[ back ]
Angered by budget woes, U. City residents seek audit
(by Jenny Fisher - August 05, 2009)
Frustration over the city council’s quick passage of a budget and over a special election for a sales tax increase has led a group of University City residents to seek an audit of the city’s government.
Led by resident Paulette Carr, University City Citizens for Transparency and Accountability is trying to collect the 2,233 signatures needed for a petition to the Missouri State Auditor. The group began collecting signatures at a July 29 meeting and aims to finish collecting signatures by October.
Carr cited the size and complexity of the budget as one of the primary reasons to seek an audit. “Our budget was over 400 pages. Florissant had a 25-page budget in 2009 and you could clearly tell by looking at it that, yes, they were going to buy a salt truck,” she said.
“We’ve pretty much coalesced around the idea that we think city hall needs some help. I don’t view this as punitive at all; I view this as exploratory. I really want U. City to be the absolute best that it can be.”
Another motivating factor was the city council’s decision to transfer a greater sum of money than in previous years from the sales tax-generated economic development fund into the city’s general fund to cover a budget deficit. By law, the city may use up to 25 percent of the approximately $570,000 generated annually for administrative purposes.
This year, the Economic Development Retail Sales Tax board, composed of three citizens, one member from the school board and one member from the county, advised that the city cover administrative costs with $40,000; however, the city chose to allocate $140,000 to help balance the fiscal year 2010 budget.
“I felt like they had raided the fund,” Carr said. “I think that’s dishonest, and I think it’s breaking the promise that you make to people. How can we trust our government to use the money that they have raised via taxes?”
This year was the third year in a row that the city budget necessitated making service cuts or raising taxes because revenues are unable to keep up with expenses, said Deputy City Manager and Finance Director Janet Watson. She estimated that by fiscal year 2014, the city would have a deficit of approximately $3 million, assuming no changes are made to revenues or expenditures.
“Right now it’s sales tax, but most of the city’s revenues have not been growing at the rate of the cost of expenditures,” Watson said. “Things like fuel and benefits and salaries and utilities, all the things the city spends money on, all of those things are increasing at higher rates than our revenues are.”
According to City Manager Julie Feier, the city has made more than $2.5 million dollars in cuts from the annual operating budget over the past three years, including cutting 39 city positions, eliminating the public relations department and delaying replacement of large fire equipment.
“The budget situation that we have isn’t one that’s just linked to the economic downturn,” Feier said. “This is something that started in 2002.”
Many residents also were upset that the city voted on the budget the same day the public hearing was held, feeling that their comments had not been heard. The public hearing was scheduled for June 1, the same day the council approved the budget. Legally, the council did not have to vote on it until June 15 and can continue to amend the budget throughout the year.
“When you have a public hearing, you hear from the citizens, you go home, you listen from your constituency who could not be at that meeting, you come back and vote,” said former council member and longtime University City resident Elsie Glickert.
A taxing controversy
Should University City Citizens for Transparency and Accountability collect enough votes, an audit would cost the city between $60,000 and $80,000 — something Carr noted was “regrettable,” considering the budget woes that prompted the petition.
“However, they just paid $40,000 for a special election,” Carr said. “We could have hired another policeman for that.”
According to city clerk Janet Pumm, the city will be billed roughly $33,000 for the Aug. 4 special election, which asked University City residents to vote on a quarter-cent local option sales tax. Results from the election were not available at press time.
The proposed sales tax, dubbed Proposition S for the ballot, is estimated to generate $480,000 and would bring the sales tax rate up to 8.075 percent, one of the highest rates in St. Louis County. The revenue from the tax is included in the city’s fiscal year 2010 budget, which council members passed June 1, well before voters had a chance to weigh in on such a measure.
Several residents were incensed that the city would assume that the sales tax would pass, with one resident, Carol Riess, calling it “unspeakable arrogance.”
Watson explained that a survey of 413 registered voters conducted last July found that 69 percent would vote for a quarter-cent sales tax increase to offset declining revenues and that it would be more likely to pass in a special election than in a general election. Watson noted, however, that after a year of continuous economic sliding, those numbers may have changed significantly.
“If it doesn’t pass, it just brings up service cuts, and we’ll have to address those much quicker,” she said.
Those sentiments are echoed in a controversial brochure titled “Frequently Asked Questions About Proposition S” that was mailed to residents in mid-July. The brochure, which was drafted and paid for by the city, outlines why the city is asking for the tax, where the money will go, how the sales tax compares to that of other communities and what happens if it doesn’t pass.
Carr and her group have filed a complaint with the Missouri Ethics Commission alleging that the brochure violates state laws against non-disclosure and the use of public funds to support ballot measures.
The issue was initially brought up by resident Tom Sullivan, who has long criticized such spending and successfully brought suit against the St. Louis Fire Department in 1998, claiming the department violated state law when it paid for three brochures that appeared partisan.
“There is no question that this violates the law,” he said of the brochure.
Sullivan and Carr cite a Missouri statute on the conduct of elections, which states: “No contribution or expenditure of public funds shall be made directly by any officer, employee or agent of any political subdivision to advocate, support, or oppose any ballot measure …” Sullivan and other residents argued that the brochure — in which one-third of the text is devoted to answering the question “What happens if Prop S Fails?” — implicitly advocates for the sales tax.
But the city disagreed. “There’s nothing illegal about it,” Feier said, adding that she sees the brochure, and Prop S, as a way to determine what departments and services are most important to citizens. “It isn’t a promotional piece, it’s an educational piece.”
Feier said the brochure was sent to residents to explain the budget issues council members had been consistently talking about for the past two years. According to Feier, the city spent $2,218 to print and design the brochure, and $3,778 to mail it.
At the most recent city council meeting, held shortly after the brochure was mailed, University City resident Jen Jensen called the mailing a “scare tactic,” citing the section of the brochure that outlines measures the city might take if voters don’t approve the tax. “‘Close Heman Community Center, close Heman Pool or at least reduce the hours,’” Jensen read from the brochure. “‘Have residents maintain their own street trees.’ So if we do that and we fall, are we insured? Are they our trees then?”
Additional potential cuts mentioned in the brochure include reductions in fire department staffing, ambulance response, “police presence” and streetlights.
Carr and her group criticize the brochure not simply for its perceived partisanship, but for the lack of any information identifying who paid for it. According to Missouri state law, anyone distributing printed materials related to a ballot measure must identify themselves with the words ‘paid for by’ on the materials.
“It’s clearly marked that it’s from the city of University City through the logo and the address and the contact information provided,” Feier said.
[ back ]
