Fisc! Yet another addition to the want list, skeeter spray! Put her right there by Cook’s Tunnel.

I look forward to your presence on the Hutch council! You sure seem to have that “no-nonsense” approach which all us taxpayers “need” representing us!

I’m sorry Ray, it was a bit unfair to ask you this question but I knew you’d handle it well and that people would see that you have a common sense level to any problems you encounter. Thanks for you response and you should consider running for city council someday. ;)
We like the terms “priority services” and “non-vital services”. We’ve been talking about them as “wants” and “needs” but your terminology is much better. I’m looking forward to the election and your potential victory. Good luck and go get em!

Just what I like to see. A person that cuts through the bull and gets straight to the point. ;-)
Casey

I don’t have the insight as to why cuts are being made in the areas mentioned, so it is difficult to assess if those are the best places to make them. To me, any cut being made should not be arbitrary, or approached in a “fairs fair” mentality. Making cuts straight across the board is a very poor strategy when your ultimate goal is to save money and still provide quality service.
To make smarter cuts, you first need to establish priority services within each department and fully fund those areas. Next, determine how many of remaining services citizens are willing to fund. After that is made clear, you know where to make your initial cuts.
When considering further cuts, all non-vital services should be examined for necessity. Those that remain should be scrutinized to determine if quality and cost control are best met via city employees or private sector contracts.
The job of making necessary reductions is always a thankless job, but at least a method like I have described is easy to defend and provides a road map for the future.

The city is tasked to eliminate about 12 FTE positions. As a (hopefully) interesting exercise, if you were 100% in charge of making the cuts, what would you choose? Refer to my earlier posting where I showed the FTE (full time employees) associated with the respective city operations. It is time for you to be the “virtual mayor”. Where would you make the 12 FTE workforce cuts? I will toss in my $0.02 later. It will be interesting to see if the suggested cuts align with the wants and needs that have been previously discussed in this thread.
Ray, would you be willing to give us your thoughts on the 12 positions that need to be eliminated? Yes, that is a tough thing but it might give your potential voters a bit of insight as to how you’d handle challenges like this. Thanks!

#91, seal coat fake cobblestone

Sure!
mj

I heard the fence is going up because people are just dying to get in. Ok, a bit corny I know.

Casey, for some reason, the school and city folks like to build fences. Maybe they are trying to “contain” us so we will ultimately believe that the investment (in fences) is a good thing? Do the city and school have a special “deal” with a fencing company or something? :)
I would have to agree with you that building fences in bad economic times does not make good fiscal sense. I can’t imagine that there are any safety issues associated with having no fence. Since the cemetery is already a money pit, I wonder why they feel compelled to spend more on it? Once again, this isn’t a good display of fiscal conservatism to the taxpaying public. Maybe there is a good reason and we just haven’t been told yet? Maybe someone will enlighten us?

MJ, I think you might have missed the whole point of the thread/topic. We were trying to arbitrarily determine what government services were “wants” and which ones were “needs”. The designation of “primary” and “secondary” is only a categorization for the purpose of this discussion. They mean nothing from a legal or governmental perspective. The primary listings are supposed to depict things that most people feel are important. The secondary things are probably necessary but are they all “needs”? Does that make sense?

You have it backwards, Chief2. The fence isn’t for keeping the public out. It’s for keeping the zombies in.

Secondary? How is that when some are statutorily mandated?

Casey, Does this really surprise you? The city does what they want. And we need to stand up. Look now they want to add more council members, for what? They want to add a new HVAC system to the Hutch PD. Don’t they already have one? Why do they need a new one? Oh I bet the county bought a new one now they need one, now I am catching on. Ah how I am so slow to catch on

Here’s a good one for you. I went home for lunch today and see that the city is building a fence around the cemetery (which is in my back yard). I would think that there would be better things to spend money on instead of keeping people out of the publicly owned cemetery, but I guess not!!!
I was not in favor of this project when it was brought up several times when I was on the council and was able to stop it from happening – but now that I’m off, they must feel it’s a good project to do. I did go through the correct channels within the city to voice my displeasure, but it didn’t do any good.
I can already hear the excuse: “User fees paid for the fence from the cemetery enterprise fund”. But like the liquor store, maybe that money could have been used to pay for something else within the city???
Maybe if they quit wasting money on the fence, they wouldn’t have to charge $400 to bury a cremation urn (FYI - this cost was not for the plot, just to dig a hole for the urn!!!) I know – I was shocked to hear how much this cost too!
I know that I’m just venting, but I’m curious how others feel about this.
Thanks, Casey

I also wonder about that mayor steve cook,he came in typing up a storm.Sure didn’t take him long to “hit the trail”.Do ya think he’s watching the dog of hutch run miles chasing morris?

Oh chunka nice try with the real names:)

I thought that was strange too but that is what is shown on the budget report. It does include:
Fire chief (1.00)
Inspector (1.00)
PT Custodian (0.23)
PT Asst Chief (1.00)
PT Asst Battalion Chiefs (2.00)
PT Lieutenant (4.00)
PT Safety officer (1.00)
Volunteer firefighters (35.00)
I’m not sure why the FTE’s are listed as they are since most of these folks are either volunteer or PT. Maybe it is an error? Or is it just a different way to keep track of their head count?
P.S. I do my best creative thinking at 2:29am. :)

Fis Con: We should point out that at the top of your list you have the fire department with 45.23 FTEs. My guess is that is an error. Chief Brad Emans and inspector Jim Popp are the only full-time employees of the department. The rest of the firefighers, and there are only about 30 now, not 40-plus, are paid only when called out. So there might be 30 bodies, but not more than a few FTEs.
By the way, I see your latest post was at 2:29 a.m.
(Terry Davis is a Hutchinson Leader staff writer. E-mail him at [email protected].)

The cost of our city government…
CURRENT CITY GOVERNMENT PRIORITY LIST
Note that I have added values for some of government operations shown below. Numbers in parenthesis represent a loss (or cost) for each department. Numbers without parenthesis represents a net positive gain or impact for that particular department. These numbers are taken from the 2009 approved budget. Also note that I have listed the number of full time employees (FTE) associated with each area.
Primary government services:
01. Public Safety (police): ($2,915,581); FTE = 37.00
02. Public Safety (fire): ($315,177); FTE = 45.23
03. Streets and Alleys: ($1,169,679); FTE = 8.35
03. Water: ($1,487,506); FTE = 6.05
04. Sewer: ($820,964); FTE = 9.62
05. Electricity: ??
06. Storm Water Utility: ($75,317); FTE = 2.60
06. Snowplowing: Included in Streets and Alleys?
07. Emergency Management: ($18,000); FTE = 0.00
TOTAL: ($6,802,224); FTE = 109.00
These are services that benefit almost all citizens. They can probably be provided better by the city due to the economy of scale. These are normal government functions for smaller cities. While some of these services could be provided by the private sector, the population base may not be large enough to attract quality options. Secondary government services that benefit most citizens:
01. Planning: ($152,215); FTE = 1.70
02. Motor Vehicle Registration/Licensing: $11,500; FTE = 3.68
03. Building permits: Included in planning?
04. Assessing: ($57,940); FTE = 0.00
06. Mayor and City Council: ($56,310); FTE = 5.00
07. Elections: ($10,128); FTE = 0.00
08. Finance Administration: ($591,006); FTE = 5.37
09. Legal: ($106,194); FTE = 1.00
10. Information Services: ($217,845); FTE = 3.25
11. Safety Committee: ($13,450); FTE = 0.00
12. Protective Services: $0; FTE = 3.30
13. Engineering: $7,938; FTE = 4.65
14. General Administration: ($381,883); FTE = 3.50
15. City Hall: ($146,177); FTE = 1.00
16. Other (unallocated): ($725,835); FTE = 0.00
TOTAL: ($2,429,417); FTE = 29.00
The above items are not necessarily in the order of their value or importance. Government services that make our community a better place to live:
01. Parks: ($742,975); FTE = 8.00
02. Recreation: ($26,007); FTE = 1.00
03. Recreation Building & Pool: ($80,254); FTE = 0.75
04. Civic Arena: ($112,027); FTE = 1.25
05. Senior Dining Center: ($2,950); FTE = 0.00
06. Library: ($189,792); FTE = 0.50
07. Community Development (EDA): ?
08. Senior Citizen Center: ($12,816); FTE = 0.55
09. Parks & Recreation Administration: ($161,451); FTE = 2.20
TOTAL: ($1,328,272); FTE = 14
These services are most likely NOT used be most citizens. The are often considered items that make our city a better place to live. While the majority of citizens do not use these services, many will agree that these are necessary to attract new citizens or improve the quality of life in our community. These services are typically do not show a positive income. The scope of these services could be an area that varies based on the state of the economy. Government services that could possibly be done by the private (non-governmental) sector:
01. Garbage Collection (no recycling): ?
02. Garbage Collection (with recycling): $25,528; FTE = 2.42
03. Liquor Store: $329,956; FTE = 8.77
04. Leaf collection: ???
05. Cemetery: ($53,734); FTE = 1.25
06. Event Center: ($128,036); FTE = 2.96
These services are currently being provided by the city. Most of these could be provided by the private sector if allowed. Most are justifiable by taxpayers as they minimize the current tax burden. Government services that are being provided primarily to offset our current tax burden:
01. Liquor Store: $329,956; FTE = 8.77
02. Creekside Recycling: $43,493; FTE = 8.75
These are examples of city services that are being provided as a “for profit” operation. They are being operated similarly to private sector businesses by the government so local tax burden can be minimized. Many will argue that government shouldn’t be involved in operations that compete with the private sector—regardless of the impact on the tax burden. Government services that could be candidates for consolidation:
01. Schools: (possible city/school partnership)
02. Airport: ($28,605); FTE = 0.20
How about a regional airport that is funded by Litchfield, Hutchinson, and Glencoe? Rekindle this discussion? If we wanted the government to do more…
01. Homestead Maintenance: (lawn mowing, driveway plowing, window washing, etc. Added as a possible future service.)
Tongue-in-cheek