Editorial

    In Monday's council meeting the city budget passed with the mayor breaking the tie. Citizens should take note that 1/2 of the city council voted in opposition to the 2008 budget. We are unable to find where that has ever happened in the history of our city.

The real story though lies in the vote earlier in the evening when city staff presented the council 3 options for water rates for 2008. The 3 options presented were:

1.    Raise water rates 2.5% across the board for all users.

2.    Maintain water rates on users of 7,000 gallons or less            and raise rates on all usage over 7,000 by 5%.

3.   Do not raise water rates and cut expenses to be                     determined at a later date.

Staff was questioned on how they might accomplish the overall budget cuts totaling $85,000 to attain this very manageable task. Several scenarios were discussed, though coming to a conclusion at this time was not crucial. Staff was willing to work through this over the first quarter of 2008. We will give credit to the staff for retracting earlier statements that cuts could not be made.

A motion was made to pass Option #3 which would have maintained water rates at current levels for Liberty Citizens who pay the 3rd highest rates in the KC metro area.

Discussion surrounded potential telecommunication lawsuit settlements in 2008 as a possible funding source. It was stated that one settlement was in hand and others were to come in 2008.

Councilpersons Martin, Brenton, Phillips, and Duncan voted to raise rates on the citizens. One of the primary concerns expressed with this solution expressed was that these telecommunication settlements were not in hand.

This in fact was false information, and city staff though mentioned we had one settlement in hand, failed to disclose during the discussion that it exceeded $350,000. Only later in the evening after all votes were in did city staff admit to this.

As a result of the tie vote on water rates, Mayor Steinkamp chose to break it by raising rates. He squandered an opportunity for unity in the upcoming budget discussions. The division on the budget was directly related to the mayor's lack of vision in breaking the tie in favor of the rate increase.

When faced with an $85,000 budget cut in a $40,000,000 budget, and one that council members Parry, Jenness, King, and Foster felt was important as not to increase the burden of fees on citizens, the rest of the council and the mayor chose not to compromise but to continue the division.

Remember this is the same staff that found a $1,000,000 expense they could cut just last week when they were questioned on the $1.5 million dollar transfer out of the water fund. They suddenly did not need the Fancy $1 million Water Meter Reading Equipment. Cutting $85,000 would have been a piece of cake!

Irony existed in comments made by Duncan and Martin who stated a vote for the budget was a vote of confidence in the city staff. These are the same Council persons who did not have the confidence that the staff could find the cuts necessary to maintain water rates at current levels.

Poll the 4 council persons who voted against the budget and ask them had the mayor voted against increasing water rates, would they have voted for the budget? We think yes. That does not mean they did not have other issues with the budget, but we think they would have been willing to compromise.  

Let us remind councilman Brenton who called re-allocating the telecommunications settlement in the general fund allowing for the reduction of the fund transfer out of the water fund a "water fund subsidy", that *he* voted to subsidize Fountain Bluff with water fund money to the tune of $700,000+. Isn't it time the water fund start getting some of that back?

Not only did Mr. Brenton disagree, he Phillips and Martin were in favor of hitting users of over 7,000 gallons with a 5% increase. That would have most certainly impacted families of 4 or more and our businesses community, fortunately that failed.

When the atmosphere of compromise would seem so important, as the mayor looks to extending the 2010 tax, we find it very bold on the mayor's part to alienate those most likely to be against anything longer than a 10 year sunset.

Rumor is his legacy is dependent on Whitehall, and Whitehall is dependent on South Liberty Roadway and the Flintlock Flyover. His "leg"acy bone is connected to the tax extension bone.

Because of the Hawkins regime, our city is in deep financial trouble, we are dipping into cash reserves in almost every facet of the budget. It is unfortunate Steinkamp is walking in shadow of his predecessor.  

To the left of this article under DISCUSSION in our menu we make it very easy to contact your council person click on it and communicate with them regularly.

Check out more at http://www.libertyforward.org.

A politician must create an enemy. Which person on the City Council "editorialized" this for the upcoming elections next year?
I was under the impression the Council members 'caucused' prior to the meeting to force Steinkamp to break the vote with regard to the 2008 Budget and the water issue.
I disagree with you regarding Mayor Steinkamp. He inherited quite a mess and is trying to do something about it and for him I am grateful. His legacy is that he is trying to increase revenue into the city with development. I do think Council has more time, and spend more time, studying the issues at hand - rather than being told how to vote or treating the Council like a social club. They are a bit more educated of a Council than previous Councils. Hawkins did this city a great disservice - for which current government, current staff, and citizens, are paying the price. We have new Council members - which is very much needed - but they are still learning the process and wonder if they are being forced fed to vote a certain way - which is what the former regime was all about.

I don't know all the issues with the water but know there is not an easy answer.

With regard to 10 year and no sunset - the city can't get anything done in 10 years due to the nature of all the red tape they have to go through with bonding. There is an accountability issue with the city government - and you have to look at Hawkins and the former City administrator - for that. The fact that these discussions are occurring is very positive. They know we are watching and they know they will be held accountable - wish the former regime was. I wonder what is like to actually work for the City of Liberty - bet someone could provide a different insight than the bickering going on.
This is not the City government of 10 years ago - or 5 years ago. Change is hard. Mayor Steinkamp is a change agent. I appreciate him and his work for this City to get us where we needed to be 10 years ago.

M