Right on , Man! I would say that we are getting close to the point where we lay down an ultimatum to Burris and Council. They either put in the proper binding terms in their tax proposal, or they are going to have the fight of their lives getting a gutless (meaning, the taxpayer continues to get screwed) proposal passed come next April.
Jim Hornaday --- On Tue, 11/18/08, Tom Martz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Tom Martz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: rough draft > To: missourilibertycoalition@googlegroups.com > Date: Tuesday, November 18, 2008, 9:47 PM > Much has been made lately of the 45 minute presentation to > solve the police > and fire pension system given by City Manager Greg Burris. > I have had the > opportunity to sit through a couple of these presentations, > along with > viewing the one on the internet and I believe there is much > room for > improvement. > > After passage of this tax increase the plan will generate > up to 40 million > dollars in revenue for the pension system*, *depending on > shopping habits > and tourism. Based on the current verbiage of the bill > this tax increase > will sunset in five years, or when the pension is 100% > funded. Milliman, > the company tasked with finding the solution to the funding > shortfall, is > one of the country's largest investment consulting > firms in terms of assets > under advisement. Included in the initial findings of > Milliman was a > statement that it would require six or more years to fund > the pension plan > 100%. In his presentation, City Manager Greg Burris has > PROMISED that the > city will contribute 29.88% funding into the pension plan* > *during the five > year timeframe. This means that approximately 40 to 50 > million dollars will > be placed in the pension system by the end of the first > year of this tax > increase. The reason for all this was so every player on > the field had "skin > in the game". Now you are thinking this is good, > this will put us well on > the way to solvency; NOT so fast!! > > Here in lies the problem with this bailout plan of our city > manager. Once > We The People have voted YES to increase our taxes, > absolutely NOTHING > prevents the city council from spending the 29.88% else > where in the > confines of the city; just as occurred earlier when the > city failed to fund > the plan for four straight years. The skin that the city > has in the game > can be overlooked because the sales tax will be generating > the required > actuarial amount, thus allowing the city to meet the > guidelines of state > statute. There have been numerous requests that an > ordinance be passed > forcing city council to fund this 29.88%*;* however* *road > blocks keep > getting thrown in the way under the heading of*,* *binding > future city > councils*. According to City Attorney, Dan Wichmer*,* > *binding future city > councils* is defined as:** > > *Budget is year to year. It is only good for 1 year. > That is why we > can't bind future councils. We cannot make fiscal > commitments beyond 1 > year. Even bonds are subject to annual appropriation. * > > In short one council cannot oblige another council with > commitments, which > in hindsight is exactly what has been done with the short > funding. Past > city councils obligated future city council for this debt. > > > > A cursory research project was started to define what > "binding a future city > council" meant and how it pertains to our situation, > and the response we > found came directly out of the California constitution. > The following is a > basic rule for municipal law; > > > > *The Power and Limitations of a City > > * > > *Binding** Future Councils.** One city council cannot > forever tie the hands > of future city council with respect to legislative > enactments; no ordinance > passed by one city council may remain beyond the repeal or > amendment of a > future city council. Each council is elected by the people > to serve the > needs and desires of the people at that time, and cannot be > restricted, from > a legislative standpoint, by prior council action. A > council may, however, > enter into certain long-term contracts such as leases, > cable television > franchises, or rubbish contracts, provided there are not > antitrust (anti > competitiveness) problems.* > > > > By the definition of binding future city councils anyone > can see nothing > prevents city council from passing an ordinance requiring > that the > guaranteed amount promised by City Manager Greg Burris of > 29.88% gets > funded. The argument being used by our city attorney is > disingenuous and > has people asking*, *why won't our elected leaders put > "skin in the game" an > pass an ordinance requiring the city to fund the portion > *for* which they > are responsible*?* > > The city leadership has a trust issue with the taxpayers > and by leaving this > loophole the gap widens the distrust. City council do what > is right and > show the people that our elected officials are going to do > what is best by > the police, firefighters, and the taxpayers. > > > -- > http://votetom4council.webs.com/ > > http://417-political-pundit.blogspot.com/ > > www.moliberty.org > > "lite a fire for a man he'll be warm for a day, > lite the man on fire and > he'll be warm the rest of his life". > > Just because you do not take an interest in politics > doesn't mean politics > won't take an interest in you! > -Pericles (430 B.C.) > > "You don't pay taxes - they take taxes." > ~ Chris Rock~ > > "no cause is lost if there is but one fool to fight > for it" > ~Will Turner~ > ~Pirate's of the Caribbean @ World's End~ > > Save your property rights > www.mo-cpr.org > > http://www.radiofreeliberty.com > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ This is a Free Speech forum. The owner of this list assumes no responsibility for the intellectual or emotional maturity of its members. If you do not like what is being said here, filter it to trash, ignore it or leave. If you leave, learn how to do this for yourself. If you do not, you will be here forever. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
