How We Got Here...

Last night I brought up the fact that it is important to discuss how it is the police and fire pension fund got to where it is right now.

As I still believe it is important, I do want to recognize that in one night more insight and reason was given to that question than has been given in such a public manner since this issue has become 'the issue'.

Councilwoman Rushefsky and Mayor O'Neal - in their remarks concerning the tax initiative - discussed the problem in the formation of the fund to begin with, as well as the several times the city has procrastinated in addressing the problem over the decades.

In my mind, that is a much better answer than "it was the markets and the $10 million that we didn't contribute over the past decade".

I hope that discussion continues.

Pension Tax Proposal Notes

Notes from the pension tax proposals discussed August 25th....

As I sat down this past week to write my notes on these two bills, a lot of thoughts came to mind about the past two years in this community.

When I decided to run for City Council two years ago, there were several reasons why that decision was made, but there was one reason that rose above the rest. That reason was one that gave constant philosophical questions for me to ponder:

• How can any city council expect the employees they oversee to perform in an effective and efficient manner if the general morale and welfare of those employees is not a constant consideration? They can't.
• How can we as a community expect our homes, our children, and our livelihoods to be kept safe when those we rely on to do so have no other choice but to have a nagging issue on their minds at all times? At home, responding to a fire, responding to a priority 1 emergency... it is on their minds. We can't.
• From day one of my adult life I was taught that under no circumstances do you leave anybody on the battlefield. How can I, as an individual, begin to do so now? I can't.

With that, and in unison with what we all have come to accept as the way of life right now in the Springfield community, there are a few concrete facts:

• Our infrastructure is on hold until this issue is solved.
• Our Health Department is on hold until this issue is solved.
• Our community's safety is on hold until this issue is solved.
• Our CITY is on hold until this issue is solved.

So, as I look at this bill and the next, I have no doubt that the citizens will be deciding, once again, whether or not we believe a tax increase is appropriate for this issue.

Because this city is under new leadership who I believe truly desires a better direction for this city as a whole, I have no doubt that the atmosphere that surrounds this debate is going to be quite different than the one the surrounded the February debate.

As a new council, the priority should be fixing the problem, not passing a tax. There are a lot of people in this community who are watching close, and who are extremely hesitant about a tax increase in general, and especially at a time when our economy is in such a fragile state. Quite frankly, I'm one of those people; and I'm one of those people that has yet to be sold on this idea.

While I understand a tax increase may be eminent, how serious are all involved in this mess in convincing the community that this is more than just a tax...?

• Are we all serious enough to look into situations such as disability payouts to employees who leave Springfield, collect benefits, and go to the next community over to perform the same job?
• Is this City Council serious enough to look at the idea of at least reducing - if not eliminating - other taxes on the books to lessen the impact of a pension sales tax?
• Is this City Council serious enough to discuss how we got here? Nobody is looking for a 'smoking gun' or a 'head on a platter'; what they're looking for is the admission that a fixed future doesn't come from an ignored past.
• And are the police and fire serious enough to sit down and discuss measures that can be put in place to prevent this council and community from being left stranded in the cold, again, down the road? **I want to be clear: I'm not talking about reducing benefits; a promise made is a promise kept. What I am talking about is having a rational, logical, and objective discussion about this issue without having threats shoved down the Council's and the community's throat.

Now, considering the discussion of whether we go with a 5/8% or a 3/4%....

I'll be up front and say that tonight I am voting for the 5/8% increase and against the 3/4% increase for three reasons:

1. Going back to the fragile state of the economy... there are many people in this community right now struggling with the costs they have; to burden them any more than absolutely necessary should be out of the question.
2. There are a lot of cost of living increases that are coming at the community right now: utility rate increases; school bond issues; now a tax increase. Added to this, there are many people that are out of jobs right now and many others that have suffered pay reductions. If this is going to go to the voters, it should be done with a little sympathy and empathy.
3. In studying the 30% city contribution with the lower rate of return, after the first five years there is less than a 5% difference in funding levels. That minimal difference still allows for a 20% gain in the overall funding level.

This is a doable amount.

In that five years, we have the opportunity to prove to the community that we are serious about fixing this, and at the same time do it in a manner that shows that a tax increase is only PART of the solution, not THE solution.

If in five years the next council sees that 5/8% is not enough, they or we - whoever it is - can go back to the discussion board with the community.

This problem is not going to go away without in depth solutions. If this government body expects to 'sell' this tax, it's going to have to be but only one part of a bigger package.

That bigger package is owed to our police and fire.

That bigger package is owed to our community.

That is because a lot of votes are going to hinge on that bigger package, including mine.

CID Map Online

I took part in a speaking event this weekend with the 7th District Missouri Republican Assembly. The end of my presentation involved a Q&A, and one of the questions asked was if the city had an online map of the active CIDs in town. There is, and you can find it here.

Transparency in Taxation Initiative

Since the new council has taken office, the media has regularly reported on the CID debate that has come about several times during Council sessions. Additionally, Councilman Burlison and I have discussed the pros and cons of requiring businesses to post sales tax rates. Whether it is through requiring only CIDs or the entire city to post what the citizens are paying in tax, transparency is the goal.

With that, the following was submitted to City Staff this morning, taking the first step in bringing this topic to the table as a debate in and of itself, rather than a side conversation while dealing with other topics as the basis of conversation.

----------------------

FORMAL REQUEST FOR ORDINANCE DRAFT

Mr. Burris, Mr. Wichmer, and other appropriate City Staff:

Since the new Council has taken office in April, a consistent and contentious discussion has been that of Capital Improvements Districts (CIDs). While the philosophical value may vary from council member to council member as to the appropriateness of CIDs, the consistency of much of the discussion has been regarding the transparency to the customers (citizens) paying the additional tax.

While we understand that The Mayor and Council will have to charge the appropriate committee to review a request for an ordinance and the ordinance itself, this letter is a formal request to begin the process of bringing two different proposals to Council:

-The first request is one that would require any business that sells goods or services at the retail level, is part of a CID, and charges sales tax to display signage that notifies the consumer of such goods and services in an adequate manner that they are shopping in a CID and how much the CID tax amount is.

-The second request is one that would require any business inside the city limits of Springfield that sells goods or services at the retail level and charges tax to its consumers to display signage that notifies the customer of the amount of tax being paid as a patron.

As public servants, we believe that the number one duty in preserving trust with the people we serve is to offer transparency.

As a City with nearly a dozen CIDs either in place or in the works to be put into place, offering the citizens notice whether or not they are shopping or receiving services in a CID is not only about transparency, but also about honesty. Whether it comes to fruition by way of CID-only signage or city-wide signage, to offer these two proposals to the citizens of this community for discussion and debate is the appropriate step to take at this time.

We look forward to working with Council and City Staff on this issue, and are available for questions, comments, or concerns at any time.


Respectfully Submitted,
Nicholas Ibarra, Zone 1 City Councilman
Doug Burlison, General C City Councilman

Remember the Reason

Every year, when Memorial Day comes around, thoughts come from the days of past. While I’m glad to see my family every evening, I miss the brotherhood that has an indescribable bond. While I enjoy the warm meals and cool evenings, I miss the pride in dealing with neither knowing it was for a greater cause. While I still – to this day – enjoy putting my arm out of the window while driving the 65 and 44, my heart still aches for the families whose loved one will never do so again; the soldier who will never hold his child again, and in some cases for the first time; the Marine who will never hold his wife’s hand again; the Sailor who will never say “I love you” to his parents one more time; the Airman who will never see the snow fall or the sun rise one last time.

While we enjoy our BBQ, family time, and time away from work on this long weekend, may we also remember the purpose of this day.

The following is a writing that is authored by me, and written during my last days in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2005.

God Bless you, God Bless our service men and women, and God Bless this great nation.

"For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."

-Nick


The Marine
From the Lexington Green to Fallujah,
Patriots have stood by one another,
In defense of our nations liberty,
Fighting with each man as a brother.

Now it is my turn to go,
And to stand for what I believe,
I will do my part to defend my nation,
And won't quit my post until properly relieved.

The sand makes the sun a little more bright,
And beads of sweat roll down my face,
It is my first time outside of "the wire",
This feeling I will forever embrace.

Time has passed, missions have gone,
Repetitive motion has taught me to stay calm;
Thoughts often revert to the wife and kids,
And also to the 91st Psalm.

But I have to remain ready,
For when it happens, it happens fast;
And there is nothing I want less,
Than for any of us to become a memory of the past.

Now time is getting short,
Though my posture remains erect,
And looking back on time,
I begin to reflect.

I have received the command "Lock and Load",
A total of 94 times,
I wouldn't choose to do it again for a million dollars,
But wouldn't trade the memory for that 10 times.

I've witnessed the wounded and carried the dead,
Helpless on the stretchers they straddle,
I've been close enough to being one myself,
To make my ears ring and my brain rattle.

In time I will look to these days,
A time when I kept my honor clean;
It will always make me stand taller,
Not only because I'm an American, but a United States Marine.

Community Gardens

I plan to post on this issue later, but here is a recommended reading.

Intersection Development and Stimulus Funds

Last night there was a detailed discussion about what type of liability(ies) the City puts itself in each and every time it accepts stimulus monies.

While philosophically I have an issue with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, stimulus), over the past week there have been several issues that have come to the front lines of the media that have given me even greater concern about accepting these funds.

The first is the fact that the US Treasury's auto industry task force is now dictating the marketing budget of Chrysler, which has filed bankruptcy and accepted stimulus money in an effort to stay afloat. While I understand the purpose of doing this, I must disagree with the idea that the federal government should have the ability to dictate the marketing and business decisions of a company simply because they have taken stimulus monies. Even if they are to increase regulation, the government should be mindful that a company such as this one greatly relies on marketing to succeed.

The second story that has caught my eye involves the state of California. After the state trimmed $74 million from its budget, the federal government made it clear that if the cuts aren't revoked the state will be denied $6.8 billion in stimulus. Using my logic, this action defies everything the tenth amendment of the US Constitution is supposed to represent. I'm not sure that the best remedy for a frail budget is to have individuals on the other side of the nation deciding what cuts will and will not be made.

These two examples, along with the fact that our biggest creditor, China, is 'terrified' that our nation will default on our debt, and have recently slowed their purchases of US debt, has brought great concern.

At this time, I believe that accepting any stimulus funds will be a detriment to our sovereignty as a city, and puts us in a situation in which we don't know what the rules will be from day to day. It is not a wise business decision, and at this point I will not be a part of it.

Bill 2009-087

Over the past two weeks, I have had several letters and inquiries about my stance on stimulus funds. Last night, Bill 2009-087 was a bill that concerned stimulus funds, and those funds are to go to the Springfield Police Department for gear and supplies. Being the first time I voted for stimulus money, and having voted against stimulus funds two times, I believed that during the discussion of this bill was the appropriate time to detail my stance on stimulus money acceptance.

After the meeting, a citizen asked if I planned to post my thoughts that I shared at the meeting. I had not planned on it, but am doing so in light of the request.

Here are my notes from last night:

Two weeks ago we had a bill put before us that enabled our City Manager to apply for stimulus funds in an effort to address several issues regarding homelessness. Being the only opposition vote, I should have known that it would draw attention. Then, again, tonight we had another bill that is meant to fund job assessments and training programs.

The purpose in my voting against those measures was not to simply vote against them. You see, when the stimulus was passed, the public was told by the federal government that the monies were going towards job creation, job sustainment, and infrastructure. The bill two weeks ago did none of the above, rather paid “rent, utilities, housing deposits, and case work” for those making at or below 50% of the area median income… that means that half of the community is automatically eligible to apply for these funds. Tonight, we were asked to vote on a bill that was going to fund a program that doesn’t create or sustain jobs, rather gives skills assessments and training.

There was not a way – in my mind – that I could make sense of voting yes on either of those bills.

With this bill we find ourselves in a similar situation, yet very different at the same time.

You see, with two weeks to reflect on this vote, I have drawn several conclusions:

The first is that…

• Regardless of how we feel about the stimulus monies, our children and grandchildren are going to foot this bill.
• So the first question is whether or not we allow them to foot a bill in which they had some sort of return on. Ensuring they grow up in a safe environment does this.

Another conclusion is that…

• The previous Council enabled the City Manager to apply for funds to hire several new police officers. Additionally, with the tax monies that will be generated by the wireless phone companies, even more police officers are going to be hired.
• We cannot have new personnel and expect them to operate efficiently, yet at the same time deny them the equipment that they are in very much need of in order to keep us safe.

Third… and generally speaking:

• If we must accept money from the stimulus bill, I hope that all of us keep in mind that the most responsible way to do it is to ensure that there is some sort of return on it for the community, and the expenditures are non-recurring as to not create long-term commitments that we will not be able to keep.

So, as I vote in support of this…

• I want to make it clear that I am not voting for the economic irresponsibility that the stimulus represents; I’m voting for the safety of this community.
• And I am not voting for the philosophy that taking money from the federal troth is the right thing to do; I am voting to support the men and women who protect us with their lives every time they put their uniform on, kiss their families goodbye, and walk out the door.
  
  That is what I am voting for here tonight.

Council Bill 2009-083

When I cast my first public vote, I was unaware that it was going to be one that was so "controversial". Not in that my vote was good or bad, but that I was the one opposition vote to Council Bill 2009-083.

I will always try to be open minded, logical, and objective to all viewpoints, proposals, and ideas; at the same time, there are some bills that I analyze and simply can't be supportive of. This was one of them.

The first time the interest in my vote was brought to my attention [and I'm paraphrasing] is when the News-Leader stated that I was the only opposition vote, and with no explanation. There was no explanation because I was pretty sure that I was going to be the only opposition vote, and for the fact that I didn't believe 'grandstanding' was appropriate for my first vote at my first meeting.

When asked about it by JackeHammer, I e-mailed her my statement. It is one that is not long, rather short and to the point. I don't believe that there is too much more to say than what I did.

In the end it came down to me voting in a manner in which I would have a clean conscience when I lay down at night... and the vote cast is the one that allowed me to do so.

My statement:
"As someone who is opposed to the philosophy behind the stimulus package in whole, I do understand that there is money that the City may very well need to secure. Having said that, President Barack Obama has stated that the money from the stimulus package is meant to go towards job growth, job creation, and infrastructure. When presented with a bill that does none of those things, but instead simply pays rent and utilities of one from the pockets of another, I cannot support it. It comes down to responsible spending; if we must be put in a situation where securing stimulus funds is a necessity, I would hope to secure those monies for what they are meant to be for… nothing more.” -April 23, 2009

CIP vs Pension: An Exlpanation

A question was recently posed as to why I supported the idea of allowing the 1/4% CIP sales tax to expire, and to replace it with the 1/4% sales tax to fund the police and fire pension system.

Before the primary, and the sales tax vote, I stood firm in the belief that our community did not need to have an overall increase in sales tax. As well, I also stated that I believe that we need to look at the current sales tax structure, consider what taxes are currently on the books that are not an absolute necessity, and to replace that tax with a pension tax.

I still stand firm in that position.

The reason is that I believe that the CIP tax would, at this time, be the best tax to let expire - if not permanently, temporarily. Why this tax? There are two examples and a follow up analogy.

The first is that while the CIP tax is supposed to go to capital improvements, we have seen several projects that I would not personally consider to be a pertinent capital improvement.

One of them is the wayfinding signs. As those who remember the recent controversy, I will not rehash the issue... it is still fresh in the minds of those who are aware of city issues. Had I been on council at that time, I would have voted against it.

The second is the JV Ice Park. While, during the campaign, it was stated by certain candidates that the ice park was voted on by the citizens because it was part of the CIP report, we must not forget that the park was supposed to be self-sustaining after the first year; it was not.

Lastly, the analogy. I always believe that the best examples are ones that are of the most basic nature... so here goes.

Johnny, who is ten years old, gets $10 allowance each week. Every time he gets his allowance, he puts away $1 for a video game savings project (earmark). At this point, he has $9 left over (general fund). What he does with it is up to him.

One day, while out playing catch with his brother, he accidentally throws a baseball through the neighbor's window. The neighbor, being quite understanding, gives him the option to pay the window replacement cost back in weekly installments. Johnny works out a deal to pay the neighbor back in $1 a week installments. What Johnny does at this point is he decides to put the video game earmark on hold, and take care of the priority with that same $1 (new earmark). The only other option would be to earmark $2, one for the game and one for the window; but he has been told by his parents that either way, he will not be given an allowance increase.

What Johnny does is realize that, yes, he must repay the window. And, yes, it will be upsetting to him to give up his $1 game allotment. But, yes, it is the responsible thing to do. Additionally, the $1 dollar that has been foregone for the video game to pay for the window has allowed the $1 for the window replacement to be financially offset; Johnny still has $9 left over after his weekly earmark has been removed from his allowance. He can still make the $1 video-game allotment, but it is not required. At this point, it is up to Johnny to be responsible enough to make that decision. But he does, in the end, have the ability to continue his game savings if he chooses.

I hope this analogy and explanation helps.

While I understand that the discussion of the CIP and pension issue is much more complicated and not as 'black and white', that is the basic idea that I carry with my support to allow the CIP to temporarily expire.

Oath of Office and Budget Meeting

I was pleased that I was the first to take the oath of office on Tuesday. I guess because I'm the type of person that will volunteer to be the first to speak in a classroom so that I'm done first follows the philosophy as to why I was glad to be first on Tuesday.

After the oath, I walked through the swinging door and made my way around to the seat that Mr. Whayne had occupied for eight years. It was a different experience; it was an experience I will not forget. It was when the surreal feeling left and reality hit. There is a lot of work to do, and this is a big position to fill.

None the less, I was glad to be seated, and glad to get to work.

After the brief meeting in the chambers of City Council, we made our way to the luncheon down the road. We went over the budget in a brief manner, mainly discussing the types of revenues and expenditures the city deals with.

After all was said and done, and when I was on my way home, I realized that while there are many challenges ahead of the city, I firmly believe that there is not one person on the new council that is not ready to address them. While the philosophies may vary, I believe that respect among council members will prevail. After all, with the diversity we have in our community, the community deserves a diverse city council.

As a close comes to the fist week, I am very optimistic about the next several years that I will get to share with the community in service and relationship. Beyond that, and with the dramatic increase in voter turnout in Zone 1 (40% from 2007), I am hopeful that the participation of many will continue, and even more will begin.

Post Election Initial Thoughts

As the results came in on Tuesday, the anxiety level was high. I had been working hard trying to get my message out to the citizens for over a year. Was the hard work going to pay off? Did my message and platform align with the wants, needs, and desires of the citizens I hoped to represent?

In the end it did, and I won my bid for the Zone 1 Seat of Springfield City Council. I consider this a privilege that deserves the utmost attention. While it deserves the utmost attention, the reality of my victory set in - I believe - with a phone call from the newly elected Mayor. It was a call congratulating me on the victory. He began discussing the fact that he looked forward to working with the council, and that there is a lot of work to be done.

He is absolutely right, and I look forward to offering my thoughts and opinions to the scenarios that the city is and will be facing. I also look forward to being an ear to the citizens that have something to offer to the city and its issues.

In short, with the victory on Tuesday night comes a responsibility that by no means is going to be easy, but one with the reward of knowing that I have the ability to be on a Council that is beginning with virtually a clean slate regarding its reputation, and one that I firmly believe can accomplish many tasks with dignity and integrity. That is what this city needs, and that is what the citizens deserve.