The Lafayette News reports that the city's budget has been impacted by a nearly $300,000 decrease in expected revenue during 2007 from a particular source: court fines. Depending on the version you read, or heard or saw, there may be some expectation that the city police department needs to and can "step it up a bit"(my words) to help make up lost ground.
If I take the explanation for the decrease at face value, the alternative would presume the police should have been and/or always were involved in mighty prolific traffic ticket writing. On the surface, it just doesn't seem to square with how I imagine the cops spending their days. At $50 a ticket, (and I don't even know if that's a proper assumption), that would mean year-to-date the city is short writing about 6000 tickets - more than 600/month less than predicted? nearly 20 a day, every single day?
I bring it up because I feel the newspaper article stops short of truly analyzing the quotes included in the article. If it is true, I'm guessing the Hwy 287 corridor should be recognized as its own money-generating entity, regardless of the commercial development on the sides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
I think your $50 number is quite low. I haven't had a ticket in years, but I don't think it's ever been less than $90, plus other emergency fees, etc.
I wasn't aware our police force was a for profit organization. I thought they were a community service. I thought fines were just a deterrent, not a way of keeping the City running. $300K?!? Shows how much I know.
According to the Chief, the PD is not about revenue, it's about public safety.
If that's true, then the reason stated for the revenue drop - fewer officers on the road - should've caused a drop in public safety. So, we should see a corresponding increase in the accident rate in Lafayette.
If there is no such increase, it would seem that more officers on the road really doesn't impact public safety.
Now, THAT would start an interesting discussion.
P.S. If you think 287 is going to be a revenue boon, you're mistaken. The lights are not timed, so you don't get to spend much time at the speed limit, much less above it, without really, really trying. Traveling north yesterday thru town, I was stopped by red lights at Hwy 42, So. Boulder, Baseline, Diamond Cir., AND Arapahoe. Only one that was green was S. Public. I thought it was a plan by the city to show off their retail properties. I know it's CDOT's jurisdiction, but seems the city might be interested in working with CDOT to smooth traffic flow.
Don't speed in Lafayette.
Doktor brings up a very interesting angle - if there hasn't been a corresponding rise in accidents when the police staffing was reduced, is their presence at "full staff" merely a ticket-writing exercise? Aren't there business licenses that need to be verfied instead? oops..
The decision on whether to grant an extra officer for traffic is coming up. Your chance to weigh in before the decision is made. Should council grant this, and what are your reasons either way?
Frank, as per my earlier comments, accident rates should be examined as part of this decision. The Chief claims revenue has dropped because of fewer officers, but also that the PD is about public safety, not revenue. So, if an add'l officer is granted with no discussion about accident rates (public safety), it will be obvious the decision is strictly revenue based, and has nothing to do with public safety.
The LPD 'trolling for dollars was a reputation "known" around the county 15 years ago. Is that a reputation we wish to resurrect?
Let's throw in another angle to the discussion.
The chief says 2000 road rage incidents have been reported and 600 vehicular accidents occured during each of the past two years. The average speeding ticket written has dropped from in the 90s to 75 on 287.
This was YTD data before the new W*M opened.
There is no measure of increased traffic in town though it is known that Hwy 42 from 95th to 287 is under patrolled. The W*M traffic study projects a major increase in 287 traffic though the new lights may slow things down from So. Boulder Rd to Arapahoe.
So add all of this to the equation.
I have heard no evidence of public safety need.
If the purpose is simply to write violations to bring in revenue, I would prefer a community service officer writing violations for weeds, bad fencing, barking dogs etc. At least the city would get cleaned up at the same time. Perhaps this same position could verify that businesses are properly licensed.
So you don't think more enforcement of traffic laws would reduce road rage and traffic accidents?
As far as the 2,000 road rage reports, I’m not sure what that means. Reported by citizens? If that’s so, those reports have no business in this discussion. Citizens have little or no training in how to identify unsafe driving. Many, if not most, of those reports have no basis in fact, if reported by citizens.
Based on the facts presented here (unconfirmed), the accident rate was flat year over year. Yet, the Chief says he was short officers earlier this year. If the accident rate stayed flat with fewer officers, how does it follow the rate would drop with more officers?
How does this budget question relate to the proposed-but-on-hold 'public safety tax'?
It occurs to me that, without a dedicated source of funds, this is a question of marginal utility. In other words, what is the total scope of public safety needs in town, what are the priorities, and what can be funded from available sources in the present budget situation.
Also, has the LPD ever looked into automated traffic enforcement? Just an observation: it's amazing how effective those blinking warnings are on South Boulder Road, Emma Street, etc. The current machines don't write tickets, but they do increase safety.
I like the automated traffic light idea, Alex. The one on Via Appia in Louisville works great, also. I don't have any support numbers, but traffic moves much slower through that area now. Most cars could drift through the section near South Boulder Road at higher than the speed limit, and there have been some pretty bad accidents in the past.
Kerry- I'm not sure what those numbers mean. Is 2000 reports high? Is this up or down from previous years? 287 is a different beast from most of Lafayette's roads. We could use a patrol periodically in my neighborhood to get people to respect stop signs.
So add this to the discussion while someone works on the "marginal utility" of public safety in the city and why a public safety tax isn't on the table.
The city lost two police officers to Thornton. So the PD is understaffed. According to the PD chief, it takes a year to replace one. So he argues that by having another traffic office, essentially an over hire, it will allow the PD to be at full staff when the losses occur.
Most of the speeding tickets are handed out to non-residents on 287. Cyclo, you don't get traffic enforcement in the neighborhoods or collateral streets because the current traffic officer can only work a 10 hour shift and he's out of 287 or Baseline or Hwy 7 or Hwy 42.
So when Frank tosses out the question, as you can see, there are some facts, there is some opinion, and there are more questions. A rubic's cube with missing pieces.
So now you know what I know. I don't expect the council to get any more info.
And if you are frustrated with not getting the answers you want, welcome to city government.
Sorry, made the mistake of using "big words" again, Kerry. Just a surprise that you, of all people, would not understand what the "marginal" means in that comment. Look it up, please.
Were there two or three officers working traffic in the City prior to the loss to Thornton? Does adding a position make it any easier to hire someone? Couldn't someone be reassigned to traffic if that is the pressing safety issue?
It still seems to me that the primary question will end up being how to maximize public safety with existing resources.
And, by the way, I believe this is an opportunity to lay some groundwork for the public safety tax, which I would tend to support - or don't you like public safety?
Gee, you mean you weren't pulling my leg using "marginal utility".
You can tune in to the budget workshop to hear the chief and city admin talk about this topic. Candidates can talk to the city admin about how to get answers to their questions.
As for the public safety tax, address that question to my fellow council members. You should know already the reason why it is not being talked about.
DB, I sent an email to the chief asking for more detailed traffic statistics grouping types of tickets, geographical locations, and historical trending on these. Also if he can get them, statistics from the state cops who also patrol 287, and their intentions on future staffing for the Lafayette section of the 287 corridor.
Maybe the context was strained to invoke "marginal utility," but I believe the concept of margin is exactly what the Karl Rove-esque tactics of accusing others of hating public safety fails to acknowledge. You can always increase safety by throwing more resources at it, but the return on that investment is not going to be linear. A city can probably increase revenues linearly with each additional traffic officer for far longer than it will see such marked increases in any measureable safety factor. I'm open to arguments about deterrence...
I know that Lowe's is your bogeyman to explain why public safety tax isn't being talked about. But I believe the availability of Legacy and other special funds to absorb traditionally GF-funded costs is also a big reason why no one is mustering the courage to discuss the public safety tax. The FEMA grant for the newer paid fire and rescue positions is running out when?
Am I to presume the request for an add'l officer is being made because the cost would push the PD over their budget? I'm not sure how that can be as they were short 2 officers in the first half of 2007.
In other words, wasn't this position already approved, if it was filled until earlier this year?
D-B,
We haven't seen the departmental budget for next year. Savings in a current year's departmental budget are not carried forward to the following year, They are all reset.
Also keep in mind the ticket revenue shortfall this year. My guess is that it cancels out any expense savings from two officers leaving this year. And those openings get covered by overtime of the current staffing anyway.
The city should due an operating budget for any department that has revenue responsibility. It would remind the department heads of that.
I really encourage any pro-Lowe's candidate to run as their platform to increase property taxes to fund public safety, especiall the PD. Please do. And don't talk to the city administrator to hear his advice on the matter and his advice to the city council.
As for any connection to using Legacy money for park maintenance, talk to the Finance Director. How we got from traffic tickets to that is beyond me. That has nothing to do with public safety funding.
The FEMA grant runs through 2009.
Since the topic has drifted to the budget, I find that your comments are extremely relevant, Kerry. So I'm going to offer my public apology, and I am sincere when I say that you are capable of honing in on the salient points when you put your mind to it, and you have often done so. To keep me honest, I should also say that I've developed an instinct that your comments usually contain deliberate misdirection, distraction, and exaggeration, and I while wouldn't say that is totally incorrect, I have been wrong about that just as many and more times. I was certainly wrong in making that assumption on this thread.
I do have government budget experience, but I am not as familiar with the budget in Lafayette as a sitting council member. That fact should not be surprising. So my questions are also sincere.
In the end, it is always possible to take the question or the topic in isolation, and it is possible that the resolution of the request for an additional officer is that simple.
However, I will stand by my perception that the budget situation in Lafayette is not that simple. Special funds were the first place we looked at the state when the budget got tight, and there was no telling what the legislature would do with the money once it became available. Spend it, for sure.
Freeing up GF is a multistep process, but you can only re-slice the same inadequate pie so many times, for so many years, before you recognize that temporary fixes have drastically changed the capabilities of the funds that were raided, departments that were squeezed, and so forth. At the state, we had a structural deficit - revenues could not keep up with spending, even if accounting tricks could manage to sustain a nominally balanced budget. Some of that "structure" was due to Constitutional amendments and statutes to mandate certain spending, which is not the case in Lafayette, but one sure symptom of a structural deficit is realigning funding sources because traditional sources cannot keep up.
Yes, I'm looking to be educated on the budget in Lafayette, and I will be asking questions of the administration, but I certainly think we need to level with the public if we have a structural deficit. Because, if we do, ultimately we need to cut spending, or at a very minimum not grow it anymore, or else grow revenue. And not just grow revenue, but grow revenue in a way that revenue projections are adequate for budget purposes. Try to tie "pro-Lowe's" and "anti-Lowe's" to this all you like, but that's really not an honest way of looking at a much larger problem.
Or am I wrong?
I do agree with the "how we got from traffic tickets to this is beyond me." But, OK.
I, also, don't have much experience with governmental accounting. A short stint on the board of a water and sanitation district is about it.
Private companies have been accused of creative accounting for years. Not sure that it's comforting to know the government sector is as creative.
These discussions are quite interesting to me as I just recently left a position as Director of Financial Planning/Analysis for a NASDAQ listed company. Fools wanted to me to relocate to Seattle. Yeah, right.
I don't understand how previously approved positions, that were filled, and then vacated, are considered savings in the PD budget for the year. I can understand when you don't spend as much as projected on office supplies, but when you're talking headcount, I don't get it. Aren't approved positions budgeted as an ongoing expense, whether filled or not? Certainly every position isn't up for discussion each budget turn.
I'm not in agreement with making government departments responsible for revenue generation. This implies the department can impact revenue generation directly. I don't think that applies to most city departments. You can't entice people to spend more on water, buy more groceries, or pull more permits.
And, I hope no one seriously considers making the PD responsible for revenue generation via tickets. The public safety argument goes straight out the window if all the city wants is revenue.
D-B,
As a Finance Director, you certainly understand that when positions are unfilled, though budgeted, less money is spent. What I meant to point out is the amount underspent in the current period is not carried over into a new fiscal year to be spent by that department the following fiscal year. The city essentially does a zero based budget each year. But in reality it looks more like a cost plus variant.
The challenge with PD staffing is it takes a year to fill and train a new officer. So even if you hire one, he/she is at the academy for six months. Means being understaffed and paying overtime.
As for the revenue generation aspect, if a department justifies an expenditure based on a revenue projection it commits to, that department head is on the line for it. That particular pertains to the enterprise funds, the rec center, the ambulance service, and the PD. Otherwise if they are spending their budgeted money and the revenue is falling short, where does the shortfall come from.
The city can't print money.
Oh, creative accounting is alive and well in municipal government. And try finding out what is being done, especially if you are an elected official. What is more worrisome is finding out how public policy is being made in the finance department. And how little accountability there is for the decisions that were made.
Presumably, the PD request for additional staff is a budget request, and the revenue to fill that request would originate with the General Fund. That's the link to Frank's question.
If there is a special source of funding for this position elsewhere, it would remove the general budget from the picture. But I doubt the funding question would even be worth asking in the first place if there were such a source.
It's common practice in government budgeting to account for turnover vacancies as savings, so that's not out of whack. Nor is it illegal to commingle funds, borrow from funds, and so forth, unless specifically proscribed. So a lot of the accounting tricks are not really tricks at all, but just bad policy that doesn't look so bad when you're in a serious crunch.
The PD ticket issue came up in the first place because of budget. We've had a nice little tour through the question of enforcement for the sake of revenue, which I have to believe the Chief when he says that is not their policy (and I also agree it's bad policy to rely on people breaking the law to keep a government afloat - put PD revenues in a special fund, not integral to the annual operating budget of the City). This wouldn't have come up if it weren't for the budget.
How is Lafayette's financial health? The signs are there that we'll ultimately be making, if we're not already, the classic decision to whether to keep things rosy in the short-term and mortgage the City's long-term financial health, or try to make the tough decisions first.
Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
I'll bite my tongue about the finance lesson Kerry gave me. I sometimes think he doesn't know how he comes across. Or, at least I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
In today's day and age, I'm not aware of any enterprise that allows unspent funds to be carried over to the next budget year. A savings, yes, to explain budget variances, but no money to carry over.
This conversation is similar to ones I've had numberous times with decision makers in private enterprise. Bottom line, don't spend more than you're taking in.
Beware of the city overestimating revenue just so they can get their pet expenses in the budget.
The budgets that have the best chance of being adhered to are the ones which slightly underestimate revenue, and slightly overestimate expenses.
Also, be prepared for the city to want to put the hard decisions off as long as possible.
Better for the city to curtail certain services if the revenue projections aren't there. Then the city can turn to the voters with their pockets turned inside out, and ask for a tax increase. This is a better alternative than bonding for routine street repair, etc.
Sorry, D-B. But other folks read this stuff so that is why I write it the way I do.
As to the state of the city's financial health, it is the city gov that is putting together the 2008 budget and presenting it. But there is not a group of third party analysts evaluating their every assumption and calculations.
How many CEOs stand up and say that due to the decisions they have made or sold to the Board of Directors, that things are a mess?
I have my own analysis of what the situation is. But there is at least one workshop to go and I have asked the questions. So we will see what the response is.
Government does depend on fines to run the court system and fund public safety. No reason to be surprised there.
Lafayette's financial structure was put together over the past 8 years by a finance director who has now moved on. I was not one of his favorite people and never wanted to be. I can give anyone a list of his top 10 major mistakes or misrepresentations. And I would never have hired him as my finance director.
So let's start at an easy one. The city increases compensation to its employees the first week of the year without knowing what its actual results were for the preceding year. No private company would do that.
But it takes four of seven.
Doktorbombay,
I couldn't agree more. This bonding for street repairs really blisters my hide. And now it is suggested we have an additional tax for public safety?
Lafayette has built a dog park, entered the trash collection business, subsides a rec center, throws parties at the lake and downtown, gives money away to a special...err... a group representing only a certain ethic group and buys open space. BUT by golly we can't afford to fix the streets or pay our cops. Maybe the pie isn't big enough but geez, what are the priorities?
You want a bigger pie, come with a recipe not one ingredient at a time. Until there is a plan to address a complete list of priorities, I will vote against all bond and tax ballot measures.
By the way, a clear plan a list of priorities would help voter apathy, not alleviate, but help.
Oh, and don't even get me started on this affordable housing fiasco. Lets create projects. Great idea; Sure these folks won't generate sales tax revenue but think of the fine revenue they'll generate for the PD. If only we had more cops.
Perhaps Dan might start a new topic about the city's financial situation and past decisions that involved big bucks and have led us to where we are today.
The candidates for the CC were advised they can make a request for info from city hall and enough make the same request, the city will convene a workshop. Also the candidates can get the same 2008 proposed budget info as the council is getting. Not much of an explanation with it. And attend the workshops on the topic.
For those of you who have yet to see this, take a look. The KFC manager tells me his lunch business has dropped in half too.
http://www.theyellowscene.com/Editorials.asp?feature=Business
The YS editor did not include much of what I told him. But he told me that when he asked the tough questions at the city, Ms. Star said he must have been talking to me.
I voted against the low income rental apartments called Eagles Place and the $120,000 subsidy granted to the developer by the city.
Some of you may be interested in this. Sorry for the length:
Anyone who is a registered voter in Lafayette is eligible to submit comments on a ballot issue for the TABOR Notice. Elected officials and qualified city staff interested in submitting a comment should take great care to do so on their own time, and avoid any appearance or implication that public resources are being expended to urge a vote one way or the other on the issue. Below is an invitation to submit statements that will appear on the City's website. Please feel free to notify those who might be interested in writing a statement. Thanks!
TABOR NOTICE PRO-CON STATEMENTS
The November 6, 2007 ballot will include two questions governed by the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR):
Ballot Issue 2A - Street, Traffic and Parking Improvements
Ballot Issue 2B - Recreation Center Improvements
According to TABOR, the City is required to submit statements to Boulder County from registered electors in support or against these propositions.
If you would like to write a pro-con statement for the notice, please submit it to the City Clerk, susank@cityoflafayette.com, by 5:00 p.m. on Friday September 21. The full text of the ballot measures are available at www.cityoflafayette.com.
If Dan wants, we can debate the two bond issues. My institutional memory is pretty good on the road paving one.
Post a Comment