Thurber's Thoughts is back!

photo via Wikia.com

First, please accept my apologies for being gone from regular blog posts for so long.

While writing for Ohio Watchdog, I channeled much of my "thoughts" into those articles. When that assignment concluded at the end of 2015, I decided to take a break. However, I accepted work on another project that had absolutely nothing to do with politics.

That commitment prevented me from devoting time to my blog, but that is also concluded so...

I'm back.

And boy is there a lot to say.

We can start with everyone's favorite complaint:  potholes and the state of Toledo's roads.

For over a decade, I've been warning anyone who would listen that transferring money out of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) fund and into the General Fund to pay for every day expenses was a bad idea.

Eventually, I explained, we'd run out of money in the CIP and wouldn't have anything left for capital items - like roads and other expenses with a life of five years or more.

Wouldn't you know it, I was right and that mess erupted in the first part of the year when Mayor Paula Hicks-Hudson and Toledo City Council decided to ask voters to approve an increase in the payroll income tax.

Fortunately, that measure went down to defeat - resoundingly.

But it hasn't solved the problem that the city doesn't have enough money for capital items because they've raided more than $110 million out of the CIP fund.

And it's not just this mayor. Every "strong" mayor had a hand in creating the problem: spending more than what they took in and spending money on non-essential items.

Want to know just how ridiculous things got?

In February 2012, Toledo City Council *discovered* they had about $1 million more in revenue than they budgeted. But they were planning to transfer nearly $12 million out of the CIP to balance the budget. So instead of reducing the amount of the transfer to $11 million, they decided to spend that $1 million extra instead.

And what did they spend it on? A new filing system for city council and a temporary employee; additional funds for demolition of houses; additional inspectors in code enforcement, even though the department said it didn't need any; an executive director to run the previously discontinued Toledo Youth Commission; and a consultant to create an Historic Preservation Plan.

The irresponsible spending continues while former Council finance committee chairman and current City Treasurer George Sarantou, Toledo City Council and the mayor try to find a way to come up with more income rather than find a way to cut spending.

You see, there's no where else they can cut.

(At least, that's the story.)

So that's how we started the year and now we're looking at a sweetheart deal for Promedica, the city and the Metroparks.

Prime waterfront property on the East Side across from The Docks has been sitting undeveloped for decades.  Various developers have come and gone and finally, Dashing Pacific Group bought it.

Their plan was to develop it with shops and housing and take advantage of the wonderful waterfront and the new road and light posts the city installed to help with development.  But they haven't done anything on it yet and the city had a clause in the sale that said it could buy back the property after five years.

And it should tell you something about Toledo when all the developers who've had a chance at this have failed to actually *develop* prime waterfront property.

We must be the only city in the entire country that can't make a go of prime waterfront property.

But back to the sweetheart deal...

The city really doesn't have the cash to buy back the property, so Promedica has agreed to purchase the property from Dashing Pacific.  They will hold it for a bit and then sell it (for the purchase price) to the Metroparks.

The Metroparks will then make this prime waterfront property a park.

Never mind that the Metroparks has two levies that property owners pay.  In fact, the most recent one in 2012 was a 10-year levy that was supposed to generate funds for developing new parks, maintaining existing ones and preventing budget cuts. How much do you want to bet that they'll need another increase when they purchase about 100 more acres and then want to make this prime waterfront property into a park area?

Something about this isn't quite right. Why does Promedica want to purchase the land only to sell it to the Metroparks?

Can't Dashing Pacific sell it to the Metroparks without a go-between?

If the city has the ability to buy back the land, why don't they do so, especially if they've got a willing buyer in the Metroparks?

Are there some restrictions with the funding sources used to clean up the property and install roads and street lamps that prevents it from going directly to another governmental entity like the Metroparks?

Inquiring minds....

And then there is the Southwyck property.  The mall sat unused for - well, no one really remembers how long because it was such a long time.  The city finally got the property from the owner, tore down the buildings and decided to market it as an open area for development.

Oh - and they borrowed money to do the demolition.

Now there is a buyer but the city is looking at a loss on the project. As one city councilman said - they didn't buy the land in order to make a profit...

But here's the thing.  They still have a loan and, according to various media reports, they (or rather you and I) are paying about $70,000 in interest every year on that loan.

So the city is going to pay off the loan with the income from the sale, right?

No - this is Toledo, so wrong!

The city isn't planning on paying off the loan but putting the money into the CIP fund. So you and I and every other taxpayer is going to continue to pay about $70,000 in interest so the city can spend that income elsewhere.

If you're wondering what they're thinking at city hall, see above story about the 2012 budget.

Sadly, this is par for the course.

So that's the start. Coming up I'll take a look at the absolutely insane Toledo ordinance that forces any company doing business with the city to have a union contract - even if they're a non-union company. Talk about forced unionization!  Here I thought it was the union's job to organize but Toledo's Project Labor Agreement ordinance actually puts the city at the bargaining table with project bidders and forces them to adopt a union contract.

That'll be a long post so I'll save it for Monday.

Toledo CIP - source of all for everything - is running dry

In his State of the City address today at the Toledo Rotary (viewable here), Mayor Mike Bell said he wants to restructure the Capital Improvement Plan funds in order to borrow $28 million for street paving in 2012 and 2013.

The problem is that Toledo City Council has decimated the CIP fund over the past several years in order to cover general fund - or every day - expenses. This has left us with virtually nothing in the CIP to cover the necessary CIP expenses like road repair.

Council transferred funds because they just couldn't find anywhere to cut, despite funding things like Easter Egg hunts, hip hop concerts, arts projects and a host of other unnecessary (though desirable by some) items. In fact, tomorrow they will vote on transferring another million because revenue they expected from the new casino isn't yet coming in due to a delay in the casino opening.

Despite warnings that routinely relying upon the CIP to balance the general fund would lead to shortages in the long-term, council continued to do so.

Now we are faced with borrowing $28 million to cover our necessary expenses because there's nothing left. Interestingly, this will be the highest amount of debt issued since 1998 - more than twice the $13.5 million that was issued in 2003.

Toledo transferred out $7 million in 2011 to cover the 2010 budget deficit. They depleted their rainy day fun years ago. I believe the last time I added it up, it was around $50 million that had been taken out of the CIP and transferred into the general fund to cover every day expenses.

If council had just lived within its means and not transferred the money out of the CIP, we wouldn't have to borrow anything in 2012-13 to pay for road repaving.

But since Toledo voters approved letting council raid the CIP, there is no incentive for them to not do so. They spend the money knowing they can just raid the CIP to cover their pet projects and special programs, expecting to let future councils deal with the consequences.

Fortunately, the 3/4% payroll income tax will be on the ballot this year and Toledoans will have a chance to tell council "NO!"

All the goals of the new Recreation District Steering Committee accomplished in a single blog post

Note: I had this post mostly finished yesterday morning when I suddenly lost access to the city of Toledo website. Since several points were dependent upon information on the website, including the budgets for the past several years, I delayed the post until I was able to gather the information.

This latest by the city definitely qualifies for 'stuck-on-stupid' status.

On Tuesday, Toledo City Council approved Ordinance 531-11 to establish a 19-member Recreation District Steering Committee. The purpose of the committee is to explore and identify recreational opportunities, especially for seniors and youth.

According to the legislation the committee will:

study issues related to the challenges facing our residents including seniors and youth in accessing affordable recreational opportunities and to determine how to maximize existing resources, develop partnerships, explore funding sources; and declaring an emergency.

Sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? After all, certainly it is the role of Toledo City Council to "study" the "challenges" facing our residents in "accessing affordable" recreational opportunities.

I guess I didn't realize just how much difficulty people had in getting access to entertainment. Last I checked, a deck of cards was clearly "affordable."

According to the background section of the legislation:

This committee shall provide insight and recommendations to Toledo City Council on how to inform the community as to the current recreational programs, investigate how the City helps to deliver current recreational services, identify any overlap in current recreational opportunities, investigate how collaboration can better exist between private and public partnerships and what funding sources can be identified.

Yes, you read that correctly. The committee will provide "insight" to the council so council members will know how to inform the community about current recreational programs.

My head hurts just reading that.

Council members should already know what recreational programs the city runs (many of which they don't *need* to do, especially in light of the current fiscal issues) and if they don't know how to communicate with their constituents, they shouldn't be an elected representative in the first place. Why do they need a 19-member committee to provide such "insight* to them?!?

But, Maggie, you say, they're going to identify overlap in current recreational opportunities. Isn't eliminating duplication a good thing?

Actually, it doesn't require the elimination of duplication, it just charges the committee with identifying duplication. Do you really think Toledo City Council is actually going to eliminate something it is doing?!?

Besides, if you want to identify duplication, you don't need a committee to do so. Just make a public request to all in the area and ask them to let you know. I guarantee that if there is any city *recreational opportunity* that is being duplicated by a non-profit or private organization, the non-profit or private organization already knows about it.

Unlike government, such entities are usually quite familiar with their competition.

I'm not even involved in many such programs and I can identify duplication. How about the city's Easter egg hunts - though it's officially called EGG XTRAVAGANZA since they don't use the evil religious term "Easter." There are plenty of communities and churches and organizations that do an Easter celebration so there is no need for the city to duplicate it.

One down...how many to go?

What about the Ottawa Park Ice Rink? That's in competition and duplicates what is already available from the private sector - and the private sector offers year-round availability.

What about Youth Baseball. Aren't there plenty of leagues already existing without the city running one? The city offers baseball and softball for adults as well - as if adults aren't perfectly capable of finding or forming their own baseball league. They also have youth and adult basketball, women's volleyball and hockey. Oh - and a punt/pass/kick event just for good measure.

Duplication identified.

Sports not your thing? Well, how about the summer concert series in Ottawa Park? It's not like we don't have plenty of musical entertain options in our fine city, including a world class symphony.

Another duplication identified.

Are you a senior? Look what's available:

The programs offered at Friendship Park Senior Center include oil painting, ceramics, cards, bingo, bunco, walking, travel, shuffleboard, ballroom and round dancing, and computer instruction.

And we even have a senior levy that funds the Area Office on Aging which provides such activities throughout the entire county.

But that's not all. Don't forget Pumpkinarama, Caroling in the Park, Pitch/Hit/Run, Fishing Rodeo, senior dances and Skating with Santa (though you can see Santa any number of places in the city - for free!).

In fact, I have a friend who is the perfect Santa. I'm sure he'd provide the service of 'Skating with Santa' without the involvement of the city.

All of this is available and it was easy to find on the city's very own website - all without a 19-member committee. There's also the Internet and that amazing search engine called Google, which, when queried for "recreational activities Toledo" responded with 117,000 entries in .21 seconds, most of them not government-sponsored.

So there are two of the committee goals (identifying recreational programs and overlaps) already met. See how easy that was? And I did it without forming a committee!

One of the other goals is to "investigate how the City helps to deliver current recreational services." Well, since we've already identified the programs and the fact that all of them either are or can be offered by the private sector, there is no need to investigate anything. The city should just eliminate their programs since they are duplicating what is or can be available in the area. There is no need to waste anyone's time investigating anything.

In fact, the next listed goal, "investigate how collaboration can better exist between private and public partnerships," is rendered moot by the previous one. If the city lets the private (including non-profit) sector address the recreational needs of the community, there is no need for collaboration between public and private partnerships.

Two more goals of the committee accomplished.

But then we get to the final goal - and the crux of the matter: "what funding sources can be identified."

You see, too many people think that individuals who choose not to afford certain types of recreation and entertainment options should still be able to participate - for free. This is why the city offers so many of the programs free of charge, though many do have costs associated with them (sports, skating, etc...).

And let me be clear about the fact that it is a choice, no matter how much you earn. People choose how to spend their money. If they wanted to afford entertainment/recreational programs, they'd make that a priority in their budgets. That they don't choose to do so does not mean that the city should ensure their participation in such programs at the expense of other taxpayers.

Any funding sources which might be available for recreational opportunities should not include any public funds, so there should be no need for involvement from government.

It is not the proper role of government to present 'opportunities' for recreation. The private sector is perfectly capable - and, in fact, more capable through the process of market demand - of identifying what wants/demands exist and of meeting them, in a much more efficient and effective manner than government.

But that won't stop politicians and bureaucrats from validating their existence through the offering and management of such programs - or certain community organizations from supporting the public funding of such activities so they could get some of the money for themselves in the form of grants.

Toledo's budget for the Department of Recreation has been as high as nearly $2 million for a single year. Seriously! Fortunately for the taxpayers, the amount has decreased since 2008. Here are the yearly expense amounts for this department:

* $1,879,935 in 2008
* $1,290,212 in 2009
* $1,176,759 in 2010
* $ 940,795 in 2011
* $ 621,055 in 2012 (budgeted)

Think about it ... since 2008 Toledo has spent nearly $6 million on recreation - at a time when it was facing massive deficits (roughly $10 million deficit in 2008, $12.7 million deficit in 2009, a 2010 deficit once estimated as high as $35.5 million, and a 2011 deficit estimated to be between $5-8 million).

During these years, the city asked for renewal of the temporary (since 1982) 3/4% payroll income tax as well as permission to divert money "as needed" from the Capital Improvement Plan budget (CIP) to balance the budget. They also threatened layoffs of police and fire if the tax wasn't passed.

This certainly begs the question: why was/is spending on recreation still being done when the city has massive deficits, asks for continued taxation, diverts precious funds from the CIP and threatens layoffs?!?

The budget for the Recreation Department includes wages, benefits, overtime, pension, auto allowance, continuing development (educational training or reimbursement for educational classes), operational supplies, misc. supplies and temporary services.

Are these really more important than police and fire - or road repair funded through CIP?

I believe most Toledoans, especially those who do not participate in any of the city's recreational programs, would say "no!"

So if you eliminate the funding for the department as clearly not a necessity in these economic times, you eliminate the need to address funding issues. This leaves the private and non-profit organizations responsible for their own funding and allows Toledo government to focus on more important things - like how they're going to actually live within OUR means.

Last goal accomplished - all in a single blog post!

But that's not all...

As if everything I've written wasn't enough, the ordinance establishing the committee was declared an emergency:

That this ordinance is hereby declared to be an emergency measure and shall take effect and be in force immediately 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 peach, health, safety and property, and for the further reason that it is necessary to immediately begin the process that will result in a plan for action for recreational opportunities for both seniors and youth in the City of Toledo.

Really? We have to form a committee for the "immediate preservation of the public peach (sic), health and safety and property"???

Will wonders never cease? Who knew recreational opportunities were so vital?

And don't forget that there will be costs associated with this committee. Staff time will have to be devoted to taking notes and sending out notices (which will probably include postage); the city may provide coffee or other food stuffs for the committee; there will be a report which will have to be compiled and printed; there may even be public meetings which will require other costs to be incurred.

So we're going to incur costs for a committee to do what I was able to accomplish in a single blog post.

This is probably why Toledo has such issues - because we spend time on things like this rather than on the critical problems we're facing. This definitely qualifies for 'stuck-on-stupid.'

Toledo politicians just want 'more, more, more'

Mark Steyn recently wrote:

I see Andrea True died earlier this month. The late disco diva enjoyed a brief moment of global celebrity in 1976 with her ubiquitous glitterball favorite:

More More More
How do you like it?
How do you like it?
More More More
How do you like it?
How do you like it?

In honor of Andrea’s passing, I have asked my congressman to propose the adoption of this song as the U.S. national anthem. True, Miss True wrote the number as an autobiographical reflection on her days as a porn-movie actress but, consciously or not, it accurately distills the essence of American governmental philosophy in the early 21st century: excess even unto oblivion.

In case you weren't into disco, you can view the video here.

Apparently, Toledo is taking its cues from both Steyn and the federal government in always wanting more, as exhibited by the actions at last night's city council meeting.

Mayor Mike Bell asked city council to put the 3/4% payroll income tax renewal on the March ballot. The tax expires at the end of next year. But the kicker is that he wants to divert even more money from the Capital Improvement Plan budget (CIP) to the general fund.

Right now, the money from the 3/4% is split between the CIP, the general fund and police and fire. According to the most recent information I could find, the current allocation is:

* 1/3 for Police and Fire,
* 1/3 for the General Fund,
* 1/3 for Capital Improvements

However:

Until 12/31/12, all or part of this 0.25% may be reallocated to the General Fund at the discretion of the Mayor and City Council.

And that's exactly what they've done - reducing the amount of money going into the CIP so that they can balance the general fund because they don't want to cut anything.

The mayor's proposal for the renewal of this temporary (since 1982) tax is to further reduce the amount that the CIP is getting to only 1/8 of the collected amount. The only good thing I can say about this proposal is that at least he's planning to put it to a vote.

Basically, the 3/4% isn't a temporary tax because it is relied upon for regular and continuing funding of the city operations. It does have to go before a vote of the people on a regular basis, but our local paper has advocated for making a permanent tax. Last night, District 2 Councilman D. Michael Collins jumped on that bandwagon and suggested the same thing.

The problem is that this tax is used for whatever the council/administration want, eliminating the need to actually keep city government within its fiscal means. If they want to spend more money here or there, they just change the allocation of this temporary tax - preferring to use the funds for today's wants while decimating the ability of the city to meet long-term needs through the CIP budget, as the state of our roads clearly attest.

As near as I can tell, over the past several years, they've diverted over $50 million from the CIP to cover every day expenses - primarily because they don't want to make the difficult choices that need to be made.

Routinely, Toledo council has passed budgets which they call balanced, but which, upon examination, show questionable estimates in both revenue and costs (for some examples you can read here, here, here and here).

And routinely, the result is that we end up with budget deficits at the end of year, as we have again this year with an estimated $7 million deficit.

As I wrote in 2009 - and still believe today:

If we keep raiding our capital budget, we won't have any money for structural items like roads, which are a major expenditure out of that fund.

Additionally, I'm tired of city council changing the allocation of this TEMPORARY addition to our payroll taxes. It was originally presented in 1982, the year I graduated from high school, as a temporary tax, but the city relies upon it as a permanent source of revenue. They've continued to spend as if they will always have this income - and the voters have continued to vote in favor of renewal because they're told doom and gloom will result if they don't.

Why did city council want to change the allocation in 2008? They wanted to put more money toward the CIP and they used that idea - and road improvements - as a reason for Toledoans to vote for it. Now, they've decided they want the money for their own pet projects in the General Fund, so they want to again raid the future (CIP) for the present (General Fund). Of course, the ever-present appeal to fear that they need the funds for police and fire, will be utilized.

Well, if they stopped funding all the non-mandatory items, perhaps they'd actually have the funds for the essentials - like police and fire. It's what we do with our own budgets but something government, and Toledo in particular, seems to not understand.

I mean, really, do we need to spend $150,000 on a study about a solar field on the landfill - or money for police and fire? That is the question council should be asking - but they don't. They spend money on such 'studies' while then telling the voters they've cut everywhere they possibly can and there just isn't any money left.

Yeah, right.

I wish the voters would tell council no on Issue 1. Not because I don't want more of those dollars allocated to police and fire, but because council needs to be sent a strong message that they can't just keep moving money around to suit their needs. This ballot measure robs Peter to pay Paul - and costs us more in the long-term than the temporary change will gain us for 2009.

This is still true - and with the mayor's latest proposal, it is continuing. The city's spending routinely exceeds revenue and, instead of reducing the spending, they just transfer money from the CIP, sacrificing our future so they don't have to risk political repercussions for making the decisions we elect them to make.

So the mayor is urging council to put this on the March 2012 ballot. If it doesn't pass then, he'll put it on the ballot in the summer and, if it still doesn't pass, he'll put it on the ballot in November. In effect, he'll keep asking until, like weary parents, the voters give in.

What I wrote in 2009 is even more relevant today as council - and Toledoans - consider the plan to renew the 3/4% payroll income tax which will continue to give council the ability to rob our future for the convenience of our present:

City Council and the Mayor need to learn to live within their means - actually, to live within OUR means - and to make better decisions, not play a constant shell game with our tax dollars.

Less tickets means less money

Today's paper has an article about the decline in filings by Toledo Police in the Toledo Municipal Court.

According to the article, traffic filings in May were 1,165. That's only 34% of the number filed in the same month last year. Criminal filings were down 34%.

While criminal filings don't generate a huge amount of revenue, traffic citations do. If the traffic filings continue at this pace, the city could see an overall reduction in revenue of a similar percentage and I'm am absolutely certain that the city did not budget for a 66% decrease in traffic revenue.

In fact, the 2009 budget shows about a $200,000 increase in revenue for the Municipal Court in the city fines and court costs categories, which are the line items for traffic citations.

Unintended consequences - but only because council and the administration failed to take them into account.

Most of the younger officers are the ones who were laid off. They're also the ones most likely to be on road patrol and writing tickets. When I was the Clerk of Toledo Municipal Court, I could tell when a new police class took to the streets strictly from the increase in the number of traffic citations. That's what they do.

With the layoffs, the reallocation of staff within the department and the re-prioritization of work, it's no surprise that traffic citations are down. It should have been expected that the corresponding revenue would also decline. But the city planned for an increase in revenue, completely contrary to what they should have done.

So now the city is without 75 officers and the money saved from those layoffs is greatly reduced by the lack of revenue those officers were producing. Additionally, the city will have to find some way to make up the decreased revenue since the current budget was based upon the original numbers. Of course, I don't expect them to do so with more cuts...

The administration and council have not inspired confidence with their budgeting over the last several years. This is just one more example of why the city is in the hole.

City still claims cameras are about safety, not money

Today's paper has an article about how the city is hoping to generate $2.5 million in income from red-light and speed cameras.

Of course, the income last year from the cameras was about half that, but under the city's logic, with the summer months and more people on the road, there will be more violations and more revenue.

But the problem is when the police chief is quoted as saying this is not about money - it's about safety. Eight paragraphs about how the cameras are being counted on for their revenue, with quotes from the finance director - and then two paragraphs about how it's about safety.

If safety is really the issue, then why did they increase the fines from $90 to $120 and increase the city's percentage of the fine from 25% up to 54.2%?

Well, because they need the money. And, despite the Chief's comments, the administration is counting on the money to help balance the budget. The deficit for the year is still around $12 million, though that is down from $27 million projection.

And before you start in on the 'if you don't break the law' arguments, this is not about whether or not you should run a red light or speed to get through an intersection when the light is getting ready to change to red. You shouldn't do those things.

But if you do, you deserve to have your day in court where you can challenge the accuser and question the accuracy, where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty and where your rights under the Constitution are protected - not ignored. That doesn't happen with the cameras.

Under Toledo's law, the picture is prima facie evidence that you've violated the law and the camera is presumed correct and no challenge to the accuracy is possible.

Additionally, if you are the registered owner of the vehicle, you are the guilty person. If you prove you were not driving the vehicle because you were out of town at the time of the infraction, you still must pay unless you name the guilty party. Know of any other offense where the only way you are not charged is to find the guilty party yourself???

Finally, you do not have the same rights as others accused of violating a traffic law because the city treats this as a civil offense - not a criminal one - so no right to a trial or representation, etc. The hearing officer who conducts any 'appeals' of the fine is hired and paid by the city. Regardless of the individuals personal integrity, the appearance of conflict is clear.

This is not about safety. Despite the claims by the police chief, the accident date has been referenced but not released. Every other city that has implemented these cameras has seen accidents increase, despite the decrease in the type of accidents caused by running a red light. Those cities realized they just exchanged one type of accident for another.

Besides, if it was really about safety, the city would have done what the National Traffic Safety Board has recommended: conduct a study of the intersection and its approaches to determine WHY there are red-light accidents and address those problems first, increase the amount of time the lights are yellow to allow more time to clear an intersection, go to 'all red' lights where all lights are red in all directions for a short period of time prior to some turning green.

Toledo did not do any of these things - they just added the cameras and counted upon the income to help meet their budget.

And mark my words - if they get away with these, there will be more. Already the city has added the speed cameras to the intersections to increase the revenue, and the mobile speed van to catch speeders. Redflex has stop-sign cameras and railroad crossing cameras. Do you really think the city won't be adding them in the future?

Get your petitions today - or stop in to Delaney's Lounge (309 W Alexis Rd # 3
) and sign a petition to put the issue on the ballot for a vote. Even if you support the cameras, you should want this on the ballot so that the voters can have their say on the issue.

***-Sepp at Uncommon Squalor has a few choice words on the matter as well....

The good and the bad in Toledo's 2009 budget proposal

Mayor Carty Finkbeiner delivered a balanced budget proposal to Toledo City Council members last night, as he was required to do by law. It's a very lean budget with some good and some bad ideas.

Below is the information provided to City Council, with my notes following. Please note that some of the figures I reference are projections because the City has not yet closed out its 2008 accounts, so the final figures are not available.

Revenue Assumptions:
• Income Taxes are estimated to decline in 2009 approximately 2.09%, or $3,603,078 from the 2008 estimate, reflecting 2007 levels.

In 2008, Incomes Taxes were estimated to be 2.5% more than in 2007. Interestingly, 2007 estimates were 2.6% higher than in 2006. The problem is in current collections. According to the October Finance Committee report, as of September 2008, overall tax revenue to the city was down "nearly 6% from 2007." The only way to tell if this is a good projection would be to compare it to the 2007 final amounts.

• Property Taxes are estimated at $18.6 million for 2009. This is a decrease of about $200K. This decrease is due to a decline in property values and a rise in the number of delinquencies.

According to the spreadsheet the administration provided to council in October, the 2008 budget for Property Taxes was actually $19.1 million - not $18.8 million as indicated in this statement. Additionally, the revenue from this category is down - 11% as of the end of August - so this revenue line item may be higher than can actually be expected.

• Estate Taxes are projected at $4.0 million in 2009.

2008 Property Taxes were estimated at $5.6 million. 2007 income in this category was projected to be $4.4 million, so this appears to be a realistic budget amount.

• Local Government Funds are provided for at $17.9 million in 2009, the same as provided for in 2008.

If state tax revenues and income continue to decline, is it realistic to expect that we will have the same level of disbursement from the LGFs in 2009, or should we budget for LESS than we received in 2008?

• General Fund Interest Income is estimated to yield $2.5 million in 2009, an increase of $200K over 2008’s budgeted amount but equal to anticipated 2008 actual revenue. Interest yield for 2009 is expected to be consistent with what we are experiencing in 2008.

As interest rates decrease, is it reasonable to expect the same yield as 2008? And if we have less income and less funds on which to earn interest, is this truly an accurate budget projection?

• Red Light Camera revenue is provided for at $2.584 million for 2009. While this is the same as for 2008 it reflects an increase over actual collections for 2008.

So what makes the city think that it's going to have INCREASED collections from these cameras in 2009? Every study - even from the camera companies themselves - show that income/revenue from the cameras decreases over time. So far, in 2008, red light/speed camera revenue is $750,000 less than expected. What evidence does the city present to document why they think they'll have 30% more income in this line item? Do they plan to add more of these cameras to get to that point? And what will happen if residents, like those in Cincinnati, pass a charter amendment to prohibit the cameras? These are the contingencies the city should think about and build into their budget projections.

• Refuse Collection Fees are projected at $4.7 million for 2009.

First, this is less money than what they budgeted in 2008, which counted on a 90% collection rate. What is the current collection rate and is it consistent with this much revenue?

Also, the city is currently in a lawsuit over the legality of this fee. What happens if they lose and the court determines this is actually a tax and not a fee? Not only will the revenue not be there, but the city may be forced to repay all it has collected. That contingency is not accounted for. Additionally, if the budget for trash collection is actually reduced, as planned, then the 'justification' for the additional fee - to fund the department - is no longer valid, thus increasing the likelihood that a court will see this 'fee' as a general revenue fund 'tax.' Now, the city may be confident in its position on the lawsuit, but ... what if???

• Cable Vision revenue is budgeted at $2.9 million for 2009. This is an increase of $260K, which is predicated on an increase in the franchise fee from 4.5% to 5% effective January 1, 2009.

• The Revenue Estimate assumes the transfer of $2 million from the Economic Stabilization Reserve in 2009.

I couldn't find an 'economic stabilization reserve' listed in previous budgets. So if this is the new name for the 'rainy day fund,' I'm not sure there will be anything left in that account after the city balances it 2008 budget. If it's not the 'rainy day fund,' then what is this fund supposed to do and why is it acceptable to use it for a purpose other than intended?

Budget Assumptions:

There are a lot of good things in the expense assumptions: no pay increases, elimination of vacant positions, increases in health insurance co-premiums, using grants instead of the general fund - for demolishing homes, elimination of tuition reimbursements, and some savings as a result of fully automating the garbage pickup and switching to one-man instead of three-man crews.

However, there are some not-so-good things in the expenses as well: a planned four-day shutdown may not be possible, considering the legal challenge being mounted by the unions; there are no police or fire classes, despite planned retirements; gasoline costs have gone down in the past two months and while this is a very unstable commodity, projecting costs in this area is very difficult; and the expectation that they will be able to balance the 2008 budget with no negative carryovers, despite a projected $10 million deficit.

The assumptions:

• Staffing for 2009 was based on the elimination of all vacant funded positions as of October 28, 2008. The only exception to this rule is vacant Communication Personnel positions in the Police Department.
• Labor rates were frozen for 2009 consistent with the expired bargaining agreements. Local 20 was increased by 3% as a result of the arbitration agreement for 2009.
• Overtime increased by $1.9 million excluding fringes for the General Fund in 2009. This change from 2008 was specifically within three areas: Police, Fire and Solid Waste. Police was reduced as a result of the closing of the NorthWest Station; Solid Waste was reduced as a result of the implementation of the Solid Waste Plan as described elsewhere. An increase in Fire was the result to fully provide for minimum manning in 2009.
• Severance is based on the 2008 estimate; Police & Fire changes were developed by Public Safety to reflect the potential impact of the DROP program in 2009.
• The 2009 Budget assumes pension pickups as appropriate by bargaining unit as follows: Local 7, Police, and Fire at 10%; 2058 and classified exempt at 8.5%; Local 20 at 8%, and unclassified exempt at 5%.
• Workers’ compensation is assumed at 5.3% (valued at $8.1 million) and fully provides for the 2009 Budget for the Workers Compensation plan including accrual of Incurred but Not Reported claims (IBNR) for 2009.
• Medical Budget increases are $540K (excluding co-premiums) greater in the General Fund for 2009 over 2008, and $1.75 million greater overall (including co-premiums as noted below).
• Medical co-premiums were also built into this amount (as a reduction) on the following basis: a full year for unclassified employees and Local 2058; a February 1, 2009 implementation for Local 7, and an October 1, 2009 implementation for classified exempt employees and Police.
• The City Obligation for debt on the Downtown Housing Projects is provided for at $978k for 2009.
• The Tax Transfer to CIP at 22% net of Tax Administration is estimated at $37.2 million in 2009.
• The Debt Budget is derived from the 2008 Book of Bonded Indebtedness for the 2009 budget. It also reflects changes anticipated in 2009.
• The 2009 Demolition program reflects a redirection of budget from 2008. Grants will provide for demolitions previously performed by the General Fund. Streets, Bridges, and Harbor will continue to perform these demolitions. It anticipates an overall reduction of demolitions in 2009 of 100 units.
• Downtown Employment Incentive Program (DEIP) amounts were provided by the Department of Economic Development at $593K for the year 2009.
• Layoffs are built into the 2009 General Fund Budget. It provides for four one-day layoffs for all non-essential personnel in 2009.
• There is no provision for Police or Fire classes in 2009.
• Utility Increases provided on the advice of the Department of Public Utilities Division of Utility Administration were as follows: Electricity @ 12% per annum or $392k over 2008; Gas @ 15% per annum or $166k over 2008; Water @ 5% per annum or $9k over 2008; Sewer @ 10% per annum or $40k over 2008; and Storm Sewer @ 25% per annum.
• Municipal Garage Costs were assumed to rise by $1.3 million in 2009, even after a 10% cutback as a part of a deficit reduction plan due to the significant increases in the cost of fuel, parts, and labor they have provided for in their 2009 proposed budget.
• Facilities Budget in 2009 is relatively flat due to an approximate 10% cut as a part of the same deficit reduction plan mentioned above.
• ICT and Printshop charges were reduced by approximately $175k, also as a result of the deficit reduction plan.
• Risk Management Fund Budget was increased by $333k over 2008.
• The Solid Waste Budget assumes the commencement of implementation of full automation in 2009 including the implementation of the “Columbus Plan” in January 2009. It also assumes the beginning of the deployment of the automated packers in September 2009, with the appropriate personnel and other changes necessary under the circumstances. (This is primarily the elimination of the current three person crews with simply a driver).
• The CJCC (NORIS) Budget was $1.58 million for 2008 and is being increased by $270k in 2009.
• The 2009 Proposed Budget assumes the following as related to Criminal Justice: Courtroom Security with no change in operation is provided at $1.9 million; the Jail contract with the County at $1.3 million; Work Release at $580k; no provision for Public Defender or Hospital Services (as a part of the contract to be signed with the County for the above mentioned Jail Contract); Pretrial Services at $787k; and Pretrial Detention at $1.29 million.
• The City is advising CCNO that in 2009 it will no longer pay for overutilization of beds for prisoners. This, in conjunction with the assumption that credits from them will remain relatively unchanged from 2007-8, will provide for a reduction of approximately $500k in 2009’s budget.
• The 2009 Proposed Budget reflects the first year of a five (5) year chargeback of the bonded portion of the SAP-ERP or $1.322 million for 2009 from the General Fund. The total cost to be recaptured for the bonded portion of the project is estimated at $11.5 million. However, as a part of the deficit reduction plan, reimbursement to the CIP for the implementation of the ERP in 2009, originally estimated at $1.3 million, has been deferred.
• The 2009 Proposed Budget eliminates all funding for Swimming Pools and the T.O.R.C.H. program.
• Both the Clerk of Courts and the Municipal Court are being requested by the Administration to reduce their budgets in 2009 by 5%. The proposed budget reflects the effect of this change at $309k and $429k respectively.
• As a part of the deficit reduction plan all tuition reimbursement has been eliminated in the General Fund for 2009.
• A layoff is programmed into the 2009 Proposed Budget to reduce personnel costs, net of estimated unemployment by $2.54 million.
• THE 2009 BUDGET ASSUMES THAT THE FINAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET WILL END THE YEAR WITH NO DEFICIT IN UNDESIGNATED FUND EQUITY. IT WILL BE ASSUMED AT ZERO FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PROPOSAL.

What's missing:

Despite some steps in the right direction, it appears from the preliminary information that no departments have been eliminated. The cuts are pretty much across the board without determining priorities for service and whether or not some of the existing services should be eliminated in favor of adequate/proper funding for mandated services.

And many of the questions I asked about the 2008 budget are still valid - and unanswered - including the impact of NOT making the planned changes as of the first of the year.

I hope, when budget hearings are held, we'll get much more interest in them than we have in the past, and that it won't be special interests lobbying for their particular line item.

Toledo must fund it's municipal court, Appeals Court rules

As I said almost a year ago:

"...case law in Ohio is strongly on the side of the Judges and Clerk to determine their budget and to require the local municipalities to fund their budget.
...
But here's the kicker - that council and the mayor would be wise to remember: In determining the budget for the Clerk and Judges, the burden of proof is not with the Judges and Clerk. It is with the municipality - and the municipality, in denying the budgetary requests of these two entities, must prove that such budgets are 'unreasonable.' And that's a pretty high burden of proof for the city to undertake...especially when courts have ruled that the financial condition of the city is not an excuse for not funding the 'reasonable' requests of the Clerk and Court."

And as a result of the most recent ruling from the 6th District Court of Appeals, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner now knows this. Whether or not he chooses to admit it, though, is another thing entirely.

"In the decision, the appellate judges said: "The Court's judges are in the best position to know how many officers are needed to effectively secure courtrooms and the courthouse, whether such officers should be full-time or part-time employees, and which agency would best be able to provide qualified officers."

Although acknowledging a court's "power to demand funding from a legislative authority is not without limits," the appellate judges said the city has a duty to fund "suitable Municipal Court facilities.

"We are not unmindful of the city's concern about budgetary funding. … Nevertheless, [the city] does not claim [the judges'] cost proposal for 2008 or 2009 are facially groundless or unreasonable," the appellate judges said. "Instead, the city appears to have merely reduced the court security budget as part of an 'across-the-board' cut in overall expenses, and expected the court to accommodate the reduction by lowering security levels.""

So Toledo has to provide the funds requested by the Court for 2008, despite looking at a $10 million shortfall to close out the year. And it will have to do so for 2009, as well, even as the city struggles with a projected $23 million deficit.

Is this enough to get the mayor and city council focusing on priorities and mandated functions? Will this order for funding cause them to start cutting non-essential activities? Or will they 'spread the pain' so they don't upset particular interest groups?

The budget is due out today, so we'll know shortly. And then the people can speak.

Priorities, not special interests

For the 2008-09 fiscal year, Ohio will spend $21.9 million on the Ohio Arts Council. That's down from their original biennial budget of $24.9 million, as a result of the state's budgetary issues.

In case you've never heard of the OAC, they are "a state agency that funds and supports quality arts experiences to strengthen Ohio communities culturally, educationally and economically. With funds from the Ohio Legislature and the National Endowment for the Arts, the OAC provides financial assistance to artists and arts organizations."

Some of the local recipients of funding from the OAC include the Young Artists at Work program through the Arts Commission of Greater Toledo, small amounts to Bravo Magazine, and college professors/instructors who've received fellowships (usually $5,000 or $10,000). They have provided operational support to the Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo Opera Association, the Toledo Orchestra Association, Inc., Toledo Ballet, Toledo Jazz Society, Toledo Botanical Garden and the Arts Council Lake Erie West. Money from OAC has also supported performing arts seasons at Lourdes College and Toledo Cultural Arts Center.

I have always had a problem with government funding of 'the arts.' I don't believe that government should fund any particular industry and the arts are certainly a particular industry. My basic premise is that individuals who so choose would fund arts - and probably be more capable of doing so if the government didn't take so much of their personal funds in the first place. Additionally, as with anything governments do, the bureaucracy established to 'administer' any dedicated funds takes its own percentage off the top, resulting in less funds than what individuals could provide without the third-party costs of government.

But - that's really not the point of this post. My point is priorities. Even if you believe government funding of the arts should be done, is it the most important thing government should do – and at the expense of other government spending?

In January of this year, Governor Ted Strickland announced $733 million in budget cuts due to the economic condition of the state. One of the biggest budget reductions was $31 million from the Department of Mental Health. Could the state have eliminated the OAC and, instead, funded the Department of Mental Health? Yes.

Another cut was to the Department of Aging which was to lose $17.9 million in FY 2008. Could the state have eliminated the OAC and, instead, funded the Department of Aging? Yes - and with some money left over.

What about the $25.8 million that was earmarked for the state Department of Development? Such funding is key to Ohio's chances of attracting and retaining businesses and their jobs, politicians tell us. What would have been a better use of limited tax dollars: attracting new businesses or subsidizing 'starving artists'?

Instead of going through the state organization and eliminating unnecessary or non-mandated functions, departments had across-the-board cuts. As a result, everyone was equally unhappy, but the size and scope of government was not really reduced. The hard part of governance is setting priorities and sticking with them. Every organization that receives funding through the OAC will lobby for continued funding. Everyone who gets funds will say 'don't cut us.' But politicians and decision-makers rarely ask: if we don't cut you, who should we cut? And if they do, the response is almost always: don't ask me - that's your job.

Well, if that's the case, then go through and eliminate the non-mandated expenditures. It's actually a very easy criterion to meet, but often so very hard to get politicians to do because they don't want to risk alienating any group of constituents who might decide to oppose them in their next re-election bid.

The City of Toledo is facing the same circumstance. We had city council members insist on funding the city's Youth Commission ($2 million in 2008) and pools (about $500,000). Council is now faced with a $10 million budget deficit to address before the end of the year, including a reduction in the number of recruits in the new police class.

So what is more important: pools and 'hip hop' concerts or police officers?

I pick police every time - and I think most people would, considering that, without police, pools and concerts might not be safe places to be.

And that's the point: priorities. we don't have good ones when it comes to government spending. What we have is the priority of elected officials to try and placate everyone so as not to make enemies, thus ensuring they continue to have support for staying in office. These elected officials stop representing us when their priority is such as this - and we are to blame, because we reward them with re-election while our city and state continue their slide to the bottom in terms of growth, population, employers and jobs.

So - what do you think our priorities should be? And what are you willing to do to ensure the politicians support them?

Lazy Sundays ... random thoughts

Snow, cold weather, Christmas tree with lights atwinkle, hot chocolate, good movies, staying in your pjs all day long ... these things have converged to give me a lazy Sunday.

Yes, I'll probably have to go out and shovel the driveway at some point, but considering that we're still expected to get some snow until around 5 p.m., it might be better to wait until tomorrow morning.

In the meantime, some random thoughts.

* I like Roberta de Boer's column on the budgeting survey Toledo City Council approved this week.

"Market research tells us what consumers want.

A political visionary reveals to us something about ourselves, about hopes we never knew we had. A political visionary gets us excited about traveling to a destination we have longed to visit, even though we never realized it existed.

In theory, anyway, I’m pretty sure we’re supposed to have some inkling about the vision of political leaders before we elect them."

* Area birders are out and about to do the annual Christmas Bird Count. I'm hoping the Snowy Owl is still about so he can be counted. I haven't seen him lately, but I have seen quite a few people driving up and down the streets looking for him.

* The Blade doesn't get it - again. They take exception to the President's description of a Portuguese language program as a 'wasteful project' that reflects the irresponsibility of Congressional spending. What the editors don't understand is that it IS a wasteful project because it's not something the federal government should be funding. Education is supposed to be a state issue, but the Congress, and even this President, seem to have forgotten that.

So when Congress spends federal monies to fund pork projects, it is a 'wasteful project,' even if it just happens to be tied to 'educational' purposes. We'd all be much better off if all the monies the feds spent on education was allowed to stay in the states in the first place.

But then there was this: "The amount of the earmark was a mere trifle in a multi-billion dollar bill." Yes, the age-old, "it's only" as an excuse for frivolous or unnecessary spending. Perhaps they should have gone back to read their first paragraph in which they include this quote about the bill: "nearly $10 billion over budget and filled with more than 2,000 earmarks." The problem, as this bill clearly shows, is that eventually, those "it's only's" add up to significant amounts - even for the federal government.

* It's currently 27 degrees, but it feels like 15...winds are gusting up to 20 mph and all my north and east windows are frozen over making it impossible to see outside. Time to see if there's a good movie on TV. Enjoy your day!

Cheers and boos to Toledo City Council - UPDATED

I discussed the City Council votes on numerous issues on Eye on Toledo last night (listen here), and today's Blade also has a recap. So here are the cheers and boos:

CHEERS to Michael Ashford for voting no on the $7.8 million Southwyck buyout plan.

"We are on the hook for $7.8 million, and he (Larry Dillin) wants the city to help him with a $17 million plan. We can't afford that," Mr. Ashford said. "He wants a commitment for 2008 and 2009 [capital improvements for the $4 million], which we don't even know yet."

He also questioned why the city of Toledo is the "middleman" buying private property, doing asbestos cleanup, and then selling it to a private developer.

That's a great question, Mike, and it's one I bet didn't get answered. But I - and I'm sure many others - appreciate your take on this one. NBC24 has a good explanation of the requirements the city agreed to - and a copy of the letter of agreement on the deal from Larry Dillin.

BOOS to the rest of council, especially the Republicans, who seem to think this is what constitutes economic development while they perpetuate other policies and taxation that make this city 'not business friendly.'

CHEERS again to Michael Ashford for voting against spending $35,000 to hire a company to survey 800 Toledoans about their budget priorities, especially considering the fact that both the University of Toledo and Bowling Green State University have the ability to do the same thing for considerably less.

BOOS to the 10 council members who voted in favor of the new convenience store licensing law (background here, here, here and here.) According to an email from one of my WSPD listeners, Councilman Joe McNamara called the proposed legislation 'Draconian' and was going to meet with Councilman Rob Ludeman (the sponsor of the legislation) Monday to see about making some changes. Changes were made - some good, some not - and McNamara urged passage of the law which reflected 'minor tweaking.'

Some of the 'tweaking' was not 'minor' and I'll be discussing this tonight on Eye on Toledo at 6 p.m.

CHEERS to Betty Shultz and Joe Birmingham for voting against this.

$35,000 to do budget survey and the question they should ask

Yep - that's right. Mayor Carty Finkbeiner is proposing to spend $35,000 to conduct a survey of Toledoans to find out their thoughts on the budget.

How much do you want to bet that the #1 response is to stop spending money on surveys?

But seriously...

In the April edition of Toledo's employee newsletter, the Mayor said he was going to do the surveys as part of the performance-based budgeting process (or outcome-based budgeting) he wanted to implement. The original plan was to do such outreach in the late summer and to have the departments use that information in formulating their goals for their 2008 budget. Obviously, that didn't occur.

But the city appears to be pursuing this type of a budgeting process and that's a really good thing. It's proven to be an inclusive and good method of budgeting in other cities. How inclusive such a process would be here would depend upon how involved they want the public.

So far, from what I've read and heard of this particular proposal for a survey, I'm not happy. In a city of 298,446 (July 2006 estimate), I don't think that a survey of 400, 800 or 1,200 will give you a comprehensive understanding of what the public wants.

I understand fully the methods by which such small numbers are surveyed and then extrapolated to 'represent' the viewpoints of the large numbers. I also understand that selecting such small numbers, in a way that gives a good representation of the large group is a skill and can be costly. So while it is important to get a good sampling, it's also important to provide an opportunity for all interested citizens to participate.

But, considering the current budget issues within the city, I'm not convinced that spending $35,000 to survey .1-.4% of the population is the most cost effective method - at least, not when other options for reaching more people are available.

Could we pay a significantly lesser amount to develop a survey and then put it on the city's website and make printed copies available in the libraries, police and fire stations, or even mail them out with our utility bills? What about public forums - the mayor holds them regularly. Wouldn't these options allow for more public input? And, isn't that what it's all about? Getting feedback from the community about their desires for the priorities in the budget?

Frank Szollosi had a suggestion for the poll as well.

"I'd also like to include a question on how people feel about their tax burden."

Personally, I'd like a poll that would ask me my top five priorities for spending. But, knowing only the top priorities doesn't help an elected official make good decisions. A critical question to ask is "what five programs or spending priorities would you cut in order to have your top priorities?"

If you don't ask this question, you'll get a list of things people want. And that's okay, but if you ask enough people, you'll find that everything government does is wanted by someone. So it's not enough to just ask for the top priorities.

If you ask this question, you'll get a good idea of what citizens DON'T want their money spent on - and that will give city council and the mayor good guidance for where to start reducing ... guidance they definitely need considering the reduction in criminal justice services that the mayor is proposing for 2008.

And the questions should be developed without 'control' of the elected officials. I don't want a question that asks "do you think flowers make the city look nice?" Most would answer yes to that question - but that doesn't mean that they want money spent on flowers versus something like roads or police cars or jails. I want questions measure intensity in addition to interest. I'm interested in flowers, for example, but my intensity for them is certainly far less than for other items.

Hopefully, if the city goes forward with this survey, they won't be limited to a very small targeted number of people - but will offer the survey to anyone willing to take it. And the questions will be such that you'll get good guidance - and not just what elected officials hope to hear. And, finally, they will actually use the information to formulate the goals and the budget for the city. And that would be a very good thing.

Toledo's 2008 budget - and blogging

Wanted to share with you a new website hosted by Toledo City Councilman Frank Szollosi: Toledo Budget '08.

I've already send Frank an email thanking him for posting this ... please make sure you take advantage of this opportunity to view and comment on next year's budget!

City Spending Updated

Well, at least the vote was 7-5 instead of unanimous for spending more of our tax dollars unnecessarily....

City Council approved $75,000 for Citifest, a non-profit organization that provides entertainment (festivals, concerts and parades) in downtown Toledo. Citifest is a good organization, but City Council said they had no where else to cut in the budget before imposing a garbage tax of $5.50.

Turns out, they did have places to cut and while they were willing to knock off $25,000 from the mayor's request of $100,000, this is still $75,000 that didn't need to be spent.

So, having the extra money from the garbage tax, they've now spent the first month's collection. Stay tuned - I'm sure this isn't the last update to our city spending.

Spend, Spend, Spend

Well, what did you expect. If a politician or political body has money - they spend it.

Last night, Toledo City Council voted to spend $39,900 on flowers for the 'gateways.' Interestingly enough, Point Place, which is the major north-south gateway into the city from Michigan and my home neighborhood, doesn't have any special type of entranceway or beautification project. However, the Anthony Wayne Trail does and so do Cherry and Summit Streets downtown. So even if beautifying the city's entranceways is a good idea, the major entrances to the city seem to be neglected. If this money is truely to provide a pleasant view for people entering the city, perhaps the locations of planting should be revised.

Then there is the Labor-Management-Citizens Center which got another $42,886 for a total of $113,314. Now, the LMC is a really great organization and, when I was the Clerk of Court, I took advantage of their services. Both my unions and I were very pleased with the assistance they provided. But the idea that the city just budgets money for an organization has got to end. L-M-C provides a service, but it's a service that other entities can also provide. The city needs to issue an RFP and then enter into a contract with a firm or organization to provide such services. By just listing L-M-C as an item in the budget, the city avoids the need to bid out such services and get the best price for the citizens who are footing the bill.

Finally, there is Sister Cities. I appreciate the work that Sister Cities does. They help to foster good relationships and better understanding, especially in a growing global economy. But they are not a necessity when it comes to the duties and responsibilities of a city. I believe they deserve individual support from citizens and businesses, but not our tax dollars - especially if it means that we need to pay an additional tax (garbage tax) so they can have funding. They got $50,000, but council was told there was a small carryover from 2006 and that was the source of the funds.

Total for the night? $132,786!

It's evident that none of our administrators and elected officials are thinking ahead. They had a small carryover from 2006 of $334,000 and they're going to collect one more month of garbage tax than they originally estimated which is going to generate $364,500. So, obviously, they have money to spend - right? WRONG!

According to earlier estimates, city staff is projecting the 2008 budget deficit to be around $18 million. Wouldn't it make more sense to NOT spend money and set aside any "additional" funds to help cover the deficit for next year?

Ah - but that's not how you buy votes....

Tracking City Spending (UPDATED)

There's been a lot of discussion in our area and on line about City of Toledo spending - specially in light of the new garbage tax (which is going into the general fund and not dedicated solely to garbage service) and the comment by many city council members, including the Republicans, that there wasn't any where else to cut the budget.

Originally, the city was going to start collecting the tax on May 1st, with an estimated revenue of $2,916,000 for the year. However, our mayor decided to start collecting the tax the date it was approved by council - April 2nd - which means that the city is going to get an estimated $364,500 MORE revenue than originally projected.

Of course, that means another $364,500 of spending that the city can make...

So, since the City is getting more of our money than anticipated and because they said there was no unnecessary spending in the budget, I thought I'd start tracking their spending. (See list on left column.)

I will be listing all expenditures that are, in my opinion, UNNECESSARY. The tracking of such spending is not a reflection on any group or organization that is the recipient of such funding - merely a reflection of how far our local government has come away from fulfilling its statutory duties and how costly such spending can be. And many people will say that such recipients deserve such funding ... my point is that council should be prioritizing the spending and not raising our taxes so that government can do 'nice' things to the detriment of doing 'statutory' things.

My source for these expenditures will be the Toledo City Journal which is the official city record of ordinances approved by City Council.

To start off:
* City Council spent $25,000 to the LCIC (Lucas County Improvement Corporation) despite the mayor's position that the city already has an economic development department and is providing staff support for the organization.
* $15,000 to the MetroParks to provide educational nature programs at the Ottawa Park Nature Education Center.

Or these which are on the agenda for today: (note - corrected as previous post wrongly indicated that the $43,000 had already been voted on)
* $43,000 for the design, hosting and maintenance of the city's website. (Now, the city needs a website and hosting for it, but already has a person on staff who's supposed to be working on design.)
* $39,900 for gateway beautification - meaning flowers at the entranceways to our city.
UPDATE: The $39,900 was approved by City Council and has been added to the running total in the left column.

If you are aware of any general fund spending that should be included, please let me know and I'll add it to the list.

Where have all the Republicans gone?

To say that I'm disappointed with my fellow Republicans on City Council is an understatement. Angry, irate, annoyed, irritated, livid, incensed, outraged...these are better words to use.

Our Republican Party used to stand for less government and lower taxes. I realize that, on a national level, many of those elected with our Party's designation have ignored these core principles for a long time. Even on a state level, there are many who've forgotten that standing by these core principles and reflecting them in votes was what those who'd cast ballots expected.

Because of my frustration with these national leaders, I've told the National Republican Party and the National Senatorial Campaign Committee that I was not going to make donations to them until they stopped focusing on incumbency and got back to focusing on the principles that define us and our Party. I would tell the callers that I was going to give my money to local candidates where I'd have more say in how they voted and more opportunities to ensure true conservative principles in government.

And then our four elected Republicans on Toledo City Council decide to vote for a 'trash fee' ... which isn't really a trash fee. It's a tax for the general fund budget, which has grown considerably over that last several years, despite a decrease in population.

Even Joe Birmingham, who'd publicly taken the principled stand and said he wouldn't vote for it, changed his mind and did so.

They've said that there wasn't anywhere else they could cut without impacting police - but I see that they didn't eliminate temps and interns. Their excuse for this was something about three-year contracts for such services. My position? Every contract has an out - and if our city law department was so stupid as to not build an 'out' into the contract, Council still could have reduced the mayor's budget by these line item amounts and told him that he could find the money for these two services elsewhere in his office budget. And Council didn't reduce the marketing or advertising budgets that I could see - so there was still 'fat' to eliminate prior to imposing a new tax.

Perhaps our Republicans are Council aren't knowledgeable enough about budgets to be able to analyze them and find the fat...Perhaps they trusted either the president of council or the finance chairman (both Republicans) when it came to the decision...Perhaps they're more interested in maintaining their positions (as president and on committees), thus continuing their alliance with the mayor and B-Team Dems to the detriment of our Party's core principles...Perhaps they weren't really Republicans to begin with...I don't know.

Regardless of the excuses they may offer for this decision, they missed a wonderful opportunity to stand for less government and lower taxes. We will suffer the consequences of this decision by having higher taxes. My only consolation is the fact that they, too, will suffer the consequences of this decision at election time.

Tax increase or government cuts?

Well, that's the choice and I think most would agree that Toledo's government hasn't done what it needs to do in terms of cost savings or cuts prior to talking about a tax increase in the guise of a 'trash fee' added onto our water bills.

What I find so frustrating in all of this is that Councilman Frank Szollosi (D-at large) is the one leading the charge to cut rather than tax - and no one is joining him. Where are our Republicans on council? Surprisingly silent on the core Republican philosophy of small government and low taxation.

Here's my suggestion. Before you begin to even consider a yes vote on increasing taxes on Toledoans, mandate that all non-union employees incur a payroll deduction to help pay for their insurance coverage...Not just city council members, though they should pay, too - but ALL city employees not covered by a union contract. After doing this, the city will have better standing to go back to the unions and request an agreement on payment as well.

Then, roll back all the PERS pickups that have been granted to all non-union employees. The city is required to contribute a specific percentage toward PERS for every employee. But over the years, as unions bargained for pick-ups (the city 'picking up' part of the mandated employee contribution), those pick-ups were applied to non-bargaining employees as well. Eliminate the PERS pick-ups for all non-union employees, including the Mayor and Council if they currently enjoy such a benefit.

Again, this will give the city better standing for similar discussions with the unions.

Some other things that can be done? Council can pay their own parking, eliminating the $5,000 cost for parking expenses separate from their parking garage costs. They can also eliminate the $13,000 auto allowance...use your own cars and claim a deduction on your income tax instead of charging the public for travel or having us pay for a vehicle for you to use.

The Mayor can eliminate some of the publications he's getting...his budget went from around $700 to over $2,000. He could also use email instead of sending formal letters and reduce his postage costs. And why he needs $18,000 in outside printing when that line item hasn't been over $8,000 in several years is beyond me. I guess that he's using our tax dollars for publicity purposes while saying there's nowhere else to cut the budget.

He can also take a lesson from Gov. Strickland and reduce his 'food' budget which is currently around $6,000. Miscellaneous supplies is the line item where you can hide a bunch of goodies...it's at $6,600 but hasn't been over $2,000 for several years. Or the $10,000 for marketing, $13,000 for travel, $1,000 for parking (not the government center garage), $5,600 for vehicle rental, $18,000 for advertising (separate from the already mentioned marketing), $30,000 for interns (let them earn credit instead of paying them), $18,000 for temps, $21,000 for misc. charges and services ... the list goes on.

And these are just two offices. With these kinds of expenses, don't tell me that you have to cut police and fire or charge for garbage pickup!

One person who spoke during the public hearings said the budget needs to be 'nickeled and dimed.' I agree. While each of these items seems like a small amount when you look at them individually, every city department has these kinds of expenses and they add up.

Cut these things first - then we'll see if we need to talk about tax increases conveniently called a 'garbage fee.'

Link to The Blade which has downloadable pdf's of revenues and expenses...these are large files.

Kudos to 5 Council Members for Ambulance Vote

Kudos and thanks to five Toledo City Council members who voted against having government take over a portion of the private ambulance services in our city!

Republicans Joe Birmingham, Rob Ludeman, George Sarantou, and Betty Shultz along with Democrat Ellen Grachek cast no votes on this ordinance which would allow our Fire Department to lease ambulances and provide basic life support services on 9-1-1 calls.

More information on this vote is available in this Blade story, but lacking in all the stories is the impact of taking these fire fighters out of service for the ambulance runs.

The City estimates that this decision will gain them about $600,000 this year and up to $1.2 million next year...additional revenue they say is needed to help balance our budget deficit of almost $11 million.

The logic some of the other members of council used to justify the vote was 'continuity of care.' Under this process, the same people who provide the emergency service will also be the ones transporting to the hospital. And yes, there is an aspect of 'continuity' for the individual who is injured or ill.

However, by using these fire fighters to transport, they are no longer available for other emergency runs nor for fighting fires and that results in a lack of continuity of service for everyone else.

The ambulance companies said that, based upon the location of the city-owned ambulances (in the more affluent areas of the city), they could lose up to 40% of their business. MedCorp President Richard Bage said he may move his headquarters and 300-employee payroll out of the city. The claims of loss of business ring true considering the impact of the City's decision to take over tow operations from private companies in 2005. That venture was supposed to net the city about a half a million dollars a year, but no one has publicized the financials on this - probably because it didn't measure up to projections.

Before Council voted on this, you'd think they'd want to know of the last government takeover of private business resulted in the projected revenue...but not in Toledo.

Toledo is losing people and businesses. Our mayor and council have said that they want to be a place that people and businesses want to come and grow. But their actions speak louder than their words - and people and businesses are hearing them loud and clear.

How words lead to confusion

I've been thinking about this for a while now, but particularly in regard to the City's budget deficit and the proposed "trash fee."

Currently, Toledo has a 3/4% TEMPORARY payroll tax...I say temporary because that's the way it was originally advertised for the first vote in 1981. It's since been renewed at every opportunity. It's supposed to cover police, fire and trash services.

All of us recognize that the money this temporary tax originally generated in 1981 is not enough to cover costs today. However, the reality is that wages are higher today than they were 25 years ago, so the tax should generate more funds. Except in Toledo where it's possible (I don't have specific numbers) that our total employment is not as high as it was then.

But Toledoans take exception to the "temporary" portion of this description, despite the fact that they've had the opportunity to vote on this 'temporary' tax. They keep asking why it continues to appear on the ballot when it was supposed to be 'temporary.' While "confusion" over this phrasing may be a strong way to describe it, the feeling leads to emotions from angst to anger.

Today, the mayor and council are talking about instituting a $6 'trash fee' because we have the "Cadillac of trash services" - unlimited pickup including large items like furniture, etc. However, no one has said if this $6 will be dedicated to the refuse department and be used solely for trash collection.

And this is where I think the words 'trash fee' will lead to confusion. Our city leaders, I predict, will impose some sort of additional fee and call it a "trash fee." This would be easier than making the tough decisions to truly curtail government spending.

But the 'trash fee' won't be dedicated to refuse collection. Nor will they redirect general fund monies from refuse to other line items. This 'trash fee' will go directly into the general fund to be used for multiple purposes - primarily to help eliminate the $11 million deficit. And it will work, maybe...but only for 2007.

Some projections of the deficit for 2008 have been as high as $17 million. Even if the mayor and council present a balanced budget for 2007, they're looking at up to another $6 million they'd have to find for 2008 - either in further cuts or in additional revenue. And, I believe, trash pickup will again be the topic.

And when they start on THAT process, the confusion over the $6 'trash fee' and what it was intended to do will come back to haunt them.