Levy Poll

As reported last night, the police and fire levies failed by quite a fair margin. Unofficial results:

Fire: For-6,989; Against 10,067

Police: For-6,825; Against 10,227

Why do you think they both failed? Take the poll to the right and let us know your thoughts.

Both Levies Fail

By a wide margin, both the fire and police public safety levies failed.

GF Police Get Grant

In breaking news today, the Great Falls Police Department will receive a federal grant in the amount of $837,148. They will be able to hire four new officers.

According to the article, during the first three years of the grant, the officers salaries and benefits will be covered 100%. In the fourth year, the city will have to retain the positions.

How do you think this will affect the levy, of which more than a quarter of the ballots have already been returned?

Neighborhood Councils - Week of June 22, 2009

Only one council is meeting this week, mine, NC#4.

It is my understanding this could be the last time folks can hear about the public safety levy as many of the councils elect not to meet during the summer.

To accommodate those interested in hearing only about the levy, I have placed both presentations at the beginning of the agenda.

When: Thursday, June 25 at 6:30pm

Where: Heritage Baptist Church, 900 52nd Street North

Agenda:

Fire public safety levy

Police public safety levy

Committee reports

Update on area problems

Neighborhood concerns

Fire Dept. Levy Presentation

Here you can find the levy presentation representatives of the fire department are showing at Neighborhood Council meetings.

2009 Public Safety Levy Info.

The City of Great Falls has prepared a levy information page that allows taxpayers to get information pertaining to the upcoming fire levy.

The fire department has done a very good job of explaining their need for additional funds and what it will cost the taxpayer on a graduated basis. They have incorporated a "levy cost calculator" with very good instructions on how to use it.

There is not separate information about the police levy or a levy cost calculator for their request, but you can find details here.

Fire Numbers Not Quite Right

At last night's City Commission meeting, Fire Chief McCamley indicated that the fees to be collected from the fire service contract with SME were not included in his calculations concerning the levy.

This is not true. In his January 28 special City Commission presentation, the Chief indicated that $283,000/annually would be used to help offset the City's match for the SAFR grant.

Since the Commission voted last night to revise the fees to $36,000/annually, fire department revenues have now dropped by $247,000/annually.

Beecher explained last night that he thought this a fair revision. Never mind that he expressed concern at the January special meeting that an assumption was being made that SME would continue to pay their fire service contract.

It's for the best he is not running for reelection.

Public Safety Levy To Move Forward

At last night's City Commission work session, the Commission agreed to hold the public safety levy on August 4. By a 3-2 vote, the proposed levies (fire/rescue and police) will be separated on the ballot.

Commissioners Beecher and Rosenbaum thought the levies should be combined.

"Rosenbaum expressed concern that voters might get the wrong idea with two separate levies and vote for only one of them. "I'd like both of them to pass, obviously," Rosenbaum said.

Yes, voters. One of our elected officials, who is supposed to represent us, didn't want us to have a choice, because we might make the "wrong" decision. (Beecher did not share why he was opposed to separating the levies).

Public Safety Levy Presentations

Here are the presentations the fire and police chiefs presented at the Council of Councils meeting Tuesday night.

A couple of things to remember:

1. Slides 4 and 5 of the fire department's presentation are estimates only since the budget is not yet completed.

2. When reviewing the estimated additional property tax costs for a $100,000-$200,000 home, remember these figures are based upon your home's TAXABLE market value. This is NOT what your home can sell for on the open market. (Hopefully, your home could sell for a lot more). To find out the taxable market value of your home, go here. If your taxable market value is under $100,000 or $200,000 then you would pay less than what is estimated. If it's more, well, you get the idea.

Chief McCamley is working on getting a calculator on the city's website to help folks get a more accurate representation of what they would pay.

No New Firefighters...

if the public safety levy does not pass.

This new information came out at last night's Council of Councils Meeting by Fire Chief McCamley. He said he has been instructed, he didn't say by whom, that if the public safety levy does not pass, the city will not hire 16 new firefighters.

Since the January 28 special City Commission meeting held to discuss accepting the SAFR grant, firefighters and members of the public have been led to believe that regardless of the levy outcome, new fire personnel would be hired.

This is welcomed news since there isn't any spare change lying around City Hall.

Time To Pay The Piper

In a somewhat interesting turn of events, it is not a given that an additional 16 firefighters will be hired.

As indicated here, the mayor and two other commissioners assured members of the fire department that regardless of whether the levy passes, any new firefighters would be able to be retained.

In an article in today's print edition of the Tribune (I could not find the article online), the city is still pondering whether they should go forward and hire 16 firefighters with the hope that the public safety levy will pass. If it doesn't, then the city has to come up with the $$s, which are not there, or give back the grant.

Fire chief Randy McCamley is not in favor of hiring new firefighters only to have to lay them off later. The City Commission has asked him to explore other possible income sources, such as: Charging homeowners to put out fires; increase the fees to inspect businesses; send a bill to people involved in car accidents at which the fire department responds.

You've got to be kidding.

Aside from the fact that many of us residents are already paying for fire services, providing fire protection is a core responsibility/duty of a city. Had the city not squandered millions on the HGS and ECP debacles, which had absolutely nothing to do with benefiting/helping the individual residents of this city, we wouldn't find ourselves in as dire straights as we are.

Chief McCamley said he would look into these options (what else could he say), but indicated these ideas would not generate enough income and would come with drawbacks.

Our so-called leaders don't have a clue, other than Commissioner Jolley, who was quoted as saying, "If we do hire the firefighters without a public safety mill levy, we'll have to chop the budget somewhere else. And that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do because every house in America is chopping their budget".

Public Safety Levy Poll 2

Thank you to those of you who voted in my second poll on the public safety levy.

7 of you think police and fire should be listed separately on the ballot;

3 of you think it should be combined;

1 is not sure and would like more info.;

23 of you do not plan to vote for the levy.

The city has not decided yet if they are going to list fire and police separately on the ballot. If my very unofficial poll is a harbinger of things to come, it won't make a difference.

Public Safety Levy - Poll 2

For all intent purposes, the city will be holding a public safety levy vote in August.

It's still up in the air though if the fire and police will be listed as separate items on the ballot.

I conducted an earlier poll whereby the majority of you did not think the levy will pass. The Tribune conducted a poll too, and their numbers were against it passing as well.

Do you think separating the departments on the ballot will make a difference?

Let us know by participating in my second poll on this issue. I'm trying Polldaddy.com, which gives voters the opportunity to comment once they vote. Please share with us why you voted the way you did. And remember, I don't know who you are unless you tell me (us)!!

What Irony

Last night's work session focused solely on the public safety levy and the police department. Chief Grove did a good job outlining his department's needs, although his presentation did not mention costs and manpower associated with the animal shelter.

City Manager Doyon asked the commissioners what they were hearing from the public regarding the levy. Commissioner Jolley, as reported in today's paper, has heard that folks think the levy is only necessary because the city wasted money on energy ventures. The other commissioners and the mayor have heard positive things.

The meeting started at 5:30pm and was over by 6:30pm. There was still nearly a 1/2 hour to hear from the PUBLIC, the very people they said they wanted to hear from. Mayor Dona was ready to adjourn the meeting when Mr. Gessaman asked if she was going to allow public comment. She barked out yes at which time he asked if SB486 would have a bearing on Great Falls' levy. City staff didn't think so since that bill focuses on how a city spends public safety mill levies. (The Billings Gazette has an interesting article concerning the Billings city council voting no to support this bill).

I think it would be a very good idea to have another work session devoted entirely to public comment, because contrary to what some of the commissioners are saying, not everyone is hearing positive comments.

And after all, getting this levy passed or not has everything to do with the public.

16 New Firefighters, Regardless

My public safety levy post and Gregg's, have generated several interesting comments.

In a very recent conversation I had with Commissioner Jolley, regardless of whether the levy passes, the fire department will be able to keep their new manpower.

The story goes like this:

At the special meeting held January 28, the fire department came away with the impression that even if the levy would fail, they would be able to keep the new firefighters. I was at that meeting and did not get that impression. Neither did Mary. (Even after rereading the minutes of that meeting, I still don't).

I believe Mary indicated it was at an agenda setting meeting this month that a representative from the fire department said he was concerned about an article in the newspaper (I can't find it) that gave the impression that if the levy did not pass, the newly hired firefighters would have to be laid off. The mayor and one or two other commissioners assured this fellow that would not be the case.

So. As of right now, the majority of the City Commission is telling the fire department that regardless of what happens with the levy, the new firefighters will stay. Of course, where the money will come from if the levy doesn't pass, isn't being addressed.

Will The Public Step Up?

According to another very unofficial poll, the public safety levy being recommended by the city will not pass.

In today's Tribune, the results from yesterday's Buzz question: "Would you support a public safety levy?" did not pass. Out of 447 votes cast, 63% said no and 37% said yes.

As mentioned here, the proposed amount of the levy would increase taxes by about 25%.

According to the minutes of the special meeting held Jan. 28, Commissioner Bronson "..believes it is necessary for the public and private sectors to step up in hard times. He is willing to take the risk and believes the public will too once they fully understand all of the ramifications".

I hate to say it, but I have a very strong feeling that if this levy doesn't pass, the spin will be that the public is the bad guy. Ignored will be the millions of dollars lost on at least two projects (here and here) the citizens weren't given the right to vote on.