3. Greater duty to be prudent when spending Other People’s Money Limit recurring spending to only what is taken in. Reduce spending where appropriate. Use savings for one-time critical needs or for investments with assured returns in the future Seek the People’s permission Fiscal Conservatism
4. High city property tax rate Increased already too high utility fees Spent savings on employee retirement plan Spent savings on office furniture, carpeting, out-of-town retreats, high-end personal computers, more… Reduced city investment in neighborhood streets, roads, alleys, sidewalks, screening walls Lowered level of municipal services, claims more is needed Failed to reduce spending to sustainable levels Recently, another heavy-handed allegiance to rules, regulations Now…where else do you want to cut…or, how much of a tax increase do you support! All of this was approved by the City Council. Voting record since May 2010: 6 in favor, Mayor against State of the City - Backsliding
5. The traditional definition of sustainability calls for policies and strategies that meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Spending decisions and the time-path of expenditures need to be affordable from a multi-year perspective. Projected recurring expenditures must not exceed projected recurring revenues Sustainability
8. The Rowlett City Employee Retirement Plan is a “Cadillac” plan – Lewis Ward, Consultant hired by the City to defend the status quo, November 30, 2010 “Mayor, you are correct. A new employee earning $35,000 annually could retire with an annual income of $115,400 after 30 years of service at age 57 based on the actuarial method used by TMRS.” – Brian Funderburk, Rowlett CFO, February 26, 2011 City Employee Retirement Plan
9. Employee pays 7% of salary into TMRS City matches employee 2:1 (14%) Employee can retire at any age after 20 years Automatic cost of living increases presumed Unfunded liability - $51,000 per member TMRS assumes unlikely return on investments TMRS combining reserves; reducing catch-up payments TMRS will not allow two-tier plan to be adopted Legislators considering charges for administration New accounting rules coming to cause greater transparency and accountability to TMRS Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS)
10. Reduction in force (RIF) $288,000 Cut recurring spending $379,680 Reduce employee retirement: Reduce COLA by 20% $ 92,945 Eliminate death benefits $ 36,791 Reduce municipal services $ XX Increase city property tax $ XX Total needed: $2,050,000 Unsustained amount: $1,540,296 City Manager Response to Call for Reductions in Recurring Spending
11. The City must reduce expenses to sustainable levels now and into the future Changes made now will be less expensive and less impacting than those made under stress The Special Meeting called to discuss such needs in detail was cancelled without notice There was no public discussion of the spending cuts proposed by the City Manager There are alternatives to laying off employees How can there be no debate? “Mayor Harper unhappy with reductions” – Lakeshore Times
13. Addison, Mesquite, Irving, Garland, Richardson, Highland Park, University Park, Flower Mound, Duncanville, Colony, Carrollton, Greenville, and Hurst Likely others in 2010-2011, but City Council blocked me from gaining that information 13 Nearby Cities which have adjusted their Employee Retirement Plan
14. Grow the commercial tax base No increase in taxes or fees for operations Maintain current levels of municipal services Reduce recurring expenses to sustainable levels Adopt selected “ad hoc” changes to retirement Spend for operations only what is taken in Continue investments in neighborhood parks, streets, alleys, and sidewalks Adopt long range financial planning (7-10 years) 14 Strategic Financial Management
15. Councilmembers who have “uncompromising integrity” Core values provide courage to make hard decisions Campaign promises that are kept Open debate – end the manipulation of data Stand with the taxpayer Voters – oversee elected officials promises What is needed?
16. Place 1 – Randy Mays, Cindy Rushing, Doug Phillips Place 3 – Patrick Jackson, Ron Miller, Carl Pankratz Place 5 – Chad McEntee, Chris Kilgore With new members there is a better chance for full and open debate, resulting in the economic development Rowlett needs to grow wisely May Election
17. Do you agree that commercial growth is the key to Rowlett’s economic prosperity? Will you commit to spending no more on daily operations than what is received each year? Will you commit to using reserves only for emergencies and then investments to stimulate the commercial growth in Rowlett? Will you commit to full, open, and honest debate about the difficult decisions necessary to secure the future of Rowlett? Will you commit to not increase taxes or fees for daily operations for the next three years? Questions for Candidates
