As a Councilor I would not vote to lay off one employee without first voting to reduce my pay. I know the Councilors are not paid much but it is the principle.
I also wish the Council had not voted to give funds to other organizations like non-profits and the Chamber of Commerce. These are commendable organizations but do not fall under the responsibility of our Town Government to fund.
Tom, You really need to realize that facts are not always reported accurately in the press. The past council was informed of the Rainy Day fund status numerous times. The Rainy Day fund was passed as part of the 2007-2008 budget in August of 2007. According to Council agendas and minutes the Council was informed of its balance on December 7, 2007, again on February 7, 2008 and lastly on April 17th of 2008. Unfortunately, the Council did not follow the recommendation of the past Mayor and used the Rainy Day fund to pay for things that should not have been paid for from the Rainy Day fund. So, it got used up pretty quickly. The funds remaining at the end of the budget year, were transferred into the General Fund by the new Council. The question is whether the wise advice of our past Mayor regarding the importance of a true Rainy Day Fund will be followed now that everyone understands its benefit?
Pat, The Arizona Revised Statutes require "reasonable and practiable" notice. But there is no definition of what that is. I also cannot find any clarification in town code.
The most glaring recent example had to do with the July 2nd Council meeting. The agenda was posted. But on July 1st at 12:30 pm, an new item was added to the agenda. This one happened to be the YMCA lease agreement. I personally don't think citizens can be expected to look repeatedly at an agenda to see if things are added at the last minute. So, no surprise that there weren't a lot of folks at the meeting making their comments known.
Good news though, the agenda for the November 20th Council meeting and Special Meetings for the 18th and 20th are already posted.
A friend of mine would love to help you out Christi. She does not have a blog account so asked me to post in response to your request. Her name is Vicki and you can reach her at: 595-1761.
The financial report shows a payment of $3570 to the Gazette and another $700 as an outstanding debt. There is also outstanding debt to the Roundup of $3077. I assume all of this is for the full page color ads. Seems like the Roundup has some pretty good ad rates.
The Town website now displays the Campaign Finance Reports.
The Political Committee(Good for Tax Payers, Good For Seniors, etc) against 401 has some interesting info.
The only contributor is the Valley of the Sun YMCA. They have made contributions of $12,000 as of October 15ht.. No Payson citizens have contributed to this committee.
Expenses as of 10/15 have been paid: $10760. Of this, $3570 is to the Gazette, and $7190 is to a Phoenix advertising company.
Inkind expenditure paid to a Scottsdale PR company of $6749.
The Committee has $18,017 of outstanding debt, also to Scottsdale company.
So their fight has cost the YMCA almost $29,000 ( or over $35K if us you include the in-kind expenses) as of 10/15/2008.
The Political Committee fighting the YMCA in the Park, Friends of Payson-No 0n 401 is quite a bit different. They have raised $4985 so far, all from local Payson citizens and businesses. Their expenses totaled $4675. Of these $4350 went to legal costs. A lawyer from Prescott was hired as no local lawyer would take the case. The balance was spent at local Payson vendors for printing of referendums, flyers and signs.
I thought the latest pro-YMCA flyer mailed to my house was interesting. It states that the majority of the facility will be constructed west of the pool on unused scrub oak land. Have they not actually looked at the land west of the pool? It is covered with large ponderosa pine trees. Isn't this the tree that was just voted to be the town tree?
I also thought the line where they were going to act as a community center for the town was interesting. I guess it could be a center for the members but not the community in general. From what I understand they need 800 members to make the Y work. So if Payson has 18,000 residents, where do the 17,200 of us go to commune?
Interesting also that Mayor Evans is quoted as a supporter. In the latest Gazette someone ranted about Ed Blair's quote in a Y ad as being inappropriate as a representative. At least he did not use his title as Councilman. Also, Ed Blair, Su Connell and John Wilson are all listed as supporters. Does this mean they all have a conflict of interest?
Lastly the ad states "rather than ask Payson taxpayers to spending (sic) millions and millons to build a new community center". They are asking taxpayers, just in the form of donations, not taxes. So what's the difference? Oh, I know, it will be a private club not a public community center.
Dan, After you login, you go to the thread you want to post to. At the bottom of all of the comments by various bloggers, there should be a box titled Comment. You put your comments there and click Preview Comment. You can then see what you have typed and either change the text or click Post Comment.
I think what you are doing is going to the bottom of the list of Threads and Starting a Discussion each time. This creates a new Thread. Good luck.
Sorry I live in a different district and could not vote for you.
24 November 2008 at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathypatrick (Kathy Patrick-Baas) says…
As a Councilor I would not vote to lay off one employee without first voting to reduce my pay. I know the Councilors are not paid much but it is the principle.
I also wish the Council had not voted to give funds to other organizations like non-profits and the Chamber of Commerce. These are commendable organizations but do not fall under the responsibility of our Town Government to fund.
On Quick! Let's all criticize the Town Council!
23 November 2008 at 7:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathypatrick (Kathy Patrick-Baas) says…
Tom,
You really need to realize that facts are not always reported accurately in the press. The past council was informed of the Rainy Day fund status numerous times. The Rainy Day fund was passed as part of the 2007-2008 budget in August of 2007. According to Council agendas and minutes the Council was informed of its balance on December 7, 2007, again on February 7, 2008 and lastly on April 17th of 2008.
Unfortunately, the Council did not follow the recommendation of the past Mayor and used the Rainy Day fund to pay for things that should not have been paid for from the Rainy Day fund. So, it got used up pretty quickly. The funds remaining at the end of the budget year, were transferred into the General Fund by the new Council.
The question is whether the wise advice of our past Mayor regarding the importance of a true Rainy Day Fund will be followed now that everyone understands its benefit?
On Quick! Let's all criticize the Town Council!
15 November 2008 at 8:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathypatrick (Kathy Patrick-Baas) says…
Pat,
The Arizona Revised Statutes require "reasonable and practiable" notice. But there is no definition of what that is. I also cannot find any clarification in town code.
The most glaring recent example had to do with the July 2nd Council meeting. The agenda was posted. But on July 1st at 12:30 pm, an new item was added to the agenda. This one happened to be the YMCA lease agreement. I personally don't think citizens can be expected to look repeatedly at an agenda to see if things are added at the last minute. So, no surprise that there weren't a lot of folks at the meeting making their comments known.
Good news though, the agenda for the November 20th Council meeting and Special Meetings for the 18th and 20th are already posted.
On Is the tail wagging the dog in City Hall?
30 October 2008 at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathypatrick (Kathy Patrick-Baas) says…
A friend of mine would love to help you out Christi. She does not have a blog account so asked me to post in response to your request. Her name is Vicki and you can reach her at: 595-1761.
On Knitting anyone?
26 October 2008 at 5:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathypatrick (Kathy Patrick-Baas) says…
The financial report shows a payment of $3570 to the Gazette and another $700 as an outstanding debt. There is also outstanding debt to the Roundup of $3077. I assume all of this is for the full page color ads. Seems like the Roundup has some pretty good ad rates.
On YMCA Political Committee Finance Reports
26 October 2008 at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathypatrick (Kathy Patrick-Baas) says…
The Town website now displays the Campaign Finance Reports.
The Political Committee(Good for Tax Payers, Good For Seniors, etc) against 401 has some interesting info.
The only contributor is the Valley of the Sun YMCA. They have made contributions of $12,000 as of October 15ht.. No Payson citizens have contributed to this committee.
Expenses as of 10/15 have been paid: $10760.
Of this, $3570 is to the Gazette, and $7190 is to a Phoenix advertising company.
Inkind expenditure paid to a Scottsdale PR company of $6749.
The Committee has $18,017 of outstanding debt, also to Scottsdale company.
So their fight has cost the YMCA almost $29,000 ( or over $35K if us you include the in-kind expenses) as of 10/15/2008.
The Political Committee fighting the YMCA in the Park, Friends of Payson-No 0n 401 is quite a bit different. They have raised $4985 so far, all from local Payson citizens and businesses. Their expenses totaled $4675. Of these $4350 went to legal costs. A lawyer from Prescott was hired as no local lawyer would take the case. The balance was spent at local Payson vendors for printing of referendums, flyers and signs.
Interesting.
On YMCA Political Committee Finance Reports
18 October 2008 at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathypatrick (Kathy Patrick-Baas) says…
I thought the latest pro-YMCA flyer mailed to my house was interesting. It states that the majority of the facility will be constructed west of the pool on unused scrub oak land. Have they not actually looked at the land west of the pool? It is covered with large ponderosa pine trees. Isn't this the tree that was just voted to be the town tree?
I also thought the line where they were going to act as a community center for the town was interesting. I guess it could be a center for the members but not the community in general. From what I understand they need 800 members to make the Y work. So if Payson has 18,000 residents, where do the 17,200 of us go to commune?
Interesting also that Mayor Evans is quoted as a supporter. In the latest Gazette someone ranted about Ed Blair's quote in a Y ad as being inappropriate as a representative. At least he did not use his title as Councilman. Also, Ed Blair, Su Connell and John Wilson are all listed as supporters. Does this mean they all have a conflict of interest?
Lastly the ad states "rather than ask Payson taxpayers to spending (sic) millions and millons to build a new community center". They are asking taxpayers, just in the form of donations, not taxes. So what's the difference? Oh, I know, it will be a private club not a public community center.
On The Roundup Editiorial in Friday's paper
10 October 2008 at 6:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
kathypatrick (Kathy Patrick-Baas) says…
Dan,
After you login, you go to the thread you want to post to. At the bottom of all of the comments by various bloggers, there should be a box titled Comment. You put your comments there and click Preview Comment. You can then see what you have typed and either change the text or click Post Comment.
I think what you are doing is going to the bottom of the list of Threads and Starting a Discussion each time. This creates a new Thread. Good luck.
Sorry I live in a different district and could not vote for you.
On County Supervisors election
27 September 2008 at 1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathypatrick (Kathy Patrick-Baas) says…
Pat,
I think the following are the links to the articles you are referring to.
http://www.flagteaparty.org/Publications...
http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2008/...
On Regarding the Y "poll."
18 September 2008 at 7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathypatrick (Kathy Patrick-Baas) says…
Great news! The little guys wins over the big money for a change!
On APPEALS COURT REVERSED JUDGE DUBER'S RULING