortfall in its contribution to the police and fire pension fund. The only way to solve the combined shortfall is to reduce the city’s general fund budget by 7 percent, she said.

In 2008, the $41 million general fund made up slightly more than half of the city’s $70 million total budget. Fees and revenue from other sources make up the rest.

Honea said it’s too soon to know exactly how department heads will meet the 7 percent budget cut goal. But cutting employees is likely to occur.

“Seventy three percent of the general fund supports personnel,” she said. “You can’t raise $4 million without cutting personnel. We hope to do it through attrition. We don’t plan on any layoffs.”

Springfield City Center

I was going to write a blog on the historic aspects of our town square, however most of my work has already been published by Dan Chiles and the Springfield News Leader. I will only add that during this period of transition of the square the city is going to spend a fortune on the lawsuits which will be filed to keep this historic square intact as much as possible

VOICE OF THE DAY »

Meet with square's original architect to get consensus


The Springfield city square is an early work by Lawrence Halprin, America's most famous landscape architect. Halprin designed the visitor's attractions at Yosemite National Park, Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco, Sea Ranch in California and the new FDR Presidential Memorial in Washington, D.C.

The Springfield city square has the most distinguished pedigree of any building or project in our town. It came from a lengthy design process that included (I'm told) nine design revisions which are archived at the University of Pennsylvania.

The short barricades that surround much of the square and account for many complaints by our citizens were apparently added later along with the street that circles the plaza. For decades, Springfield's square has enjoyed no major capital improvements or upgrades. Lighting, programming and access need attention.

People in Springfield want a square that is bright, well lit, accessible and programmed with cool events. We can spend our $800,000 (plus change) federal dollars for a new square or we can upgrade the Halprin design.

In the past year of public meetings, none of our design team bothered to call Halprin and ask his opinion, but I did. He is 91 years old, alert and interested in our square, just as he was 38 years ago. He is extremely kind and supportive. He said our square needed enhancements and he is willing to spend time with a Springfield delegation to "reach a consensus." He wants to meet with four people.

The city has applied for federal money to demolish our square, but that money comes with strings. In brief, permitting cannot legally begin until a Section 106 review has been completed, which results in a determination of "no historic resources," "no adverse effect" upon historic resources or "adverse effect" upon historic resources.

I predict Springfield is in for a long and bitter fight if we try to spend federal tax dollars to demolish Halprin's work.

If we are smart enough to accept Mr. Halprin's offer, we can win four ways: preserve the Halprin landmark, honor the citizen request for improvements, stretch our tax dollars and do everything faster.

My City Council job pays nothing and drags me away from work and family, but I am willing to put a thousand bucks toward Halprin's fee of $10,000. We are talking about a meeting the first week of March at his office. I'm looking for three other volunteers.

---

Dan Chiles is a member of the Springfield City Council.

Council Passes Resolution on New Square Designs

Mr. Dan Chiles on this issue you have my utmost respect as you stood by your principles and you stood up for the people of Springfield.
I'm a little suspect of the input of 750 people since I attended the meetings on the "jordan valley gateway" project of which only 23 people attended. I was only counting the people not associated with the city, a city department, or the organization hired for the project.

12FEB2008

Council Passes Resolution on New Square Designs

In a special session held today, City Council passed a resolution to move ahead with the first phase of the proposed redesign of Park Central Square. (Download a PDF explaining the design. 6.5 mb) The new design was created by local architectural firm Butler, Rosenbury & Partners after a public input process.

Architect Tim Rosenbury was on hand to answer Council members’ questions about the design. He said during the input phase, more than 750 members of the public identified six key qualities a new Park Central Square should have. They said it should recognize downtown as an emerging entertainment district, it should be able to be enjoyed all types of people, it should have easy access for all, it should be an active and lively space, it should recognize downtown as an emerging residential district, and it should recognize Springfield’s history in some way.

Rosenbury also explained the four phases of the project. The first phase is the inner portion — the square itself. This would be paid for by a federal grant of that has already been secured. The second phase is the outer “corners” of the space, which is essentially the sidewalk area that extends to the buildings on the Square. The third phase is the “spokes” of roadway extending from the Square for one block east and west and a half block north and south. The fourth possible phase includes a pavilion in the center of the Square. The Urban Districts Alliance is taking the lead to look for possible private funding sources for the outer corners and the pavilion/canopy, while the “spokes” are already identified for eventual funding through the City’s ongoing streetscape improvements.

Councilman Dan Chiles raised concerns about changing a space that was designed by Lawrence Halprin, a famed landscape architect. He suggested waiting to approve a design until Halprin could be consulted. Other Council members expressed a desire to move ahead, as the City’s agreement with Heer’s Tower developer Kevin McGowan states that the City must begin construction on a new Park Central Square by Aug. 1. McGowan sent a letter via e-mail (72k PDF) to Council today urging them to pass the resolution. Architect and downtown property owner Allen Casey also send a letter to City manager Bob Cumley (71k PDF) in support of the design. Downtown developer Scott Tillman (College Station) and Urban Districts Alliance board president Nancy Dornan spoke to express support for the new design.

The resolution was approved 7-1, with Councilman Chiles voting against. Mayor Tom Carlson was not present. You can watch the meeting in its entirety on our Web site via TV23.

posted by Mike Brothers, Public Information

as so goes the castle

It appears the city gave some broad sweeping powers to rezone sections of the city back in the mid 90's. The bill seems to have been passed and even has a date that it was passed, so how come the city clerk doesn't have a record of it.

http://www.springfieldmo.gov/webapps/ordinance/detail.jsp?bill=95-48&ord=4494

inquiring minds would like to know.

Sometimes it just happens

It wasn't that long ago that I had mentioned that NO ONE affiliated with the city modus operandi should be included in interviewing or hiring the new city manager, after all those involved in city politics are why we are hundred or so million in debt. Derek White also seems to be acutely aware of this and wrote such in a guest column for the Community Free Press

http://www.cfpmidweek.com/weeks/IssuePDFs/vo6i03web.pdf

There is probably very little that Derek and I would agree on politically, but having our mayor pro term Gary Deaver heading up the committee to select our newest city employee is quite counter productive to giving the city a NEW start.

quite a contenious city council meeting

Arrived at city council meeting right around 7:00. Approximately 60 people in chambers. Meeting started off like so many before with the mundane task of approving bills and reading minutes and approving minutes of past meetings but soon the excitement would begin. I see about 10 or so people from the Save the Castle group in attendance

A landowner is developing a piece of property for a wholesale/retail type of business which is well within the zoning classification of said property. Some land owners to the south of this property are concerned about the noise and the light issue from that property into their houses. Very legitimate complaint however the landowner has doubled the buffer zone from 20' to 40' to make sure these residences aren't impacted in any way. I applaud the developer for this action has it seems they want to be good neighbors.

Next up is the city with the future spending on the various projects for the next five or so years. Andy Furiday presented the cities case for this spending. Council Burlison decided once again to be the lone ranger and he dared question some of these expenditures. That is when Ralph Manley hit the roof. According to Councilmen Manley the city hires and retains professionals to which draw up these plans and the city council shouldn't question the position of these authorities and he wasn't happy that someone on city council dare question spending over 575 million dollars in the next five or so years on improvements to various city projects.
Council lady Collette defended Councilmen Burlison and offered up a resolution to give Councilmen Burlison two weeks to provide a list of items that he deems wasteful. Other council members agreed to this and a voice vote to table was held with the only dissenting vote being Council Manley.
Councilman Manley I respect your service to country and community, but please don't tell me I don't have the right to question the expenses of a city that can't control the expense sheets for many a city project. That sir is very unAmerican and I'm quite sure you didn't get 6 purple hearts defending this nation and Europe so you could tell people the freedom of speech doesn't exist.

The fireworks at this point had only just begun.

In the recent past numerous news articles have been written in conjunction with the Pythain Castle issue. The Springfield News Leader also carried a piece from our Assistant City Attorney with a time line to the events which have transpired with this building, although not all of the information in this piece is correct and the records keeping on the cities behalf is lackluster at best. Mayor Carlson hit the roof he was told that three private citizens were in attendance to address the issue of the castle. Of course this wasn't on the agenda, but we the people have a right to redress our elected leaders, get used to it Mayor.
The owner of the castle was the first to address the issue and she had a couple of barbs and dingers in there to irk the mayor and the city. You could tell Mayor Carlson was none to happy to listen, but to his credit he never interrupted the speakers. Next up Neva and Bill Schroeder from Marshfield with there remarks and then session was closed for business.
Having more insight into this than most I've kept my mind open without forming an opinion, to which this has gotten me slammed from both ends, but now with a little more detail and even more soon to be released this seems to the modus operandi of the zoning department with our fair city.

For much more info into this please visit lifeofjason.com

you lived in a city that have NO regard for taxpayer funds

Silly me I do live in one of those cities.

The results are in and most of our suspicions have been proven out. City leaders nor the upper echelon of city management have any clue of how to run a fiscally responsible city. The sytem of checks and balances has been thrown out of the window along with the balance sheets to determine how money is spent.

Mr. Burlison the city owes you a debt of gratitude for having the bravado to get this started and to see it through. Much thanks to those that gathered signatures(libertarian party members, individual members of the police and fire fighters) which required you to be away from family doing something that you felt was important. To those that attached your signatures to the petition now is the time for you to become active instead of proactive and help us bring about change to the city.

City council needs to ask debt questions

At the city council meeting the members took 30 minutes to pat themselves on the back for all the ways they are spending money in the downtown area. The mayor was aghast that the SNL actually questioned the decisions of the council to spend this money on various projects which haven't been finalized or even awarded.

I wonder if an impact study has been done to determine the fiscal impact of all the $$$ spent in the downtown area.
You want to revitalize the downtown area put a Super Wal-Mart down there and people will flock to it. The type of people that will visit the various shops in the newly renovated downtown area prodominately live in the San Francisco area or in Marin County CA. How are we going to get those people here Mayor Tom. The region of downtown has been populated by bars and the like which seem to entertain the MSU students and the crime rate of the area doesn't seem to reflect the major sources of entertainment in that area.

I see NO reason why PRIVATE monies can't be invested in the area. Once something is set in stone for the advancement of private money to be invested in this area then public monies could follow upon reasonable assurance that the taxpayers aren't going to be left holding an empty bank statement.

City council needs to ask debt questions

Springfield nears worrisome level.

Before they vote to put the city in debt by another $20 million tonight, city council members have to ask themselves two questions:

How much debt is the city actually in?

How much can the city handle?

What's worrisome is that council members didn't appear to ask those questions a couple of weeks ago before they approved the first reading of bills that would authorize the city to sell up to $2.7 million in bonds for a crime lab and up to $6 million for a Heer's parking garage and another $12 million for a parking garage at College Station.

We're pretty sure the council didn't ask the question because when we asked it of City Manager Bob Cumley, he didn't know the answer. But he found out, and the answer should give city taxpayers pause.

If the proposals before the council are approved tonight, the city will have just more than $61 million in debt related to economic development projects downtown. The city has other debts, such as about $90 million for the new airport terminal, and other bonds that are backed by taxes for road projects, but the downtown economic development debt is significant because it's a bit of a gamble.

If the projects work — and don't misunderstand us, we believe they will — then the debt can be paid off without much harm to general revenue. And if the projects fail? That's a possibility Cumley and others don't want to think about.

But they are thinking about the debt. And their conclusion, after tonight at least, is clear. No more debt.

"At some point, you start to get concerned," Cumley says.

We believe that point ought to be now.

We have been, and continue to be, fans of downtown's resurgence and the city's role in helping to make it happen. The crown jewels, so to speak, are the College Station project that is under construction and the Heer's building redevelopment that is getting closer by the day. We believe the very thought of those projects on the horizon is contributing to the work of other developers in and around downtown as more old buildings get refurbished and turned into loft apartments and retail outlets. The crime lab project is important in and of itself in that it will improve the entire state's ability to move justice forward in cases right now that are delayed because of the lack of a lab; but it's also valuable as it will bring employees downtown and offer even more incentive for redevelopment of older empty downtown buildings.

But fans of these projects or not, it's important to consider the short and long term repercussions of this debt. In the short term, some of the previous bonded indebtedness is costing the city out of general revenue coffers. According to figures provided by the city, it's costing about $500,000 a year to pay off bonds that build the Jordan Valley Ice Park and another $500,000 a year to pay off bonds for the Jordan Valley Parking Garage. Meanwhile, though not downtown, the city will spend more than a million dollars out of general revenue this year to pay off bonds for the Partnership Industrial Center near the airport.

That's $2 million a year that's being spent out of general revenue on a gamble that once completed, economic development projects will produce enough revenue to help pay off their own debt. One can argue that a strong downtown core is worth more economic development potential to the city even if it costs some general revenue to make it happen. But that's a tougher and tougher argument to make as a tight city budget leads to hiring freezes and questions about raises.

At some point, there has to be a payoff to this gamble.

So where is it? That's what council members need to ask themselves before they vote.