Where is the Money Going?

Commenting on my last post, our regular Longrie sock puppet asked, "So where did the money go?" She floated a few theories, but as usual provided no documentation -- they're just the usual Longrie smokescreens (joining the ranks of "I don't believe Bob Cardinal could have written this letter!" and "I never told you to do the background check in-house!" and "I believe that senior managers were planning to organize all along, and it's just coincidence that they did it while I am mayor!").

It's hard to figure out exactly, but we can take a preliminary stab at where the spending increases lie. Looking page 10 of the 2007 draft budget, we can do some simple math to get the changes in total by classification.

In total, spending is increasing by $1,506,390. This is slightly more than the property levy increase (that being $1,443,970), so we can see that it's almost all being put on the shoulders of Maplewood property owners. (Hence the property tax levy is increasing almost twice as much as city spending.)

The spending increase breaks down as follows:

Personnel Services: +$863,770
Commodities: +$13,060
Contractual Services: +$692,540
Capital Outlay and Depreciation: -$118,520
Other Charges: +$55,540

We've been assured that there are huge payroll savings due to getting rid of all these "overpaid" senior managers, on the order of half a million dollars or more. Over and over, we've been told how cushy the jobs are and how overpaid Maplewood employees are. We've also been told that Human Resources was dissolved and replaced by Copeland's office and the new Bethel & Associates, to handle labor negotiations. The idea I guess is that Bethel would do a better job of negotiating on the city's behalf, and cost less to do the job. In terms of benefits, we also heard a lot about how health insurance costs were being held steady. And of course we're supposed to be saving money with a lower cost city attorney.

If we believe Copeland and the Longristas, what we should expect would be a decline in the personnel classification expenditures, and perhaps a modest increase in contractual services (as some of the old HR staff budget moves out of house to Bethel).

Instead, we see a big increase in personnel costs, and a huge jump in contractual services expense.

If there is $500,000 in savings from the staff reorganization and firings (as Longrie's sock puppet has claimed -- though without citation, leading us to wonder where this person gets that specific figure), and we add that to $863,770 in new spending on personnel, then all else being equal, the average Maplewood employee must be getting a 8.1% increase in salary and benefits next year. In fact, it should be more than that, since experienced and supposedly high-paid managers let go (Fursman, Coleman, Anderson, Banick) are presumably being replaced by lower-level employees with lower starting wages. Factor that in (and keep in mind that health care isn't the source of the increase, thanks to the new plan that Copeland touted and claimed credit for), and we should expect the typical employee who was with the city last year to get a pay hike over 10% maybe? That's pretty generous for a tough, experienced negotiator to hand out, especially if there is supposedly a mandate from the council majority to rein in the expenses.

It looks to me like Bethel can be added to the list of costly incompentents that the Longristas have invited to gorge themselves at the city trough.

Remember the document that used to be on the city website, justifying the Xcel tax increase? It claimed that the Xcel tax increase would be used to lower taxes. The TV media dutifully reported that Maplewood was lowering property taxes. It was a flat-out lie. I think Copeland clarified at the meeting that it was really a reduction in next year's expected tax increase -- not exactly the same as a tax cut -- but they successfully inserted the lie into the public consciousness, and gave their supporters a false justification to cling to.

A similar deception has been perpetrated vis a vis spending in the budget. Time and again the Longristas talk about the big savings they're getting by firing and reorganizing and negotiating hard. But in the end, where are these alleged savings? The bottom line is more spending and higher taxes -- and the loss of the experienced, competent people who had successfully held down spending and taxes in past years.