No Compromise, Still, on OPC Budget
One member of the Older Persons' Commission Governing Board presents a memo that challenges some aspects of city of Rochester's concerns with the senior organization's budget.
Photos
One month into 2012, the Older Persons' Commission is still operating without an approved budget for the year — and without any real forecast for a compromise.
The budget for the organization that serves seniors in Rochester, Rochester Hills and Oakland Township has yet to be approved by the city of Rochester. According to the interlocal agreement that governs the OPC, all three member communities must approve the organization's budget each year.
Rochester Hills and Oakland Township approved the budget in the fall. Citing concerns about increases in payments and benefits, Rochester City Council did not approve the budget and instead drafted an alternate budget plan for the OPC Governing Board to consider.
At the board's meeting Thursday afternoon, that alternate budget plan was not approved.
Now what?
At a council meeting in December, Rochester City Attorney Jeffrey Kragt noted that if the OPC opened in January without the approved budget then it would be in violation of state law and could be in danger of closing. Rochester leaders have said they have no intention of filing a lawsuit — nor do they want the senior center to close.
So what next?
Michael Webber, vice president of the Rochester Hills City Council and a member of the OPC Governing Board, said a compromise is still possible. He said a finance committee of the board is looking at part of the budget and will report back in the near future. He also said he has extended an invitation to Rochester City Council on behalf of the Rochester Hills Sister City Committee to meet and discuss the OPC budget, the interlocal agreement and other issues that the cities are facing together.
"In a time when the governor is talking about municipalities working together, we're really in a unique situation," Webber said. "The Rochester area has been a model of working together for some time now.
"Nobody wants to see that get derailed."
Rochester City Councilmember Cathy Daldin had a different prediction than Webber.
"The have no intention of compromising," she said.
"Just because we're the small community, we don't have a say. It's a dictatorship. In our own country, every voice should count."
Memo
At the Thursday meeting, Webber presented governing board members with a memo that he had drafted with the help of Keith Sawdon, the finance director for the city of Rochester Hills.
Sawdon, he said, has worked closely with the OPC budget that was presented to the three communities.
The memo, which can be read here, outlines each area of the budget that Rochester City Council has been concerned with, including the proposed line items from salary, benefits and pensions. The memo concludes that the correct number to use when studying the budget expenditures related to salaries and benefits for the 2012 budget is about $65,000 — not $166,422, as the Rochester City Council has stated.
Daldin, who attended the meeting, said she was willing to look at the memo. But she said Webber showed disrespect for some of the board members in the way he presented the memo.
Webber said the memo was created for board members to have a better understanding of the numbers.
The seniors
The focus of the budget talks, Webber said, should not be on the disagreement between municipalities but on the seniors and the OPC programs from which they benefit.
"My concern isn't as much with the card games in the lounge, but a closure of the OPC would affect those homebound seniors who rely on Meals on Wheels and the seniors who rely on the OPC transportation to get to their doctors' appointments," he said.
Daldin agreed.
"Those are the true services that a government entity should provide," she said. "All of the other programs are frosting on the cake."
Rob Kovalchek
2:34 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Can someone elaborate on "Webber showed disrespect for some of the board members in the way he presented the memo?"
Peter
4:44 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Read the next sentence..
ceecee
10:14 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012
Peter, Are you saying Rochester City Council doesn't want a better understanding of the numbers.
Patricia Kane
8:08 am on Saturday, February 4, 2012
At the OPC Board Mtg. this week Webber publicly insulted the Mayor & Board Member for the City of Rochester-& later apologized. The remark(s) were uncalled for. Mike does not know more about what happens in our City and at our City meetings than our Mayor. Another example of how dysfunctional the OPC Board is at this time-ithe remarks served no purpose- just another bullying attempt to slap Rochester around some more-there was NO apology from the Director for coming to the Rochester City Council meeting & calling the Council & Mayor all "liars"-nope the OPC Board & the Director obviously approve of that behavior. Only Ravi apologized for Miller, not Dalton, % not Miller--you would think the Chairperson would have stepped up to the plate...The Director needs to apologize. Just like compromise, we will never see that happen. And for the record, Oakland Twp was in their slinging jabs as well---bullying is a better word. They have completely thrown compromise and meaningful discussion out the door. I guess you can't teach an old dog new tricks-they don't know what compromise is and are unwilling to learn. Now watch the Director twist that little line around... They were more than rude. ( But they sure wanted to hurry and push that IT contract through, even though long time members from the OPC strongly objected & with good reason.)
I think Webber's numbers are incorrect and are inaccurately presented--we all know Rochester Hills and budgets don't mix.
George
5:47 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Drop Rochester from OPC services. I'd vote for it and vote to pay more taxes to support the organization.
Patricia Kane
6:35 pm on Saturday, February 4, 2012
Again, private sector economics 101
Private Sector 0 OPC step increases and then raises on that
Private Sector 0 OPC $8,400.00 in lieu of health insurance
Private Sector, full health care policies available for 1 year through BCN $4,046.00 yr.
Private Sector pays a portion of their health care and does not get $8,400.00 if they are covered by another policy and Private Sector does not give $8,400.00 to an employee for health care when policies can be purchased for full coverage through BCBS or BCN here in Michigan for $4,000.00+ dollars less-
Private Sector 2-3% OPC 6% pension
Compromise?
Property tax-taxable values increased assessed market value decreased-
I have heard from residents and everyone is saying their investment on their homes are still decreasing and their taxes are still going up---private sector is not getting raises-many took cuts, many have been frozen, and many full time are now part time- benefits have been dropped or shifted to the employee. So common sense would say, compromise-not get out of Dodge. Common sense.
You can not expect a tax funded entity to have these types of increases in this day
It is too much. In addition 29% of the seniors use the facility, 71% of the seniors do not. 100% of the taxpayers pay for it and the vast majority can't use it. If it is going to have sustainability, it has to be affordable moving forward. If all of the Federal, State, County and City employees were afforded the same, we would be broke.
Patricia Kane
8:50 am on Sunday, February 5, 2012
The above is is the prevailing attitude that the we have been talking about -it is non productive and sarcastic----please note again- no mention of a compromise or solutions-just give them what they want. Who knows, maybe in the future they should organize-maybe then it would give different or better opportunities to both sides-
The meetings are also structured so the vast majority of tax payers cannot attend -it is during the work day....perhaps if it was changed to accommodate the majority of the tax contributors, the Board would see a different public there and not members "rounded up" after cards--
On another point, our Fire Dept. and our Police serve everyone-not a small portion of a select group---everyone ---they also work 24/7 and they risk their life.
The OPC serves only a small percentage of a select group--and I don't think the travel
supervision and in the administrative work, etc. they risk their life...and certainly, service is not 24/7 nor is it to everyone. Huge difference.
Hopefully there will be a compromise and an agreement can be reached based on the merits of all sides.
Patricia Kane
10:20 am on Sunday, February 5, 2012
Interesting-the above comment I just posted was in response to a "Tom.."comment and now Tom has removed it. I was just going to add to that in his reference to both Ford and GM, (or Chrysler) these are not a tax supported entities.
For those that did not see what "Tom.." commented on, basically it was about giving the OPC what our Police, Fire, and DPW are currently getting.
He also made the comment the Nurse from Crittenton needs to be present so I don't go into a fit or something similar. Glad he cares......