Lucas County levies and a warped sense of 'necessary'

We'll decide on at least two county-wide levies in November, thanks to the Lucas County Commissioners who voted to put them on the ballot.

The Zoo will request approval of a .85 mill 5-year renewal levy for their operating expenses. It will generate approximately $6.4 million and cost the owner of a $100,000 home about $26 each year. If approved, the levy would be collected in the years 2012 through 2016.

The County will request approval of a renewal of the 9-1-1 and Communications System levy. It is a .70 mill 5-year levy that will generate just under $5.6 million and cost the owner of a $100,000 home about $21.45 each year. It, too, would be collected in the years 2012 through 2016.

These are renewal levies, which mean they will collect the same amount of money as the current levies do.

Something many people don't realize, though, is that state law limits taxation within counties to ten mills. But Section 5705.19 of the Ohio Revised Code provides authority to the Board of County Commissioners (and other governmental entities) to levy a tax in excess of the ten-mill limitation for various purposes. Those 'excess' taxes go to the voters for approval.

What is interesting is the actual language of the law which says (emphasis added):

The taxing authority of any subdivision at any time and in any year, by vote of two-thirds of all the members of the taxing authority, may declare by resolution and certify the resolution to the board of elections not less than ninety days before the election upon which it will be voted that the amount of taxes that may be raised within the ten-mill limitation will be insufficient to provide for the necessary requirements of the subdivision and that it is necessary to levy a tax in excess of that limitation...

It then gives a list of things for which taxes can be imposed and the list is so long it goes through the alphabet just 3 letters short of twice! Of course, many of the items on the list are far from 'necessary.'

This law actually says that Ohio governmental entities (except schools) should live within a ten-mill taxation budget. But if they don't - or if they want to spend money outside that limit - they can vote to put levies on the ballot to pay for everything from parks, to emergency services, to air pollution, to regional planning, to wetlands and green space, to 'free' museums of art or science or history.

Are all of these things "necessary requirements" of a government? I don't think so.

In fact, I couldn't find anything that governmental entities couldn't tax for, as I'm certain politicians would be able to find permission under one - if not multiple - sections of this law for any whim or desire.

Certainly, some of the projects on the permissions list are necessary. If a local governmental entity is ordered by the state or federal government to implement flood protections or waste/sewer projects, they would need the ability to pay for such mandates and a tax (preferably temporary) would be a proper way to do so. (Though such mandates from the federal government are questionable in their Constitutional authority - but that's a post for another time.)

A valid argument can even be made for the 9-1-1 Communications levy being a 'necessary requirement.' I'm certain individuals who have called 9-1-1 and had their lives saved as a result would agree.

But no amount of twisted logic or faulty reasoning can make me believe that a zoo is a necessary requirement of any area. It may be 'wanted' or 'desired' and people can even present rationalizations about how it is an 'economic development driver' or 'money-making tourist attraction.' But it's not necessary, as many areas without zoos can attest.

The problem is that granting entities the ability to tax above and beyond the ten-mill limitation means that elected officials are free to spend their ten-mill monies on all kinds of 'unnecessary' items because they can always find a way to fund other expenses through the excess taxing authority of ORC 5705.19.

And, over time, the list of items for which we can be taxed has grown far beyond 'necessary requirements.' Just for reference, my taxation for Lucas County's general fund is only 10% of the total amount of taxes I pay for county-wide items - $62.83 of the $613.11 total.

(You can check your own rates by going to the Auditor's AREIS website, putting in your name or address, clicking on the 'data' tab above your name/address, and then selecting 'tax distribution' which is highlighted in red on the left. Be sure to add up the 'Lucas County,' 'other countywide levies' and 'other' sections.)

Clearly, I'm being taxed for unnecessary items simply because the commissioners (in the case of county-wide levies) have decided to put these things on the ballot. Just because we 'can' tax for all kinds of things, it doesn't mean we 'should.'

Sadly, the commissioners - and the politicians in Columbus who keep expanding the taxing authority - have a warped sense of what 'necessary' really means.

And all of us are paying for it.



NOTE: The local paper is reporting that a third levy request (1.4 mills renewal for Children Services Board) wasn't voted upon, but the Commissioner's website Resolution Report for yesterday shows three 'yes' votes on that resolution.

Will township residents be double-taxed for 911 dispatching?

Most people who live in a township or pay attention to the local media will know that Lucas County is trying to get townships to pay for the cost of road patrols and dispatching from the Sheriff's Department.

This is in spite of voter rejection of recent levies in several townships to cover these costs.

One of the sticking points in the discussions deals with the 911 Levy as approved over several elections by voters.

Originally, this levy was supposed to cover the cost of dispatching. From an October 20, 1996 Blade article, "LEVY PUTS 911 SYSTEM - DESIGNED TO SAVE LIVES - AT RISK 911":

But the $5 million system - which was set up to answer calls with the speed of a computer - is on trial.

Weary of higher taxes and moved by union opposition, voters turned down a 0.9-mill levy in March.

Now, they will decide whether to approve a 0.7-mill tax to keep it alive for the next five years.

The tax would raise $4 million a year to run the system and make improvements.

Those include ``breaking up'' the downtown 911 station into six smaller centers to be scattered across the county to speed response times.

``We're talking about taking 911 to the next level - and bringing it into the next century,'' said Sandy Isenberg, president of the Lucas County commissioners.

But so far, there's no contingency plan to keep the phones ringing at 911 if the levy fails.

If it goes down, there wouldn't be any money to pay the 911 operators and their supervisors past Dec. 31.

``No one's going to be here to answer the phone,'' said Doug Kemp, data manager for 911 .

It is clear from this report that call-takers and dispatchers are covered by the cost of the levy.

From the same article:

Here's a snapshot of what the new levy would do:

* It would bring 911 calls closer to home.

As it now exists, if a frantic Sylvania mother dials 911 for help because her child has fallen down the steps, the call goes to the 911 center at 2144 Monroe St., in Toledo.

Then, the message is sent via computer to a dispatch center in Sylvania. From there, a rescue vehicle is sent to the scene.

Under the new plan, the call would go directly to Sylvania, eliminating the middleman in Toledo, and allowing the local operator to immediately send an ambulance. System officials hope to shave the response time by up to 45 seconds.

``In life-threatening situations, seconds can mean everything,'' said Tom Bodi, director of the 911 system.

This obviously describes dispatching as part of the services provided by the levy.

The 1996 levy included funds for upgrading the equipment, as county officials currently claim as the purpose of the levy. But news reports also show that the funding of the entire system was at risk, including dispatching, if the levy failed.

But just in case there was any doubt, a February 23, 1997 Blade article, "9-1-1 SPELLS QUICK HELP," further clarifies what the system does:

When a call comes in to 911 , an operator obtains necessary information from the caller, decides the priority of the call, then transfers the call by computer to the appropriate emergency dispatch system. Once the local dispatcher receives the emergency request - which takes just seconds after 911 operators obtain the needed information - a police, fire, or rescue crew is sent to respond to the call.

But changes to the system resulted in localized call centers run by the various municipalities. However, as reported in May of 1997, "Each community is to receive about $21,000 annually to help pay for operator salaries...", meaning that levy monies were still paying for dispatching.

In September, 1997, when the suburban call centers went on line, The Blade reported:

The decentralization of the main dispatch center is paid for by a five-year, 0.7-mill levy approved in November.

The levy raises about $4 million annually.

Subsequent reports in the paper over the next two years referenced the point that the suburbs took over paying 911 dispatchers in their own communities. But those news stories fail to mention that the county continued to subsidize those salaries with levy money. It's also important to note that the Lucas County Sheriff dispatchers, which service the townships, were NOT part of the decentralization.

In 1999, the Lucas County Commissioners decided to upgrade and expand the Emergency Services Center on Monroe Street to "put Toledo police call takers and Toledo fire department and Lucas County dispatchers under one roof on the same floor."

In 2000, officials began discussions of the levy's renewal scheduled for 2001. Because of a provision in state law, this renewal was treated as a 'new' levy, taxed at the current property values and generating a bit more money as a result. News reports from 2001 show that the levy would be used to operate and maintain the 911 system. The additional funding would go toward a countywide communications system for public safety personnel. That levy was approved by voters.

In 2006, the levy was up for renewal, but officials wanted a replacement levy - the same millage charged against current property values, resulting in more money for the county. As explained at the time, the funds would continue to support the maintenance and operation of the 911 system and pay for enhanced inter-agency communications among first responders. That levy was also approved by the voters.

So what does this really mean? Over the years, the levies have been advertised as funding the call-takers and dispatchers as well as the maintenance and operation of the system. Even when the county decentralized the dispatching to the suburban cities, they subsidized the salaries of the workers. However, the townships continued to receive dispatching through the Sheriff's dispatchers, funded by levy dollars.

But with time comes increased costs in wages and benefits, along with everything else. Through the years, the funding did not keep up with the costs. New equipment, necessary for today's needs, was purchased and had to be maintained. Which is why the county finds itself in a position of asking - rather, demanding - funds from the townships to pay for costs the levy no longer covers because of decisions made by those same county politicians.

The elected officials have known for years that the increased personnel costs they approved with their votes on union contracts would mean less money for other purposes. With a finite set of money from the levy, the scenario of needing additional money is a no-brainer and easy to predict.

So now the county wants even more funds from certain jurisdictions to cover increased costs the county is responsible for. The Commissioners and Sheriff know that a levy request for such things probably wouldn't go over well. Increasing a levy to cover increased personnel costs when many who would pay the levy haven't seen pay increases or might not even have a job anymore is, well...dumb.

So rather than go after all county residents, they've decided to go after the townships, extorting cash for promised safety.

The townships are right to raise the question of what, exactly, the levy was supposed to pay for versus what it's actually covering. They've got valid reasons to believe dispatching is a service they're already paying for and the township trustees owe it to their taxpayers to ensure they are not double-taxed.

Too bad the Commissioners and Sheriff don't realize the same thing, especially knowing that township residents are their constituents as well.