Cheers and jeers to Toledo City Council

Cheers to Toledo City Council for taking the first step to reign in personnel costs by voting in favor of an ordinance to limit 'pick ups' of employee pensions. Jeers to them for spending capital improvement monies to do a design and engineering study for a solar field and for funding CareNet.

Let's start with the cheers:

The ordinance before them last night would prohibit the city from negotiating or implementing a pick-up of the employee portion of the state-mandated pension contribution under the Ohio Public Employees Retirements System (PERS). This does not apply to the unionized workforce - only to exempt employees hired after Dec. 31, 2008. Under this new law, the city cannot offer and/or provide the funds to pay the employee portion in lieu of wages or other compensation.

This is a good move and positions the city well for asking for similar concessions from the unions.

For the jeers:

While $65,000 is less than the originally proposed $200,000 for a design/engineering study, it's still money the city doesn't have to waste - and certainly not on a project that the private sector should be doing. When this was first suggested, I had a conversation with an engineer who specializes in solar fields. He was shocked to hear the $200,000 figure and said that most studies for the size being considering by Toledo (5 acres) should cost only about $50,000. But that's beside the point.

There is no reason for the city to spend this money - and no reason for the city to build a solar field - at least, not for the purposes stated of 'building the city's reputation in the solar industry.' How many businesses do you think are going to decide to move to Toledo because we spend $5 million or so building a solar field? None...not when our tax structure makes other areas more attractive for making a profit.

And then there is the lack of designation of a site for the solar field. Mayor Carty Finkbeiner has suggested it could go near the water treatment plant, but there wouldn't be enough space in that location, unless the city takes over the golf course.

According to proponents of the idea, it would take about 15 years to recoup the investment through savings achieved. That's 15 years to see a return on our investment. But as the solar engineer told me, the technology in the solar area is changing rapidly and technology that today is state of the art will be outdated and obsolete in a few years, much less in 15.

If this is such a good idea, let the private sector do the study and build the field. If no one in the private sector is interested in putting forth their own money for it, that means it isn't worth the cost and the city shouldn't 'invest' our tax dollars either.

Jeers also go to council for funding CareNet. They voted 10-0 (Michael Ashford was not at the meeting and Frank Szollosi did not arrive until after the vote) to allocate $32,500 for the program. What most people do not realize is that the funding does not cover any services for clients. It helps cover the administrative functions of running the program, keeping track of doctors who volunteer their services and making sure they don't get referrals that exceed their agreed-upon numbers.

Last year, District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski raised the money for this from all private sources. He demonstrated that there was no need for the city to provide this money since the money was available from the private sector. However, it appears that the administration and council don't want to work that hard and just decided that our tax dollars should be used instead.

I wonder how much our city council members have contributed to this cause? If it's worthy of spending other people's money, isn't it worthy of spending your own? Inquiring minds....

Public or private funding for CareNet?

That's the question ... and it's a good one to ask.

CareNet is a non-profit organization that connects individuals without insurance to health care providers. Their clients are primarily low-income who fall in the gap of earning too much money to qualify for public assistance, but not enough to afford the cost of health insurance. Their $300,000 (+/-) yearly funding pays for the administration and tracking of the clients, and the recruitment and monitoring of the volunteered provider services.

CareNet was started in 2003 by former Toledo mayor Jack Ford who put together the coalition of funders. The program is run through the Hospital Council of Northwest Ohio. As one of the major founders, since 2003 the City of Toledo has contributed money out of the general fund for the operations.

Last year, current mayor Carty Finkbeiner did not include funding for CareNet in the 2007 budget. Toledo City Council did - and the organization got around $62,000. This year, Carty again eliminated funding from his proposed 2008 budget. And it looked like Council was going to again fund the organization. But Councilman Tom Waniewski (the new District 5 representative who took office the first of January) objected to using general fund dollars for a non-profit organization and asked for a two-week delay on the vote to see if he could find private funds to take the place of the city's 'obligation.'

And, to the surprise of many in city government, he was successful. Turns out, there are quite a number of organizations and individuals who are willing to put their own money into supporting this great organization. The contributors even included Carty and three city administrators, but, interestingly enough, not one member of city council was willing to put their own money into the effort.

Now that funding for the organization is set for 2008, the city should start working with them to arrange a permanent replacement for the general fund dollars. That there were donations this year is a good indication that such an alternative will be successful on a permanent basis.

But today's Blade editorial seems to think otherwise, with the headline of "CareNet a public duty." And I have to ask - why? Why must funding for this organization be the responsibility of the taxpayers if there are private funds which can provide for its operations?

According to the editorial, the private funding "...should not suggest, however, that the city be let off the hook from providing CareNet support in the future." They say it's a worthwhile and, for some, a necessary program.

They also say, "We believe the city has a reasonable obligation to help fund CareNet and should continue it." But they don't explain WHY the obligation is there.

They do say: "Private funding will help relieve pressure on the city budget, to be sure, but it could be withdrawn. CareNet is too important to live hand-to-mouth from year to year."

If this is, indeed, the case (and there is no evidence that it is), then why shouldn't the priority be to find a stable source of non-public funds? Why is it that the only solution the editorial offers is to continue to use our severely limited tax dollars?

Here's my question for city council and The Blade:

If this is such a great program and is so worthy of public dollars - to the point where the public should be taxed more or give up other services to make this a priority - how much did you contribute of your own funds before taking from the rest of us?