IS IT TRUE City Council member Missy Mosby comments defending the City paying Health Care Benefits to members of our part time City Council really got our attention?  …we were so motived by Mosby’s passionate comments that City Council members should receive Health Care Benefits paid by the taxpayers because she claims that her City Council position is a full time job? …we investigated what the City’s Health Care Benefit package consist of? …our research revealed that our part time City Council Health Care Benefits package includes: Dental coverage thats has unlimited coverage, Council member pays one half  of Dental bill and the taxpayers pay the other half?  … City  Council members receive one free pair of glasses each year?  …that City Council members have unlimited  access to the the City  funded “Health Clinic and all the Generic Drugs are free? … the City  Council members have access to “Wellness and Dietitian consultants at no costs? …our Council members receive major discounts from City approved Physical Fitness workout facilities for an nominal fee? …in addition our Council received at no cost a $50,000 Group life insurance policy?  …above all. unlike the average  taxpayers Health  Plan coverage our part time Council members have access to Drug and Alcohol Rehab on site treatment at any  Accredited Center located anywhere USA with unlimited coverage? …the Cadillac Family Health Care plan only cost our part time City Council members a whooping $68 a month?  …we wonder if any  Missy Mosby 2nd Ward constitutes receive anything close this Health Care benefit package for working part time?
IS IT TRUE if  Mayor Winnecke  want to save the City taxpayer about a $180,000 in the proposed 2016 City Budget they can do away with the City paid Health Care Benefits package paid to our part time City Council members?  …its our understanding that the practice of proving Health Care Insurance to part time City Council members go back for for many years?
IS IT TRUE the proposed 2016 budget was delivered to City Council August 10, 2015? …the budget was not made available to the public by publication through posting the same online? …a member of the public asked the City Controller for a copy of the 2016 budget and was told the price was $40 for acopy of the budget?  …public hearings occurred August 17, 2015 through August 21, 2015 without any real effort to keep the public informed of the daily topics? …one of the 2016 Budget Goals created by the Winnecke Administration reads, “Provide Increased financial transparency for citizens?†…the 2016 budget process would have been a nice place tostart with this goal?
IS IT TRUE excepting the budgets for capital projects and the Evansville Water and Sewer Utility, total revenue for the City’s general operating fund in 2013, which included 46 million in property taxes, was 76.5 million according to the 2013 Annual Report?  …the original estimate for revenue at the time the budget was approved was just shy of 90 million according to the 2013 Annual Report?  …total expenditures for the City’s general operating fund in 2013 were 79.2 million according to the 2013 Annual Report? …the original certified budget for 2013 was 81.2 million according to the Department of Local Government Finance?  …the Winnecke Administration spent less than what was approved by City Council but more than was taken in for general operating expenses?
IS IT TRUE excepting the budgets for capital projects and the Evansville Water and Sewer Utility, total revenue for the City’s general operating fund in 2014, which included $47.2 million in property taxes, was $78.5 million according to the 2014 Annual Report?…..the revenue number included $2.4 million of 2015 revenue that was taken as an advance in 2014 to be able to end the fiscal year with a positive number of $307,000?  … the original estimate for revenue at the time the budget was approved was 89.3 million according to the 2014 Annual Report? …total expenditures for the City’s General Operating Fund in 2014 were $79.5 million according to the 2014 Annual Report?…..the original certified budget for 2014 was $84.4 million according to the Department of Local Government Finance?…..the Winnecke Administration spent less than what was approved by City Council but more than was taken in for general operating expenses?…real revenue for 2014 was $76.1 million, which is less than the revenue of 2013?
IS IT TRUE the 2015 Budget was passed with a certified budget of $85.7 million in approved expenditures according to the Department of Local Government Finance? ….the estimated revenue for 2015 at the time the budget was passed for the general operating fund of the City was $92.4 million?….according to Russ Lloyd, Jr. and the Financial Statements for the City, as of June 30, 2015 revenue was $43 million and expenditures were $48 million?….the Controller has dialed back expected revenue for 2015 to approximately $79 million and is confident that the Winnecke Administration will not spend more than it takes in for operations this year?….if this is true, it would constitute a reduction in spending from 2014 and would require a belt tightening mentality as compared to the first half of the year?
IS IT TRUE for 2013, 2014 and 2015 the City Council has not approved budgets that spend more than is taken in as revenue?….each budget appears to have a healthy gap between revenue and expenditures?….the Controller’s office estimates revenue each year?….the problem appears to be not what City Council is approving so much as what the Winnecke Administration is estimating in revenue?
IS IT TRUE the 2016 Budget has revenue estimated at $90.3 million, which is a decrease from estimates for 2015, and calls for an approved budget of expenditures of $87.2 million?…the discussion in budget hearings between Conor O’Daniel and Russ Lloyd, Jr. indicated that actual revenue was expected to be no more than $80 million?
IS IT TRUE there is no basis to the claim by the Winnecke Administration that reducing approved expenditures for City operations for 2016 to actual revenue would affect 100 City employees or impact services?….according to the Winnecke Administration, the City has not spent $80 million for general operating expenses in any given year since the Mayor took office?…. if the City’s general fund operated for less than $80 million in 2012, 2013, 2014, and will again in 2015, there is no reason to believe it cannot operate for $80 million in 2016?…is it such a novel concept for this Administration to have to live within its means?
IS IT TRUE a local reporter called upon City Council, which has a large number of members that will not return in 2016, to use the rest of year to do something meaningful?….setting a precedent for limiting expenditures in operations to no more than actual revenue meets that call to action?
Please take time and vote in today’s “Readers Poll”. Don’t miss reading today’s Feature articles because they are always an interesting read.