11
Aug
Proposed FY 2011 Annual Operating Budget
The City's Proposed FY 2011 Annual Operating Budget was presented to City Council on Monday, August 9. (read more).
Email this
Comments
(36)
Show/hide comments
...
written by Sarah , August 21, 2010
written by Sarah , August 21, 2010
p.s. Thanks to Lawyer Lucy I sounded like I knew what I was talking about. ;-)
...
written by Sarah , August 21, 2010
written by Sarah , August 21, 2010
Hi Bud, never heard back, so I wrote Jennifer asking for a copy of the latest self evaluation the City has for Title II of the ADA, including remedial measures that need to be taken. She's looking into it for me.
...
written by BUD , August 19, 2010
written by BUD , August 19, 2010
Sarah did we ever hear back from anyone about the ADA situation? Did I miss a note from you?
...
written by JAK44 , August 16, 2010
written by JAK44 , August 16, 2010
I would suggest talking to Prassel since he touted his construction experience as a strong point during the campaign, but the ADA was enacted several years AFTER he closed up shop.
...
written by Sarah , August 15, 2010
written by Sarah , August 15, 2010
WOW! Thanks Perry Como. AHPatron, are you saying that the City did that evaluation and is currently ADA compliant under Title II?
...
written by Lawyer Lucy , August 15, 2010
written by Lawyer Lucy , August 15, 2010
There is NO grandfathering under the ADA.
http://www.ada.gov/comprob.htm
In brief:
Access to civic life by people with disabilities is a fundamental goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To ensure that this goal is met, Title II of the ADA requires State and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities. This requirement extends not only to physical access at government facilities, programs, and events -- but also to policy changes that governmental entities must make to ensure that all people with disabilities can take part in, and benefit from, the programs and services of State and local governments. In addition, governmental entities must ensure effective communication -- including the provision of necessary auxiliary aids and services -- so that individuals with disabilities can participate in civic life.
One important way to ensure that Title II's requirements are being met in cities of all sizes is through self-evaluation, which is required by the ADA regulations. Self-evaluation enables local governments to pinpoint the facilities, programs and services that must be modified or relocated to ensure that local governments are complying with the ADA.
There is no "grandfather" clause in the ADA. However, the law is flexible. City governments must comply with Title II of the ADA, and must provide program access for people with disabilities to the whole range of city services and programs. In providing program access city governments are not required to take any action that would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the service, program, or activity in question or that would result in undue financial and administrative burdens. This determination can only be made by the head of the public entity or a designee and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. The determination that undue burden would result must be based on all resources available for use in a program. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a city government must take any other action that it can to ensure that people with disabilities receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
Similarly, there is no exemption from Title II requirements for small municipalities. While public entities that have less than 50 employees are not required to comply with limited sections of the Department of Justice's regulations, such as maintaining self- evaluations on file for three years and designating a grievance procedure for ADA complaints, no general exemption applies. All public entities, regardless of size, must comply with Title II's requirements.
All city governments were required to complete a self-evaluation of their facilities, programs, policies, and practices by January 26, 1993. The self-evaluation identifies and corrects those policies and practices that are inconsistent with Title II's requirements. Self-evaluations should consider all of a city's programs, activities, and services, as well as the policies and practices that a city has put in place to implement its various programs and services. Remedial measures necessary to bring the programs, policies, and services into compliance with Title II should be specified -- including, but not limited to: (1) relocation of programs to accessible facilities; (2) offering programs in an alternative accessible manner; (3) structural changes to provide program access; (4) policy modifications to ensure nondiscrimination; and (5) auxiliary aids needed to provide effective communication.
http://www.ada.gov/comprob.htm
In brief:
Access to civic life by people with disabilities is a fundamental goal of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To ensure that this goal is met, Title II of the ADA requires State and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities. This requirement extends not only to physical access at government facilities, programs, and events -- but also to policy changes that governmental entities must make to ensure that all people with disabilities can take part in, and benefit from, the programs and services of State and local governments. In addition, governmental entities must ensure effective communication -- including the provision of necessary auxiliary aids and services -- so that individuals with disabilities can participate in civic life.
One important way to ensure that Title II's requirements are being met in cities of all sizes is through self-evaluation, which is required by the ADA regulations. Self-evaluation enables local governments to pinpoint the facilities, programs and services that must be modified or relocated to ensure that local governments are complying with the ADA.
There is no "grandfather" clause in the ADA. However, the law is flexible. City governments must comply with Title II of the ADA, and must provide program access for people with disabilities to the whole range of city services and programs. In providing program access city governments are not required to take any action that would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the service, program, or activity in question or that would result in undue financial and administrative burdens. This determination can only be made by the head of the public entity or a designee and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. The determination that undue burden would result must be based on all resources available for use in a program. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a city government must take any other action that it can to ensure that people with disabilities receive the benefits and services of the program or activity.
Similarly, there is no exemption from Title II requirements for small municipalities. While public entities that have less than 50 employees are not required to comply with limited sections of the Department of Justice's regulations, such as maintaining self- evaluations on file for three years and designating a grievance procedure for ADA complaints, no general exemption applies. All public entities, regardless of size, must comply with Title II's requirements.
All city governments were required to complete a self-evaluation of their facilities, programs, policies, and practices by January 26, 1993. The self-evaluation identifies and corrects those policies and practices that are inconsistent with Title II's requirements. Self-evaluations should consider all of a city's programs, activities, and services, as well as the policies and practices that a city has put in place to implement its various programs and services. Remedial measures necessary to bring the programs, policies, and services into compliance with Title II should be specified -- including, but not limited to: (1) relocation of programs to accessible facilities; (2) offering programs in an alternative accessible manner; (3) structural changes to provide program access; (4) policy modifications to ensure nondiscrimination; and (5) auxiliary aids needed to provide effective communication.
...
written by Sarah , August 15, 2010
written by Sarah , August 15, 2010
Thanks BJ, I'm familiar with ADA requirements. My concern is that we are more focused on saving money by avoiding the needs of our disabled citizens and employees, than we are with providing an accessible environment. Never heard a word about this from staff that I can remember.
Here is what I wrote to Dr. Weser:
We need the facilities to meet ADA requirements even if we don't legally have to, don't you think? I am quite sure we can find enough architects in the neighborhood to do a walk-thru for free, and give us an idea of what it would take to make the place ADA compliant. In my past life I was a commercial interior designer and space planner so if push comes to shove I can brush up on the codes and maybe you and I could do a walk-thru, take some photos.
Here is what I wrote to Dr. Weser:
We need the facilities to meet ADA requirements even if we don't legally have to, don't you think? I am quite sure we can find enough architects in the neighborhood to do a walk-thru for free, and give us an idea of what it would take to make the place ADA compliant. In my past life I was a commercial interior designer and space planner so if push comes to shove I can brush up on the codes and maybe you and I could do a walk-thru, take some photos.
...
written by BJ , August 15, 2010
written by BJ , August 15, 2010
Sarah,
Email the city Manager. There is state law and federal law when it comes to ADA. She can walk you through it.
Email the city Manager. There is state law and federal law when it comes to ADA. She can walk you through it.
...
written by Sarah , August 15, 2010
written by Sarah , August 15, 2010
Okay I am going to email Dr. Weser about that. He is the only Council member that responds to my questions.
...
written by AHMatron , August 15, 2010
written by AHMatron , August 15, 2010
AHPatron - - Say what? None of it is ADA. It all pre-dates the law and was grandfathered in. If you'd been to any meetings you'd know that the big fear about doing ANY of the needed repairs or even fixing the roof is that it might trigger the ADA requirements.
...
written by AHPatron , August 14, 2010
written by AHPatron , August 14, 2010
Dear AHMatron,
Quit spreading false information!
All City of Alamo Heights municipal facilities are currently ADA compliant.
Your statement is categorically wrong.
Quit spreading false information!
All City of Alamo Heights municipal facilities are currently ADA compliant.
Your statement is categorically wrong.
...
written by JDD , August 14, 2010
written by JDD , August 14, 2010
AHMatron and JAK suit yourselves. The fact is this about attacking the new members not about what is good for AH. How is it that when I complained about the lack of good sidewalks for wheelchairs and disabled, the cabal on this room went ballistic LOL
...
written by AHMatron , August 14, 2010
written by AHMatron , August 14, 2010
Why does JDD keep blaming staff and perpetuating the lie about 4 years of deficits and using up reserves? None of that is the truth. Those were simple campaign lies. (Some folks rely heavily on lying, see current McNay Hermitage controversy).
I agree with JAK44. The downtown PAC now owns the council majority. I guess it's not so easy throwing rocks from the inside. As for not building the facilities, well, I'm still waiting to see Prassel's facility plan for half the price that he talked about during the campaign. I just hope they get on with that before a. all our police and firemen leave b. we get a giant lawsuit for not being accessible to the handicapped or c. the building falls down.
I agree with JAK44. The downtown PAC now owns the council majority. I guess it's not so easy throwing rocks from the inside. As for not building the facilities, well, I'm still waiting to see Prassel's facility plan for half the price that he talked about during the campaign. I just hope they get on with that before a. all our police and firemen leave b. we get a giant lawsuit for not being accessible to the handicapped or c. the building falls down.
...
written by JAK44 , August 14, 2010
written by JAK44 , August 14, 2010
The 3 new council members are a majority - any decision either good or bad rests with them. They and their ardent supports like JDD should have realized that both praise and criticism comes with the job.
...
written by JDD , August 14, 2010
written by JDD , August 14, 2010
JAK I agree, use the posted budget. I am fairly convinced however that you, Bud,Maxwell,and others are determined to find fault with the three newest councilman before all else. I don't understand it and it makes reasonable discussion impossible.
...
written by Maxwell312 , August 14, 2010
written by Maxwell312 , August 14, 2010
To Retired - you must not realize that the Mayor has no vote. I'm not thrilled that Rosenthal or McCormick agreed to bring this budget forward. I know that Rosenthal wanted a balanced budget. But the vote is 3 new members for the budget and that beat out the other 2. From what I can see, the "slate" owns this deficit budget.
...
written by Maxwell312 , August 14, 2010
written by Maxwell312 , August 14, 2010
Should Council people be presenting information that isn't made available to the public? How do we know if what was presented is correct? Is this a way to get around posting things on the agenda and keeping us in the dark like the old days?
...
written by JAK44 , August 13, 2010
written by JAK44 , August 13, 2010
JDD my apologies for confusing you with someone else. Since you have dominated the budget discussion, I inadvertently attributed the statement to you when it should have been Retired on Retama.
Since the chart you referred to is not part of the budget, I suggest that we stick to the official document listed on the city web page. I too could produce charts and graphs and manipulate data but think it best to stick with facts we can all easily identify.
Doing so keeps all of us honest.
Since the chart you referred to is not part of the budget, I suggest that we stick to the official document listed on the city web page. I too could produce charts and graphs and manipulate data but think it best to stick with facts we can all easily identify.
Doing so keeps all of us honest.
...
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
JAK I don't live on Retama and I am not retired. There really are more of us than you think. That was proved I'm the last two elections. If you quote someone, it is a courtesy to get the name right :-)
...
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
JAK. It's not posted? I guess if you weren't at the council meeting, you wouldn't have seen it. I don't have a copy of it. Counciman Weser put it on the overhead after the budget presentation.
...
written by JAK44 , August 13, 2010
written by JAK44 , August 13, 2010
Lordy, Lordy, BUD ticked off somebody.
To quote JDD - "Today's abnormal economy could easily be the new normal and we all have to live with it."
To misquote Margaret Thatcher " socialism works great until you run out of [other people's] money".
To quote JDD - "Today's abnormal economy could easily be the new normal and we all have to live with it."
To misquote Margaret Thatcher " socialism works great until you run out of [other people's] money".
...
written by JAK44 , August 13, 2010
written by JAK44 , August 13, 2010
JDD - please be more specific as to the location of the chart within the budget.
...
written by Retired on Retama , August 13, 2010
written by Retired on Retama , August 13, 2010
JDD is correct.
Bud isn't.
You put the blame on the 3 new guys which you opposed and lost, yet you don't mention Mayor Louis Cooper, or Councilmen Stan McCormick or Bobby Rosenthal.
I bet Bud wants the $150,000 Dog Park and no new taxes.
It is so easy to sit here and b***h anonymously than to take a reality pill.
Today's abnormal economy could easily be the new normal and we all have to live with it.
So, Bud, what is your suggestion? How do you trim spending $2 million? Would you close down the Police Dept? Don't like that--how about laying off all the firemen? That would save $2 million. You don't like that either? THEN WHERE WOULD YOU CUT?
And, if you don't cut $2 million then you must raise taxes by $2 million which would actually be about a 50% increase in everyone's property tax. Is that OK with you?
And as I remember Bud supported the $10.3 million City Hall bond issue ($17-18 million with interest). Other than Budd, is there anyone here today who still thinks that was a good idea. Thank goodness Prop 1 failed or we would be in a mell of a hess.
Bud isn't.
You put the blame on the 3 new guys which you opposed and lost, yet you don't mention Mayor Louis Cooper, or Councilmen Stan McCormick or Bobby Rosenthal.
I bet Bud wants the $150,000 Dog Park and no new taxes.
It is so easy to sit here and b***h anonymously than to take a reality pill.
Today's abnormal economy could easily be the new normal and we all have to live with it.
So, Bud, what is your suggestion? How do you trim spending $2 million? Would you close down the Police Dept? Don't like that--how about laying off all the firemen? That would save $2 million. You don't like that either? THEN WHERE WOULD YOU CUT?
And, if you don't cut $2 million then you must raise taxes by $2 million which would actually be about a 50% increase in everyone's property tax. Is that OK with you?
And as I remember Bud supported the $10.3 million City Hall bond issue ($17-18 million with interest). Other than Budd, is there anyone here today who still thinks that was a good idea. Thank goodness Prop 1 failed or we would be in a mell of a hess.
...
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
Bud you must not have seen the chart showing the deficit spending over the llast four years. When you use reserves to cover epenses that is deficit spending.
...
written by BUD , August 13, 2010
written by BUD , August 13, 2010
Can any of them even read a balance sheet? Red is Red on a bottom line. Didn't have thatblast year or I would have noticed.
...
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
If you spend more than you have, you have to get the money from somewhere. If you underestimate costs , you still have to pay for mistakes. Correct, only council can approve spending but staff spends it not council. JAK44 you are correct we don't have 20 mill. If this council couldn't balance, I am not ready to blame 3 men with only a little over 3 months on board. Defend the cost overuns if you must but to throw around the 'drinking koolaid' excuse is sophmoric. JAK hope you find the answers in the budget. I am guessing you are looking at the real budget as opposed to the hand out.
...
written by JAK44 , August 13, 2010
written by JAK44 , August 13, 2010
JDD must have swallowed the propaganda sent out during the election that we had no reserves.
Council has been spending the money from the bonds we sold to repair our infrastructure and that cannot be co mingled in the overall spending totals. It was separate monies with a designated purpose approved by the voters.
Not the same as spending our "Reserves".
I'm still going through the budget and so far can't see where the money will come for the 20 mil drainage projects for Broadway.
Council has been spending the money from the bonds we sold to repair our infrastructure and that cannot be co mingled in the overall spending totals. It was separate monies with a designated purpose approved by the voters.
Not the same as spending our "Reserves".
I'm still going through the budget and so far can't see where the money will come for the 20 mil drainage projects for Broadway.
...
written by BUD , August 13, 2010
written by BUD , August 13, 2010
JDD, you got it wrong. Staff can't authorize spending, only Council can.
...
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
Bud, wrong this is the fourth year of dipping into reserves. Cost overruns from last year are coming out of this years budget. I think they did a good job of preserving services while not raising taxes. BTW, the 10k for dog park and 15 k for community garden can not be used for any other purpose. It wouldn't be council spending it; it would be staff.
...
written by Sally G , August 13, 2010
written by Sally G , August 13, 2010
Bud, they run on fiscal responsibility as soon they forget. Deficit budget!
...
written by JAK44 , August 13, 2010
written by JAK44 , August 13, 2010
So did they use the money we got for the dog park to help balance the budget? I didn't think you could use grant money that way. Anybody know?
...
written by BUD , August 13, 2010
written by BUD , August 13, 2010
Deficits are bad for everyone and we didn't have any until the new boys showed up.
...
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
written by JDD , August 13, 2010
Whoa folks, commitments and spending were made long before May and now we are paying for it. The council chose not to increase your taxes during a recession and they cut spending where they could. I am not happy about spending reserves either but debt has to be paid. Could staff have anything to do with the spending and cost overruns?
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register (free) if you do not have an account yet.
