Last Tuesday night at Common Council was the final discussion of council on the items of the 2007-2008 City Budget. It is rare at this last moment that budget numbers are altered. Still, sometimes dialogue on items is the beginning of the discussion for the coming year.
Fred Juergens, Park Board Chair, presented the "Pool" budget item, and noted that costs for the pool have been rising, and that there have been minimal pool fee increases for several years. The remodeling of the pool has been costly and the traditional ratio of pool costs to public fees has been 50%. In other words, the public only pays about half of the cost of the pool operation by direct fees.
Bill Hammann refected that for a family that is doing everything that the pool offers, lessons, swim team, and has the full family of five doing it, it can be over $450 per year. That is getting pretty pricey. Is that what the city wants?
In the final vote, Mayor Decker cast the tie breaker to pass the 7% raise in fees. Over the next year, when there is time to discuss this further, maybe there can be a "The Works" fee or a top limit that any family pays for the total swim family. There was just little time to address it at this final budget meeting. In some fashion though, this dialogue is present each year as the city must decide how much to subsidize the pool so that it is a community resource where all citizens can meet and have fun regardless of income.
Stay tuned.
Would you like to listen in to the full discussion? Click on the audioblogger icon.
powered by Audioblog.com
MP3 File
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"... if they can't afford the family pass they can always go in on a day pass" - Fred Jeurgens
ReplyDeleteLet them eat cake!
Voted yes:
The attorney
The retired Professor
The retired lawyers wife
The Banker
Mr. Sorenson
I find it funny that there is talk about funding a bus that i don't care if it is half full to madison (which it won't be) but cannot add to a pool fund and raise fees 7%. If you look in Oregon, Stoughton, McFarland fees for non-residents for swimming lessons are less than here.
ReplyDeleteWe talk about helping kids stay out of trouble with a FREE skate park, but at the same time we hammer families that want to use the pool. See a difference, there are plenty of families at the pool, not one bit of adult supervision at the skate park.
Raising taxes (you call them fees)again on families nice. Logic like that makes me think I can divide by zero.
Wow , I agree with Slammer, with the exception of the skate park was not free. They did contribute.
ReplyDeleteThe fees are at the pool have always been high, its cheaper to swim and take lessons out of town.
Maybe the park board should be thinking that with pool and family passes so high, even the daily rate is high. Maybe that is why you see more and more people with pools of their own. For 200.00 you can get a nice sized pool , that if taken care of you can use next year. I think people will be more likely to buy their own pool, and enjoy it than pay outrageous fees and put up with a crowded pool. I see a definite decline in pool usage in years to come, we do have other options.
dianne,
ReplyDeleteyes the skate club threw in 20% but for any person including myself (who by the way donated 0) could go on the ramps when they are re-opened at absolutly no cost. If I wanted to go swim some laps after my boarding expierence I then would have to pay.
Someone I talked to had a good point, for most people who want to entertain their family they can travel to Janesville, Madison, etc. but for a family that may be limited in transportation and money in general this was not a good idea. I guess for a lot of people to get to the park they need to drive on the incoming bricks so I guess we can call the pool fee increase a toll.
It’s regrettable that Mason and Mayor Decker as well as the others didn’t provide more of an explanation for their vote on this. Perhaps Mason felt he explained himself at Finance, he mentions there was discussion in that committee on this topic, but Council is another venue and the public should not be forced to attend every committee and sub-committee for background information on matters before Council.
ReplyDeleteI single out Mason and Mayor Decker because I campaigned with them and I know first hand the pressures they were under over taxes in Evansville. Mason, ironically, played no small role in applying the pressure.
Municipal user fees are another form of taxation. For a service as widely used as the pool, this additional tax falls disproportionately upon those less able to pay. While Fred tried to take the sting out by offering the reduced lunch criteria, $450 is a lot of money even for those who can afford the hot lunch. For those who scale back their use, $200 can be over the line of what’s affordable as well. Fred’s suggestion that those unable to afford a season pass could buy daily tickets is not a real solution. It takes only something like 12-15 days of use to equate to the expense of a season pass. For kids without a skateboard, 12 days of nothing to do but swim is not a long time.
User fees have a place, and it would be useful to have a better understanding of why increasing the fees for the pool, when the operating budget was reduced, seemed like a good idea. The taxpayers have paid to provide solar panels to reduce pool costs and paid to update the pool with zero entry and fountains so it would be more attractive and enjoyable for more of our residents; now it’s likely the fee increase will mean that fewer residents will be able to enjoy what they have already paid for.
I guess I will have to defend my vote, although I am quite sure that my vote on this particular issue was right on point with my campaign platform.
ReplyDeleteThere really are 2 issues here and I will address them both;
(1) Taxes vs. User fees-
If all apple lovers in the city are able to get an apple via a combination of their own money and a subsidy from the city all is well in the world. Later on the cost of that apple increases (like everything else in this world) and then a decision must be made in regards to how we finance the increased cost for the apple. There are simply 2 choices; (a) have the apple eaters pay more for their apple, or (b) have city funds derived from property tax revenue from all citizens regardless of whether they eat apples or not foot the bill. For me that choice is simple.
(2) Timeliness of vote
Here in Evansville we faced that same decision with our pool services. Bottom line is that members of the council that voted in opposition to the increase, voted just before to approve the budget which INCLUDED that very increase . I am not at all saying that the members were not aware of that, I am only saying that the discussion of raising pool fees should have happened sometime prior to the passing of the budget. We could have done that just before we unanimously approved the budget, or perhaps a better time would have been a few months ago so it could be addressed more thoroughly than it was at the council meeting.
Karen gives great reasons for not raising the fee. Although, once again, those reasons are from the perspective of a user. I discussed this with a member of the community that does not use the pool. He disagreed with Karen's reasons.
I think her point is valid, albeit a tad misleading. User fees are not taxes. Slammer, a well known conservative in the blogging community, goes down this road as well. Again I understand both of your viewpoints; however the pool must be financed. If we were talking about the skate park Slammer would be strongly against any city financing over user fees because he and/or his do not use it. I am guessing that Slammer uses the pool.
Of course what I should give you are my reasons for voting in the affirmative of the increase; I shall.
(1) It was included in the budget that was unanimously approved by the council prior to this vote.
(2) The pool is a luxury that is not used by all members of our community. Therefore I felt it important to also protect the interests of those who do not use the pool. Given that the rates have not been raised in 3 years a 7% rate increase seemed reasonable under all the circumstances and viewpoints presented at the council meeting and the finance meeting.
(3) The only reasons expressed by members of the council not voting in favor of the increase seemed to me to include self interests. I may be wrong, but the phrase “this will cost my family...” came up more than a few times. I vote for what I perceive to be in the best interests of my constituents, not myself.
(4) A user fee is often referred to as a tax to people that get hit with the fee. That is regrettable. Why? Because if the vote went the other way, and then the budget was amended, those costs would still be out there and they would instead be paid by everyone via taxes (actual taxes), affecting many people that have never stepped foot near the pool and never will. That is a tax.
I hope those reasons satisfy all of the people that were not aware of my intentions. I understand, all too well, that regardless of my reasons people will be upset and not understand my vote. To that I can only say that I invite you to contact me prior to the vote of an issue you are interested in, or perhaps make your feelings known to all of the members of the council at a meeting.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. If you have any further questions or concerns please contact me at the following number <531-1722>.
Mason Braunschweig
Alderperson District 1
Mason,
ReplyDeleteThank you for clarifying your vote. Apparently I missed the notice of this pool fee increase in the agenda. I think it must have been wrapped up in a general park budget topic or I simply missed it. Perhaps your acknowledgement that the discussion was in clumsy timing is the reason I didn't see it.
Clearly I prefer to attend meetings but in the absence of that, I will remind you that you helped pioneer this blog venue in Evansville for people to seek out information they lack. Your tone seems to me a little annoyed it was used in this way.
I am grateful you responded to my request for additional information.
It appears in this case we will disagree on some of the details and semantics. In my opinion the pool is used by a sufficiently large number of people to warrant the view that a user fee is a tax. Checking Merriam-Webster dictionary finds "tax" as
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
You and your source disagree. It's not surprising that someone who does not use the pool would not want to fund it and someone who does would seek such funding. If these things were clear-cut we would not need a Council to vote.
The city in fact funds or subsidizes a number of services and luxuries that only few take advantage of. The senior center comes to mind as one that most people agree is a worthwhile investment. The new bathroom facilities at Countryside Park is another. These things would likely not exist if they were funded by fees, though like the pool, perhaps a fee could be assessed on them the next time they require additional money when their costs increase.
Fee based taxation is nothing new and you are not necessarily wrong to apply it to the pool. In fact pool users are already paying a user fee. This debate is whether to increase the fee in the face of decreased costs. I was simply wanting to understand your thinking and you have generously explained yourself. You represented those who do not use the pool and Mr. Hammann for those who do. To suggest Mr. Hammann voted only in his self-interest because he admits to using the pool, I find a bit unfair. I am certain both of you have users and non-users in your districts. You each vote the best you can and you each deserve our respect for explaining your reasoning.
I maintain my position as well, that for something like the pool, there is a minimum cost to run it. If fewer people use the pool as a result of the increase in fees, then the amount the city kicks-in increases per user, and it in fact does become a subsidized *luxury* for those with enough money to afford the fee. - Which I would have pegged as "liberal" thinking. So either I'm wrong or Slammer is slipping.
I stay at home with my kids, and its always interesting trying to find enough things to fill the summer hours. I will say this ,
ReplyDeleteWe do not go to the Evansville Pool and refuse to support them for several reasons.
1. Daily and Seasonal passes are way over priced. We drive to out of town at least twice a week to swim else where. Its not just the price, its the quality and size of pool, and things there are for the kids to do.
Swimming lessons their, as we found are overpriced, and well worth the gas money to go else where.
2. NOT impressed at all with mgmt of the pool and its staff. Had to
go in after my own child 3 summers ago, it was a good thing I was paying attention because staff was not. They are very inconsistant with the rules.
3. We purchased a very nice pool near the end of summer that will accomadate our entire family, will pay for it self in no time . They can raise the fees all they like, it does not mean the people will come. The park is beautiful, wonderful place to take the family, the pool is not.
I am so glad to see Karen staying involved. I have always found her to be very open minded and I hope she runs again for public office.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I notice most is when people are 'candidates' they come across as much more open minded, Mason struck me as being open minded during elections, well now that he's in it seems like his attitude has changed some. Thats to bad. We need people who are going to represent what they 'sell' during elections. Once again Karen I hope to see you run for public office again here in Evansville, you are very much asset, thank you for the time Karen.
Karen:
ReplyDeleteThe numbers that were presented when figuring the costs and revenue of the pool assumed a number of passes sold. That number is an estimate made by the aquatic director and based on past usage and other factors. Therefore it can be reasonably expected that the revenue generated from the pool could be either higher or lower than anticipated. I certainly gave much weight to the aquatic director's assumptions given that he has the most knowledge in this area and certainly his position as aquatic director would be in jeopardy if nobody used the pool because the fees were raised too high.
As to my assertion that nothing else was brought up besides prices increasing for families to include some of the council members’ families, I merely meant that there was no other reason brought up. Certainly people will be upset when fees increase, however prices, fees and costs increase on a daily basis. These fees have not increased in 3 years. Costs have. Something has got to give.
I will conclude my thoughts by quoting Lawrence Reed who was president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Michigan.
"When someone chooses to use a government service and pays for it, he’s paying a user fee. Furthermore, what he pays should cover the cost of the service he is receiving; if it goes for something he isn’t getting or doesn’t want, then he’s paying a little of both—a user fee plus a tax. Taxes differ from user fees in that paying them isn’t a matter of choice and what you pay is not tied directly to what you’re using.
In principle, true user fees make a lot of sense, especially if you want people to understand that nothing from government is truly “free.” Indeed, the more government finances itself through user fees instead of taxes, the less it looks like government and the more it gets out of the redistribution business and begins to resemble private firms operating in free markets.
Instinctively, most people sense a certain fairness about true user fees. You pay for what you get, and you get what you pay for. Most people understand and support user fees for such things as toll roads, harbors and waterways, and even parks and recreational facilities. If they understand that private enterprise would probably do a better job with these things, they know that at least a user fee approach for government services gives them an opportunity to make a rational economic choice: buy it if it’s worth the price, patronize an alternative, or do without."
I prefer this definition when discussing a tax versus user fees.
Anonymous #3:
ReplyDeleteI am sorry to hear that you perceive me to be less open minded now than you did prior to the election. However I cannot help but chuckle a bit when I realize a few things; (1) I am the only public official posting in here, and subsequently reading and analyzing all view points, (2) Many of these points were not made prior to the vote, not that they would have necessarily changed my vote, but it simply was not brought up, (3) My platform was based on 3 points; representation, accountbaility & knowledge. I am not certain how my vote swayed me from those points.
Now I am not going to sit here and say that I vote right every time. That would be a foolish claim. But I would like to take this oppurtunity to remind you of the now infamous 'Phil Maas' vote, or the east side bowling alley vote. I voted for our city and our city was satisfied. However the fact remains, no one will always be satisfied with their representation in any form of government all of the time.
I can only hope that you did not mean that because I voted this way on this particular item that you perceive me to be less open minded than before, because that might be a little close minded in and of itself.
You know Mason, You're right.
ReplyDeleteYour definition works when the service is completely fee funded. The concern is when the service is funded by a combination of fees and traditional taxation.
Traditional taxation falls arguably equally over the population. Some of that collected money goes toward said service. When the service fee is too high, some in the population, though they continue to pay traditional tax money for the service, lose the rational economic choice to use the service. Essentially taking from the poor to give to the rich.
Though we generally reject such practice in our society, ironically sometimes we accept it for a greater good. Perhaps the service attracts tourist dollars that we all benefit from. Maybe some other mitigating factor. I think The Packers fall into the first category.
This is why I am so interested in why you , Mayor Decker and the others voted to increase the fees.
It is good of you to be so available and willing to participate in this discussion. You deserve a lot of credit.
Mason,
ReplyDeleteI would question you about the increase of the pool costs to the city. Now did we not just put in some solar heating units that is to drastically cut down on the costs of heating the pool? Now I understand that people that work for the pool do deserve pay increases I would doubt that their rate of pay went up over 7%. People on Social Security received a cost of living increase of 3.3% this past year far more than the 7% increase given to us here.
You make the suggestion that I am bent over the increase because i am one that uses the pool. You are correct my family does use the pool, but I will also say that I will also be driving on bricks, looking at a lake, and using the bathroom at a park near my home and would say that is wasteful spending.
While I know that you were not a part of it, things like the skatepark for essentially free admission, and raising the pool fees for families does not sit well. (Before all you go on with the skatepark donated 5K, how many kids skating this summer donated a penny to the club?)
Karen:
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day the number 1 reason for voting to approve the fee increase was because it was already de facto approved unanimously when the council passed the budget.
Maybe the real question to ask is 'why didn't this discussion come up before we passed the budget?'
I suspect the other members that voted in favor of the increase voted along those lines.
Sometimes Karen, as you know only too well, the right decision is much more difficult to make then the easy, popular decision.
In reality if we had not passed the increase than the budget that we just passed (once again unanimously) would have needed to be amended before the ink was even dry.
Once again I would just like to invite anyone in the community to contact me at 531-1722 in regards to
any city issues you have on your mind. Only please do so before I vote on it. Thank you.
Mason Braunschweig
Mason,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for putting yourself out here and explaining some of what went into this vote.
Clearly I take issue with a number of aspects of this vote, however I do realize that 7% is the same as 7 cents, and the degree to which my position matters depends on the actual dollar increase involved.
I am a geek for economic theory and I can't stop myself. But in the doing, I don't want to make much ado about nothing. OK, I don't think it's "nothing", but the increase isn't the only troubling thing about this vote for me. And you played no part in the underlying communication that I can tell.
So, again thank you for stepping up and meeting me here.
Karen Aikman