[RP TownTalk] Revenue - Problems - Solutions

[David Hiles]

My messages to this list are being moderated because I was judged to 
have violated the posting standards.
************************************

Salaries:
When I was walking my ward a while back, I met a lot of good people.  
Many of them could have been good on the council.  They would have 
brought new ideas and energy to the group.  But they work two jobs.  If 
the council paid better, they might be able to cut back on the second 
job and participate. The ideal of selfless public service is ancient.  
Paying for public service so that the less well-off can join in is more 
modern, but still honorable.

It is a good investment to make council membership attractive to all 
members of our community.  If there are lots of good candidates out 
there who step up and and run every election, then maybe there is no 
problem.  The quality and depth of the candidate pool varies some by 
ward.  We need forward-thinking, energetic representatives in every 
seat. If you aren't willing to pay for salary increases, please don't 
say you are in favor, but not right now.  If not now, when?  If not 
you, who?

Inflation happens.  Set an attractive salary and then escalate it 
annually by law using the DC MSA federal pay increase.  That takes pay 
out of the list of diversionary, low-priority things to run elections 
about.   Having big voting battles about inflation-driven pay increases 
makes as much sense as voting against a barometric pressure increase.  
Spend your scarce time and energy on the important stuff.

Councilmembers who don't need the salary or an increase have always 
been able to donate it back to the town.  Some members in the past 
earmarked their forgone salary for priority projects.  Incredibly, some 
people complained about the earmarking.

Revenue:
Local gov't revenue varies, often more than spending.  When big 
properties are developed, revenue increases. When big properties sit 
vacant, they generate less revenue.  Try the land value tax and see if 
it works.  You could always repeal it if it didn't work.  Riverdale 
seems to be vulnerable to this kind of swing because of the big parcels 
which are still in play within our boundaries.  The recurring 
revenue-spending problem calls for a council which can think over 
multiple years and develop long term budgets for planning purposes.  
Changing the term of office from 2 to 4 years would help develop a 
longer frame of vision.

Solutions:
Staff inefficiency plays into the pay argument.  Somebody recently 
said, "Hiring people in government takes a long time. Then there is 
training time, followed by time spent clearing the backlog of work. It 
takes time to see results from increased staffing. Turnover in staff 
also slows progress."

If you want an efficient town staff, then be happy to pay them well 
enough that they want to stick around, not leave as soon as they are 
trained. An efficient staff means that all the town functions that we 
care about get done better.  If an experienced, motivated staff can 
save us from one lawsuit every ten years, it is cheaper, too.  This 
idea applies to councilmembers, too.

We have a problem of scale. By that I mean we are too small to do lots 
of town functions well or efficiently. No criticism, just an 
observation.  We already address some of those scale problems 
implicitly by sharing equipment between jurisdictions or by sharing 
police through mutual aid agreements.  We could address it explicitly 
by merging the Town of Riverdale Park with a similar adjacent 
jurisdiction, like Edmonston.

Another problem may be one of support.  If someone on the council who 
you respect says we need something that costs town money for our 
community, think (longer) before slagging them.  Ditto for someone who 
proposes a new idea.  Everyone up there deserves our support, because 
it often isn't all that much fun.


Glyndŵr "I can call spirits from the vasty deep!"

Hotspur: "Why so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you 
do call for them?"