Szollosi says State Audit is preferable to tax hike
This in via e-mail from Toledo City Councilman Frank Szollosi:
SZOLLOSI: “STATE AUDIT PREFERABLE TO TAX HIKE”
As the dog-days of summer begin to roll in, the Finkbeiner Administration is pulling out all stops to convince enough members of City Council to raise taxes on already overburdened middle-class Toledoans. A memo from the Law Director was released at today’s Finance Committee hearing stating that the City couldn’t “intentionally” carry over 2009 expenses into 2010, without prompting a State Audit. In fact, the Administration and Council both clearly knew in 2008 that the City would carry over a deficit into 2009 – and a bailout vote was taken earlier this year to pay for 2008 expenses.
In any event, a State Audit is preferable to increasing the tax burden on over-burdened middle class Toledoans. An audit would demonstrate accountability, rather than the expediency of dipping into people’s pockets to pay for the mistakes of an Administration and Council that supported increasing spending in a time of decreasing revenue.
This is why voters are upset with council. It is totally irrepsonsible to carry a deficit over when more cost cutting could be undertaken now with 5 months left in the year. Start cutting more staff or more furlough days. Where is the leadership!!
This whole Mcnamara gimmicky recycling coupon / fee hike isn’t going to cut it with the public.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:34 pmUh, Dave, I’ve had an ordinance before Council to furlough hundreds since early spring – brought it up again today. Many states, including Ohio, are on a biennial budget cycle for greater flexibility. What was irresponsible was the Mayor and his allies on Council increasing spending like they did in the boomin’ ’90s. Had coalitions of both at-large and district members for the spending and, with me, against it. In fact, the Mayor had much greater leverage over some of the district members than he did over the at-large – and he used that leverage to put us in this situation. Excuse me if I don’t share your enthusiasm for giving future Mayors even greater leverage to play one district off against the other with money for projects, repaving, etc.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:06 pmFrank, I am glad you brought that up. I do watch council meetings and have noted your attempts to bring up the aforementioned legislation. Who is holding it back from a vote? Can you elaborate for us? I do stand corrected that you have shown leadership. You have stood against festival fee waivers, though a very small dollar amount, every little bit counts and you were the lone vote doing that. Thank you for your leadership. I sincerely mean it. We haven’t talked much over the past couple years but I do appreciate your fiscal responsibility and for working with me in the past on good government initiatives.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:54 pmDave, I’ve always respected your work too – we can agree to disagree on Issue 2 – but hell man, at least you care.
Not a lot of stomach on Council for layoffs, but so many businesses have had to go that route during the downturn, we have to make tough decisions too. It’s just flat unfair, wrong, and self-defeating to add to the woes of work-a-day Toledoans. 250k+ = you won’t hear a peep out of me if rates change nationally.
I’ve had maybe 4 votes for layoffs over taxes. Carty has maybe 5 or 6 votes for the tax increases – but he’ll need seven because those of us against them won’t allow for a tie.
I remember a few years back we worked on the Reform Ohio Now stuff. Non-partisan redistricting at the state level and federal levels. Now that’d bring change.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:55 pmFrank did raise what is a valid concern, the current administration has “encouraged” for lack of a better word some district members to vote on certain legislation with the promise or the threat of support for paving and other projects within their district. While it is true who is the Mayor is going to change that possibility still exists because let’s face it, some of these votes are done by a trade off type deal between a variety of members on Council. It’s something that is true with almost any legislative body, so it is a valid question to ask what will be the impact of having less members of Council when it comes to standing up to the administration which is necessary at times.
I also agree with Frank that some on Council are not willing to make the hard decisions.
August 7th, 2009 at 12:30 amThe other side is that if council as a whole were more willing to lead as a full partner in solving the budget issues the mayor wouldn’t have to resort to that. He is the one trying most to balance the budget and most on council are unwilling to make the tough decisions.
August 7th, 2009 at 8:05 amIt’s not just related to the budget, but with a smaller number will it make Council more apt to make the tough decisions or more fearful really can’t be answered. One advantage that district council members have now is trying to gain support from at-large members.
As stated above, part of this is related to the current person we have as strong mayor.
August 7th, 2009 at 11:17 amYes, not a black and white issue. It could be more of a symptom not a problem. No perfect system…
August 7th, 2009 at 11:46 amFrank….agree that audit is better than tax hike. A hike in taxes now all but assures more exodus of population. Too many more leave and there will be nothing to do but leave with them.
What has always sickened me most was the “trading” done and the lack of strength shown by the people duly charged with taking care of what is in the best interests of the city. I have long said and will continue to harp that while we would all love to see services and so on expand, times like we are in require the shrinking of said services at least in the short term.
While I fully understand the impact of layoffs, firings and the downsizing of gov, what has to be done must be done. It would be in everyone’s best interests not to make deals and promises they can’t carry… in other words..don’t write checks yer ass can’t cash.
Police, Fire, Utilities, Roads…those are the only priorities and the rest is just gonna have to be dropped until the local economy recovers.
August 7th, 2009 at 12:11 pmFrank, is there a possibility of Toledo letting go of some of the land or neighborhoods it has annexed over the years?
As an example, Point Place becoming it’s own township again?
Is there any basis in Ohio law for areas once annexed by a larger city to break-off and become independent again?
Often when companies have budget problems they sell-off assets or other businesses acquired during better times; do you think the same could work for municipalities?
August 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pmGlasscity, there are provisions in the law for detaching and joining another township or forming a new one. The easy part would be the vote on it but with that comes costs, such as the new or expanded entity would take on the proportionate amount of debt. Point Place would have alot of debt due to the amount of infrastructure in the city. You have to figure out about police and fire protection, the fire station, water facilities, dikes, etc. No doubt, if it made sense the Point Placers would vote overwhelmingly for it.
August 7th, 2009 at 12:38 pmAudit away. Bring it on.
August 7th, 2009 at 1:17 pmI’d like to see every government budget in Toledo audited.
Frank – can you check – all these months after it was reported and see how much Council is paying for copy/printer paper?
It was reported that Council was paying nearly 3 times as much for it as anyone going into an office supply shop would pay.
Would an audit find things of this nature? It is true if you save enough nickels you eventually have dollars.
August 7th, 2009 at 2:43 pmDave, I think you’re right. Most Point Placers would rather be independent.
Certainly the community would have to pay for infrastructure built by Toledo if it left.
It would be interesting if someone could run the numbers to see how much the Point pays in taxes versus how much it receives in benefits. If remaining in Toledo is a net loss to the Point Place community than leaving could resonate with voters or even be economically viable.
Depending on how the new Point Place was organized, fire protection could be voluntary, police could be shared with Shoreland, and other items contracted out.
Imagine a Point with its own schools, a competitive tax structure free from the chains of Toledo city-management, or even set-up as a “free enterprise zone.”?
August 7th, 2009 at 4:23 pmYou’d also have to address the educational aspect, since the Point would also have to create it’s own schools and find a way to fund them.
August 7th, 2009 at 4:25 pmWell, would they need a public school or could it all be charter/private? However, a small public school (k-8, 9-12) may not be a huge burden if managed properly (big “if” I know). PP did have it’s own schools at one time.
August 7th, 2009 at 4:37 pmYes, we did. Edgewater and Ottawa River would become Washington Local perhaps. Whitmer would be the high school I assume.
August 7th, 2009 at 4:49 pm