JSC Meeting Minutes

June 27, 2007 – JSC Minutes

Finance Subcommittee Meeting Agenda and Minutes

July 25, 2007 - Finance SC Agenda

July 18,2007 - Finance SC Minutes

Suburban Journal article regarding merger

June 5, 2007 issue
Erin Taylor, author

SUBURBAN JOURNAL - Clayton, Richmond Heights merger would have minimal benefits

JSC General Meeting Agenda for July 25th

July 25, 2007 – JSC Agenda

NOTE: * The June 27th JSC Meeting Minutes will be posted when available

Third Revised Draft Copy of Final JSC Report for Review

July 2007 – Draft 3 JSC Final Report (9 pages)

Note: This is the third draft copy of the JSC Final Report that will be discussed at the next JSC meeting on July 25th, 2007. This revision includes the Public Safety Subcommittee's Summary Report.

Second Revised Draft Copy of Final JSC Report for Review

July 2007 – Draft 2 JSC Final Report (9 pages)

Note: This is the second draft copy of the JSC Final Report that will be discussed at the next JSC meeting on July 25th, 2007. The only revision to this second draft was on the Infrastructure Subcommittee's Summary Report. The first draft copy is available on the June 22, 2007 posting on this web site.

Finance Subcommittee Meeting Agenda and Minutes

July 18, 2007 - Finance SC Agenda

April 25, 2007 - Finance SC Minutes

Comments made by Alan Richter to JSC on June 27, 2007

"Mr. Chairman I would like to make a few comments as a member of the JSC, not as co-chair of the Infrastructure Sub-committee.

• Draft report – not what I would have like to have but I guess it’s as good as could be expected.
  I certainly understand where the mayors, aldermen & councilmen were coming from when they urged that the JSC exclude any consideration of personnel reductions. However when well over 50% of the budget of both cities is consumed by personnel, it is very difficult to find cost savings in the investigations by our 10 sub committees.
  
• My perspective - we have 2 very capable City Managers who could very easily find major cost reductions through personnel attrition including retirements, resignations, and reassignments with minimal reductions in force that could take place in a very humane, sensitive manner while keeping service at a very high level. I believe many folks around this meeting table and in the communities would agree with me.
  
• The Public Works Departments - a great example of what I am talking about! They are both well run and provide a very high level of service. However they do have duplication of services and inefficiencies. Since the Infrastructure sub-committee could not identify specific cost savings and this was not possible essentially because their staffing levels needed to remain at the same levels, our report was not very compelling. That said, I submit to the JSC if the cost of operating both Departments were coming out of your pocket, you would soon merge the two of them. As it is, while we all pay a portion of the cost but its tax dollars paid by our local governments so we don’t worry about it.
  
• An overview of the situation - why are there two separate municipalities to start with? Probably because of insignificant reasons many years ago when they were formed that today aren’t very important. Today we have a total of about 25,000 people in the two cities that are both very compact, have a significant common border, many similar characteristics, while duplicating virtually every service.
  Other than governmental entities we are seeing banks, law firms, department stores, communication service providers, and brokerage firms etc in the business sector all are merging; hospitals, child care providers, and retirement centers in the health and service sector merging but no governments. Why is this? Are these other sectors telling government something that we need to listen to?


• Our two cities - both very strong financially and providing excellent services at this time. What is happening to municipalities are us and else where in the County? A few years ago would you have believed that they would be terminating employees and have financial difficulties? Now is the time for both of our cities to be considering broad changes, negotiating if you will because we would be doing so from a position of strength. When times get tough and the strong position is gone is not the time to be negotiating with your neighbor!
  We are currently at a disadvantage in dealing with problems that don’t recognize municipal boundaries including crime, dealing with issues such as the reconstruction of High 40, expansion and operation of METRO, MSD, County Government, etc. After all individually we are very small entities in a County with over 1 million people.
  We need strong, visionary leaders on our legislative bodies and as Mayors who are willing to take measured risks if we are at all concerned about the future. The wonderful situation we are presently in will not last forever. Maintaining the status quo is an easy trap to fall into but will not bode well for either city.
  
• So what am I suggesting? We need to continue with wonderful leadership that has been exhibited by our elected officials into the future. Keep this matter on the table, in front of the elected officials, the City Managers and the community. Let’s get serious about partnering and sharing services and establish a process to move forward by empowering and supporting our Managers and holding the elected officials and Managers accountable. And don’t tie their hands by eliminating any possibility of reducing the head count of employees.
  
  Thank you."
  
  Alan Richter
  Clayton Resident
  
  Printable Copy