The City of Bloomington Parks & Recreation Department is required to present their annual budget proposal to the Bloomington City Council at a budget hearing each year for approval. (Remember, the legislative body approves the budget of a public organization. In this case, that’s the Bloomington City Council). Your assignment for this week is to analyze the 2021 Bloomington Parks budget proposal that was presented in August to the City Council (pages 76-117). Answer the following questions in your analysis based on what we discussed about budgets this week:
Link to Bloomington Parks Budget Presentation below:
2021 Bloomington Parks Budget Presentation.pdfPreview the document
1 â Planning
How is the next year (2021) for Bloomington Parks going to be the same or different from the experience in 2020?
2 â Coordinating & Communicating
A budget should express some of the key priorities of the year and what the fiscal environment is that the organization is experiencing. What priorities can you identify based on this budget proposal? What fiscal environment are they experiencing?
3 â Monitoring Progress
In addition to dollars and cents, a budget should also express the goals and measurable results that the organization has. Identify some of the goals and measurable outcomes in this budget proposal.
4 â Evaluating Performance
With the measurable results that the budget should have, the effectiveness of the programs related to those measurable results can be seen. How is Bloomington Parks evaluating performance in this budget proposal?
Sample Solution
at least, the development in Part Service highlights the need for appropriate criteria to prevent further differentiation. In the context of civil law jurisdictions, the Halifax criteria is ultimately imperfect. If we compare the substance of the referred questions in both cases, there is a core element common to both. This further supports the argument that only one concept of abuse exists. As VAT is an object of common policy and interpreted in such a way that does not exactly match other areas of taxation, it follows that abuse may be countered in the absence of rules in this domain. According to Pistone , Part Service has proven that even in the field of a harmonised area such as VAT, there are significant differences between common and civil law systems with regard to anti-abuse provisions. Pistone contends that it would be up to the Court of Justice to fill in these gaps via future case law; in his opinion, there should not be a different remedy or test in an area such as VAT which is harmonised across the Union. 6.5 Two different concepts corresponding to two distinct needs Finally, Vanistendael argues that in the context of indirect and direct taxation, the two different concepts correspond to two distinct needs. Thus the Court was justified in setting a separate standard in balancing the fundamental freedoms and the effectiveness of national tax systems. Technically, VAT is secondary European law, yet it functions much like domestic tax law. The issues central to both Halifax and Part Central did not involve fundamental freedoms nor cross-border issues. As cross-border issues under fundamental freedoms are primary EU law, there is an extra dimension here; not only must the balance be obtained between legality and effectiveness (as it is in domestic law), the Court must also balance between the fundamental freedoms and the effectiveness of the national tax system in question. It is the>
at least, the development in Part Service highlights the need for appropriate criteria to prevent further differentiation. In the context of civil law jurisdictions, the Halifax criteria is ultimately imperfect. If we compare the substance of the referred questions in both cases, there is a core element common to both. This further supports the argument that only one concept of abuse exists. As VAT is an object of common policy and interpreted in such a way that does not exactly match other areas of taxation, it follows that abuse may be countered in the absence of rules in this domain. According to Pistone , Part Service has proven that even in the field of a harmonised area such as VAT, there are significant differences between common and civil law systems with regard to anti-abuse provisions. Pistone contends that it would be up to the Court of Justice to fill in these gaps via future case law; in his opinion, there should not be a different remedy or test in an area such as VAT which is harmonised across the Union. 6.5 Two different concepts corresponding to two distinct needs Finally, Vanistendael argues that in the context of indirect and direct taxation, the two different concepts correspond to two distinct needs. Thus the Court was justified in setting a separate standard in balancing the fundamental freedoms and the effectiveness of national tax systems. Technically, VAT is secondary European law, yet it functions much like domestic tax law. The issues central to both Halifax and Part Central did not involve fundamental freedoms nor cross-border issues. As cross-border issues under fundamental freedoms are primary EU law, there is an extra dimension here; not only must the balance be obtained between legality and effectiveness (as it is in domestic law), the Court must also balance between the fundamental freedoms and the effectiveness of the national tax system in question. It is the>
