Unaswered questions

I have a lot of them, so I thought I'd start a list.

On the City of Toledo/Village of Ottawa Hills fire department merger:

* How can Ottawa Hills save money AND Toledo save money when transferring the responsibilities of staff and operations from one to other? Common sense says that both cannot be true as the costs are not actually being reduced. It may be true that Ottawa Hills will save money if they shut down one of their stations, but if they can pay Toledo less than it costs them to run the department, Toledo cannot assume those costs and save money since we already know that the amount of reimbursement is less than the full expense.

* Ottawa Hills will pay a set fee for 20 years. But in that 20 years, the costs of salaries for the individuals will rise (this is government employment after all). Also, there will be increased maintenance costs for equipment and facilities as they age and, eventually, a need for replacements. Other factors, such as inflation, will also raise the costs. Why would Toledo accept a set fee for 20 years in an amount less than what it's currently costing, knowing that the costs will increase in that time? What provisions are we making for evaluation of the costs?

* The union has said it will file a grievance as the authorized strength of the Toledo Fire Department is currently at 103 and this merger take the staffing above that number. What are the costs of fighting this grievance and what are the potential costs to the city if we lose?

On the shooting in Arizona:

* I understand why so much attention is - rightly - focused on Representative Gabrielle Giffords. We also know that a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl were killed. But why aren't the names of the others who were killed mentioned more prominently - at least, as prominently as the ridiculous claim by idiots that Sarah Palin, tea parties and conservatives are to blame? In case you've missed it, here are their names:

John Kroll (63) - a Federal Court Judge

Gabe Zimmerman (30) - one of Congresswoman Giffords' aides

Christina Taylor-Green (9) - an elementary school student and granddaughter of Major League Baseball executive Dallas Green

Dorwin Stoddard (76) - a pastor at Mount Avenue Church of Christ. Stoddard's wife Mavy was wounded in the leg, but is expected to recover.

Phyllis Scheck (79)

Dorthy Murray (76)

On the decision by Toledo City Council to begin discussions with Lucas County for garbage service:

* If the city is willing to allow Lucas County to take over the task, why didn't we just privatize the service years ago? Why did we purchase all new equipment (automated trucks and garbage cans for everyone) if we're just going to turn over the department to someone else?

* In the past, the reason for not privatizing was the union contract with the Teamsters which requires Toledo to keep all the workers and, if we don't, to still pay their PERS contributions (which include the city portion AND the employee portion). If the city's contractual obligations prevented us from making any changes to the department in the past, won't it still prevent changes today? And, if not, what makes the difference in terms of the union contract? (Having read the contract, I don't see any - but then, I use common sense.)

* Lucas County thinks that other jurisdictions may want to join their new service which will result in greater participation and, thus, lower costs. But what other jurisdiction in Lucas County would want to turn their current service over to the county? All of them already have a process by which they handle their garbage and the people in those jurisdictions seem rather happy with their options. Basing a decision on the 'hope' that other jurisdictions will help give us a quantity of scale seems, well...foolish.

* What members of council and which mayor were stupid enough to agree to a union contract that requires the city to continue to pay into the PERS system for any employee of the garbage department whose job is transferred???? That's insanity and certainly NOT in the best interests of the citizens of Toledo.

Toledo City Council says 'no' to fire fees

Kudos to the 10 members of Toledo City Council who voted against imposing the proposed fire department fees last night.

District Council members Michael Ashford, D. Michael Collins, Mike Craig, Tom Waniewski and Lindsay Webb along with at-large members Phil Copeland, Joe McNamara, George Sarantou, Betty Shultz and Frank Szollosi, all voted no.

The first vote on the measure (which was 6-4 in favor with two absences) failed due to a lack of enough votes for passage. Council President Mark Sobczak, who voted yes both times (along with District Councilwoman Wilma Brown), had previously said he'd spoken to the individual who voted no and thought he had his seventh vote to ensure passage.

But a funny thing happened along the way: the public got involved. And because of the overwhelming emails and phone calls, the four original no votes stayed the same and four of the original yes votes switched to no, resulting in the defeat of the measure.

There are many people who think their instructions to their elected servants fall on deaf ears - that their phone calls and emails don't mean anything. That perception is widespread and there are many votes which can be used as an example. However, as we've seen with this fire billing vote, when we all speak with firm instruction and with explanation of the consequences of not listening, they will heed us. And the more that we provide feedback and instruction to them and the more likely they will be to do as we instruct.

IMPORTANT: If you took the time to call or email council on this issue, be sure you take the time to call or email and thank them for making the right decision. So often, we tell elected officials what we don't want them to do and we fail to thank them when they make good decisions on our behalf. Having been an elected official, I know how important it is to hear 'thank you' from your constituents.

Toledo City Council: 419-245-1050

Michael.ashford@toledo.oh.gov

Phillip.copeland@toledo.oh.gov

Joe.mcnamara@toledo.oh.gov

George.sarantou@toledo.oh.gov

Betty.shultz@toledo.oh.gov

Mark.sobczak@toledo.oh.gov

Frank.szollosi@toledo.oh.gov

Wilma.brown@toledo.oh.gov

Mike.craig@toledo.oh.gov

Dmichael.collins@toledo.oh.gov

Tom.waniewski@toledo.oh.gov

Lindsay.webb@toledo.oh.gov

Need for fire tax eliminated by savings from garage consolidation

Last week, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner announced that he was going to combine garage facilities and that the city would save $500,000 by doing so.

This was great news and very welcomed by residents, especially because these cost savings had not previously been identified in any of the proposals or ideas for addressing the city's budget deficit.

So here's my question. Since the city just came up with $500,000 in savings they didn't previously have, do we still need to impose fire department billing which they 'hoped' would generate $500,000????

According to Carty, his balanced budget contained $500,000 of new income from these fees, but did not include the garage consolidation. With the consolidation saving $500,000, there is obviously no need for new fees of $500,000.

Right???

It's a tax, no matter what Toledo City Council calls it

Today at the agenda meeting for Toledo City Council, they will again discuss Fire Department billing of citizens.

I've been listening to WSPD this morning and the comments that were made by Council President Mark Sobczak - and I can only wonder if he's actually read the ordinance.

The first thing he said is that this is a 'soft billing' only - they will bill the insurance companies and if they insurance company doesn't pay, nothing more will happen. Here's the text of the ordinance:

If it can be reliably determined that there is no insurance coverage for a particular emergency incident which causes the Toledo Fire Department to use, or incur loss, damage, and wear and tear to apparatus, tools, equipment, and materials; the City may recover any such fees from the person or entity that received said emergency services or the person or entity responsible for the debts and obligations of the person or entity that received such emergency services.

and this:

Recipients of the services of the Toledo Fire Department shall be invoiced directly under the terms of this ordinance if they do not carry insurance sufficient to cover the impact to the City of Toledo’s loss of capital or material.

Granted, it does say 'may' in one section and 'shall' in the other ... but if the city has no intention of billing individuals, the ordinance should clearly say so. In this case, it says that if your insurance isn't sufficient to cover the bill, recipients "shall be invoiced directly." That's not soft billing. And even if Council believes what they're saying about soft billing, we've had way too many instances in the past of such 'intentions' going by the wayside when the city wants more money.

Then there is the claim that since citizens have this coverage as part of their basic insurance policy, this won't really cost them anything. Do they not understand that the cost of fire insurance for all people/companies will go up over time if this is passed?

There is a cost for insurance, even if you never have a need, because actuarial tables which determine those costs are based upon many factors in your area or similar demographics. Either the members of council who believe this are completely and totally ignorant and shouldn't then be trusted with making such decisions on council, or they are intentionally distorting the issue in order to make it seem 'okay.'

Sobczak also says that the city needs more money. Well, so do I. Unlike the city, I don't have the ability to arbitrarily increase my income. And every time the city decides to impose such costs on me, I have to cut out something in order to be able to afford them because, unlike the city, I anticipate and plan for future costs I may have to pay.

Sobczak then throws in the gratuitous, but ever-popular, leftist misdirection by saying that those of us who actually read the ordinance are just trying to throw a bunch of misinformation out there because we've got an interest in protecting 'big insurance.'

Yeah - right.

I'm far more interested in protecting myself than I am my insurance company. And acting in my own self-interest, I've actually read the ordinance and found that it's going to cost me a lot of money - either through a direct billing if I have a need for such services or through increased insurance rates if the legislation is actually passed.

That Sobczak - and most of the other members of council - don't understand this is no surprise. They've never had to run a business or actually make a profit, so they do not comprehend of unintended consequences of such decisions. They also don't seem to understand that every policy and decision has a cost - and often, the cost is greater than the claimed 'benefit.'

In this case, the city may - I repeat - may realize $500,000 of revenue from this tax. But how much will they lose in the long term when citizens and businesses leave the area or avoid coming here because these 'costs of living' and tax structures/rates are so high? We know this is already occurring, considering the decline in Toledo's population and the consistently high unemployment rates (higher than other urban areas in the state for the last 20 years or so) ... which is part of what put the city in the mess in the first place. How much worse will the financial situation get and will the further erosion of the tax base be more detrimental than the $500,000 they hope to raise? Undoubtedly.

Councilman Joe McNamara, in several emails to constituents, has said that the city's income isn't what it used to be and there is 12% unemployment and loss of population. So, he reasons (though not logically) the city needs to tax the people who are still here, even though he just stated that many of those people have lost their jobs. Can you say 'stuck on stupid'?

And while City Council is considering raising this tax on people, they are NOT moving forward with the privatization of garbage collection. Despite having an arbitration decision earlier this month stating that it will NOT violate the city's contract with Teamsters Local 20 if the city subcontracts for garbage collection, no ordinance to do so has yet been submitted to members of council, despite the claimed $3 million of savings each year. But Council did vote to expend over $9 million to purchase new cans for everyone (which they will somehow bill us for in the future - the cost and the interest, that is) despite not knowing how, exactly, they would pay for the cans.

And just last week Mayor Carty Finkbeiner found that the city could save another $500,000 by combining city garages. This was a new idea to save money and it was welcomed by the citizens, though it raised a serious question. The Mayor and City Council have previously said they've cut everywhere they possibly can and there are no other areas of savings in the city. Then they announce this 'savings,' completely destroying any credibility these politicians had left when it comes to Toledo's budget.

So if the city can come up with this new cost savings plan - and I'm glad they did - what else might they be able to do that they haven't yet 'discovered'? And why aren't they all going over the city with a fine-toothed comb before considering increased taxation on the citizens? Well, that's the question of the day.

Then there is the side issue of just how callous the city is being in sending a bill for engines, gloves, boots and 'do not cross tape' to people who have just lost everything they have in a fire. Aren't these Democrat members of Council supposed to be the party of compassion?

The fire tax failed last time by a vote of 6-4. It is scheduled for either first reading or a vote on May 26th. District 6 Councilwoman Lindsay Webb asked for a public hearing on the matter the last time it was up for consideration, but didn't have the support of her fellow members of council.

You need to act - or we'll all be faced with more government taxation.

Mayor Carty Finkbeiner: 419-245-1001
mayor.toledo@toledo.oh.gov

Toledo City Council: 419-245-1050

Michael.ashford@toledo.oh.gov

Phillip.copeland@toledo.oh.gov

Joe.mcnamara@toledo.oh.gov

George.sarantou@toledo.oh.gov

Betty.shultz@toledo.oh.gov

Mark.sobczak@toledo.oh.gov

Frank.szollosi@toledo.oh.gov

Wilma.brown@toledo.oh.gov

Mike.craig@toledo.oh.gov

Dmichael.collins@toledo.oh.gov

Tom.waniewski@toledo.oh.gov

Lindsay.webb@toledo.oh.gov

And if you don't live in Toledo, this still impacts you. This billing is for any person or entity that receives services, including people who are travelling through the city, so those of you who come into our fair city have every right to express you opinion, too.

Fire Department billing back on the agenda

Despite having been voted down the last time, the plan to bill for fire department responses has turned up again - just like a bad penny.

Here is the text of the ordinance, including the billing amounts:

ORD.

Establishing and implementing a program to charge the cost of fire service fees within the response area of the Toledo Fire & Rescue Department; and declaring an emergency.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
The Toledo Fire & Rescue Department (TFRD) provides fire suppression, emergency, and rescue services in and around the City of Toledo. The TFRD is equipped with and utilizes certain apparatus, emergency tools, equipment, and materials as a means of saving lives and property. Furthermore, the purchase of said tools, equipment, and materials is a significant expense for the City of Toledo.

The persons or entities requiring emergency services in the City of Toledo, and for whom the referenced apparatus, tools, equipment, and materials have been utilized have resources including insurance coverage that will reimburse the costs associated with the use, loss, damage and wear and tear to said tools, equipment, and materials incurred in connection with the act of rendering emergency services to said persons or entities.

The Toledo City Council deems the establishment and implementation of fire service fees for the City of Toledo is in the best benefit of the citizens of the City of Toledo through which beneficiaries of fire services are required to pay a fair and reasonable share of the cost of loss and wear and tear to apparatus, tools, equipment, and materials used, so that a safe and appropriate level of service can be maintained and made available to the City. NOW, THEREFORE,

Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Toledo:

SECTION 1. The City shall have the authority to establish and implement a program of fire service fees and bill both persons and entities for the reasonable costs that are related to the use, loss, damage, and wear and tear to said apparatus, tools, equipment, and materials necessary to provide the fire services and 911 response rendered to said persons and entities, subject to the conditions and limitations of this ordinance.

SECTION 2. The Mayor, Director of Finance and the Director of the Department of Fire & Rescue may make rules or regulations, and from time-to-time may amend, revoke or add rules and regulations, not consistent with this Section as they may deem necessary or expedient in respect to billing for these fees or the collection thereof. Any rules, regulations, amendments and addition to such rules shall be available for public inspection at each fire station and shall be filed with the Clerk of Council.

SECTION 3. The following fees may be assessed and collected for usage of apparatus, equipment and materials:
APPARATUS/PERSONNEL
Apparatus / Price per Hour**
Engine - Class A $500.00
Aerial $750.00
Tanker/Tender $500.00
Rescue (Light)-Brush Truck $425.00
Rescue (Heavy) - SERT/TRT $600.00
Batt. Chief / Shift Commander $200.00
other Chief Officer $75.00
Support Unit*** $250.00
** The minimum usage charge for any item in this list is one hour, and for any additional hours or portions thereof, the charge will be prorated using 1/4 hour increments.
*** Support Units include but are not limited to Mobile Command Posts, air trailers, Light Trailers, Generator Trucks and Rehab Units.

(charts of other fees)



SECTION 4. The City is authorized if it so deems necessary the establishment of a third-party billing and revenue recovery contract with a professional services company, hereinafter referred to as an “authorized agent”, qualified to bill and recover the uniform charges and with established valid reputation in recovering such charges.

SECTION 5. Fees shall be recovered by the authorized agent for services provided by the fire departments authorized to operate within the City of Toledo. Fire department administrations shall utilize applicable incident report information provided to the authorized agent as the basis for the charge and recovery of Fire Service Fees for each incident the City authorizes.

SECTION 6. The City, or their authorized agent, subject to the conditions and limitations of this ordinance, shall submit an invoice to the person, entity or relevant insurance company covering the particular loss for the emergency services rendered. If it can be reliably determined that there is no insurance coverage for a particular emergency incident which causes the Toledo Fire Department to use, or incur loss, damage, and wear and tear to apparatus, tools, equipment, and materials; the City may recover any such fees from the person or entity that received said emergency services or the person or entity responsible for the debts and obligations of the person or entity that received such emergency services. Recipients of the services of the Toledo Fire Department shall respond freely and cooperatively to fire service inquiries (including those of their authorized agent), regarding their insurance coverage. Recipients of the services of the Toledo Fire Department shall be invoiced directly under the terms of this ordinance if they do not carry insurance sufficient to cover the impact to the City of Toledo’s loss of capital or material.

SECTION 7. All amounts collected as a result of this Ordinance shall be placed into the General Fund of the City of Toledo into an account deemed appropriate by the Finance Director of the City of Toledo.

SECTION 8. It is found and determined that all formal actions of this City Council concerning and relating to the passage of this Ordinance were passed in open meetings of this City Council, and that all deliberations of this City Council and any of its committees that resulted in such formal actions were in compliance with all legal requirements, the Ohio Revised Code and the Toledo Municipal Code.

SECTION 9. That this Ordinance hereby is declared to be an emergency measure and shall be in force and effect from and after its passage. The reason for the emergency lies in the fact that same is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and property, and for the further reason that this Ordinance must be immediately effective in order to maintain a high level of quality emergency services by the Fire Department.

Call your city council members (419-245-1050) or send them an email ... They work for you!