« Merry Christmas! | Home | MORE ANGRY AL »
STRIB: RYBAK’S CUTS PINCH SNOW REMOVAL
By Luke Hellier | December 24, 2009
The Star Tribune posted a story online tonight highlighting Mayor Rybak’s deep cuts that will dramatically impact snow removal this year. One piece not included in the story is that these cuts come after Rybak commissioned 10 “artistic” water fountains at a cost of over $500,000.
The city trimmed the snow-removal budget $250,000 this year, and a further $1.15 million cut has been ordered for 2010. That’s taking an $8.4 million budget down to $7 million, and that’s atop cuts of roughly $1 million in the previous five years, according to public works officials. The cuts were proposed by Mayor R.T. Rybak and approved by the City Council.
Some people, like Barb Shefland of Linden Hills, contacted just before the current storm, say they already feel they’re not getting adequate plowing. “It’s just disgusting because we pay a lot of taxes,” she said.
Here’s the rest of the story.
Topics: Uncategorized | 12 Comments »
12 Responses to “STRIB: RYBAK’S CUTS PINCH SNOW REMOVAL”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Luke, what would you propose is the right size for Minneapolis’ snow plowing budget? You seem to have strong opinions that the decisions Rybak took to balance the were wrong, but you’re failing to explain in a mature manner why the hard adult choices he and the city council created were wrong for the city.
Clearly, with unlimited funds, plowing could be better, but that’s not how fiscally responsible politicians operate.
And, could you explain how a 1-time capital expense could pay for 2 years worth of opera nearly 3x greater operating expenses?
December 25th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
[...] This post was Twitted by hartupnorth [...]
December 25th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“And, could you explain how a 1-time capital expense could pay for 2 years worth of opera nearly 3x greater operating expenses?”
Huh?
December 25th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
@Focused on 2010, I was attempting to rephrase that to make it more clear when I hit the Submit Comment button on my phone’s touchscreen.
The point being that Luke Hellier is comparing $1,400,000 in operating expenses to $450,000 in capital expenses. If Luke’s going to suggest that Rybak’s choice to balance the city’s budget in part through $1.4 million in cuts, he should find $1.4 million in expenses. And, ideally, operating expenses rather than capital expenses.
But, that’s only if Luke’s interested in making intellectually honest arguments.
December 25th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Let me think… water fountains on one hand, clearing streets of snow on the other. Which would be the best way to provide services to the most customers.
I believe clearing the streets winds on that one.
I’m not sure where you got your $450,000 number from but I believe that is a little low. Are you interested in making intellectually honest arguments?
December 25th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Focused on 2010, believe what you want or look it up for yourself.
December 26th, 2009 at 12:21 am
[...] recent comment on Minnesota Democrats Exposed helped me understand that there may be some misunderstandings between MDE readers and the reality based community when it comes to the size and scope of Minneapolis’ city [...]
December 26th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Ed, your are wrong about a number of things.
According to Rybak’s chief of staff (who was at the time his communications director) the amount is $500,000.
http://themayorblog.com/2009/06/18/drinking-fountains/
Also, Rybak stole $250,000 from the cities water fund to spend on the water fountains. As far as capital fund expeditures, the city determines what will be paid for with capital funds. The Mayor and Council can make the capital budget smaller and the operating budget bigger, or vice versa.
Whether tax payers paid for RT’s fountains out of the capital budget or the operation budget is beside the point. It’s still a waste of money.
December 26th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Thanks Chile. That link is where I got my information from too.
Mr. Ed, are you now calling the Mayor a liar?
December 28th, 2009 at 12:39 am
Guys, I don’t understand why you are having such a hard time with the math here. As I’ve explained before, the GOP talking point ties to the art part of that $500k expense and not the entire $500k. Get it?
December 28th, 2009 at 7:07 am
Mr. Ed,
How does that explain your claim that it is $450,000?
Get it?
December 28th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Ed, I don’t understand why you are having such a hard time with understanding that taxpayer money was wasted.
the city didn’t need water fountains, artistic or otherwise. It was a waste of money. The money spent to connect them to the city water lines was also a was.