During the interview with Jeff Green, April 30, 2008, on 1370 WSPD radio, Maggie Thurber asked tough questions of Jeff and it was uncomfortable for him. The questions were valid, the answers were not available, in part because Mr. Green did not receive full disclosure of essential information needed to prepare an accurate, comprehensive business plan for the Erie Street Market.
I wonder why an Administration with a 1/2 billion dollar budget would recruit a "volunteer" who just graduated from college to attempt to write a business plan so critical to downtown development. It is a joke to believe the Mayor was serious when he allowed this. We can't seriously believe any experienced, knowledgeable Business Development Director would make an inexperienced volunteer responsible for the creation of this document. Then to add insult to injury, he was thrown to the front lines during a Committee of the Whole meeting with City Council.
Jeff is one more in a long list of scapegoats for this Administration.
He was an excellent candidate to intern on this project, but not as the developer and author. Unfortunately, the impact of an inaccurate, incomplete plan hits at the heart of the residents of Toledo who pay millions of dollars in taxes hoping they will be appropriately spent. With millions of wasted dollars, why would anyone believe the administration would rely on a young, inexperienced volunteer to produce this critical plan.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Letter from Keith Wilkowski
It is only fair to share a letter of apology received today from Mr. Wilkowski. It is for you as the reader to assess and decide the value of the apology. During the 3 years I campaigned, not on any one occasion did Mr. Wilkowski make any attempt to speak to me or even acknowledge my existence after he split from the Pac in 2005. As the consummate politician in Toledo, this method of shunning a candidate for office is not a mistake when repeated over a number of events. It is a method used to ensure the newcomer running for office fully understand his/her place in the political hierarchy of Toledo.
Mr. Wilkowski, thank you for the apology. It is the first acknowledgment I have received from you since 2005.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Mayor 2009 -- commentary 1
So what of Wilkowski.. is he the person for Mayor? After his stint at Chairman of the LCDP, he jumped ship in 2005 and helped Jack Ford form the Lucas County Dems Pac, was the treasurer and sat in on the screening of those who were going to run for office with the pac. Surprise! His power ploy pushed him away from Ford and the pac after he ran a survey to prove his was a better candidate for Mayor. He jumped ship again, this time from the pac he helped form, to run his own bid for Mayor. Late in 2005, he then supported Vasquez in Bob's bid for City Council at Large and was pictured on lit pieces for Bob which were distributed in Point Place and Old Orchard. Ah, but Bob was not elected. Then McCloskey was thrown out when convicted but Santiago was appointed to the at-large seat. Bob decided to run for the seat anyway and did Wilkowski support him again (just months after the last race) --- no... he then supported McNamara. I asked for 5 minutes of his time before the district seat race started, he not only ignored me, but turned his back on me. I wasn't looking for anything, I knew he would support Cichy, I just wanted to talk. He put me in my place and let me know how worthless I was by his rude refusal to grant an "audience". I wonder if this is the type of person we want for Mayor. I was hoping Toledo would find someone who considered everyone of some value. Who will he represent? Who will he support. He turned his back on the Democratic Party, on Jack Ford and the Lucas County Democrats Pac; and on Bob Vasquez. Does this speak well of him? With the offices he has held, what has he accomplished which was memorable? Wilkowski with represent Wilkowski and Wilkowski will support Wilkowski. Show me something that says otherwise.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
REFUSE FEE LAWSUIT Amended Complaint
We filed an amended complaint in Common Pleas Court today enjoining the new refuse to the complaint and requesting a temporary and permanent injunction. Amended complaint
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Lecture and Retort - Refuse Fee Lawsuit
Toledo City Paper satirist "Hildo" takes issues to task and unfortunately tends to be more concerned with ranting than facts. Regarding the lawsuit against the City over the Refuse fee, the author took me to task and admonished my "ignorance" regarding "taxation without representation". I strongly disagree with the assessment in the article "History for Dummies". Excerpt: "Err, sorry Karen, but your lawsuit seems pretty ridiculous on the face of it. Since when do voters get to approve every fee imposed on us? And you’re mixing your metaphors. Taxation with representation would mean the tax would be imposed by elected representatives, not voters directly. Which it was, since council had to vote to approve it in the final budget."
Now "Spartacus" takes up the cause of the Refuse Fee and defends the cause in a letter to the Toledo City Paper: Hail Carticus and His Disciples. Excerpt: "“We have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental principle of the English constitution that no free man should be subject to any tax to which he has not given his own consent“ -John Adams."
The battle wages on and well it should as this is dangerous legislation granting unlimited access to the taxpayers' wallets and unlimited funding capabilities without voter approval.
Continue to voice your disapproval loudly and relentlessly to our unresponsive City Council and Administration until they are required to respond responsibly in allocating the funds we labor daily to provide.
Now "Spartacus" takes up the cause of the Refuse Fee and defends the cause in a letter to the Toledo City Paper: Hail Carticus and His Disciples. Excerpt: "“We have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental principle of the English constitution that no free man should be subject to any tax to which he has not given his own consent“ -John Adams."
The battle wages on and well it should as this is dangerous legislation granting unlimited access to the taxpayers' wallets and unlimited funding capabilities without voter approval.
Continue to voice your disapproval loudly and relentlessly to our unresponsive City Council and Administration until they are required to respond responsibly in allocating the funds we labor daily to provide.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Police Auction
The Blade reports on the auction of vehicles by the Police Department Blade Article
94 abandoned vehicles raised $128,075 (goes to the General Fund)
9 forfeited vehicles brought in $11,925 (goes to the Law Enforcement Trust Fund)
What is the Law Enforcement Trust Fund? What does it Fund? If you know, please blog.
94 abandoned vehicles raised $128,075 (goes to the General Fund)
9 forfeited vehicles brought in $11,925 (goes to the Law Enforcement Trust Fund)
What is the Law Enforcement Trust Fund? What does it Fund? If you know, please blog.
Friday, March 28, 2008
REFUSE FEE LAWSUIT
The Judge granted an extension to the City of Toledo
In Lucas County Common Pleas Court:
3/27/2008
Title : PRO:MTN FOR EXTENSION GRANTED
DEFENDANT CITY OF TOLEDO'S REQUEST FOR 1ST EXTENSION OF
TIME UNTIL 4/24/2008 TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
IS SIGNED AND GRANTED. SEE JE.
In Lucas County Common Pleas Court:
3/27/2008
Title : PRO:MTN FOR EXTENSION GRANTED
DEFENDANT CITY OF TOLEDO'S REQUEST FOR 1ST EXTENSION OF
TIME UNTIL 4/24/2008 TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
IS SIGNED AND GRANTED. SEE JE.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Refuse Fee - 2% of the General Budget
Blade Opinion
I'm amazed at the time and attention given the "Refuse Fee". For a fee which generates only 2% of the Revenue for the General Fund of the budget, it seems to be receiving 75% of the energy the Council, Administration and Blade coverage of the budget. We hear virtually nothing of any plans to reduce spending, freeze wages, require 8 hours work for 8 hours pay... it's just "give me more money" through the refuse "fee". Why not? After all, it's a cash cow for the city as there are no restrictions on how high they can raise the fee to generate revenue to pay for exorbitant expenditures. For the 4.9 million in projected revenue, Council could do an across the board cut of .09% over the $545 million budget rather than push this unnecessary fee.
I have this to offer regarding the Blade editorial:
"The Blade position regarding the city budget is curious given the fact they shut out their employees just recently to force concessions on wages, benefits, employee hours, etc. Not only did the Blade receive numerous concessions, they did so without affecting service. Why doesn’t the Blade as vigorously advocate for the taxpayers by holding the Administration and Council to the same standards and demand similar concessions. Could the Blade remain viable with 28% retirement payments, 0 in medical benefit copay, employees working 4 hours a day though paid for 8 hours, 15 paid holidays, etc.? I doubt it! But then, it is much easier to spend the money of others. This continued position of tax and spend on the part of the Blade is both disappointing and irresponsible as these contracts are crippling the city."
I'm amazed at the time and attention given the "Refuse Fee". For a fee which generates only 2% of the Revenue for the General Fund of the budget, it seems to be receiving 75% of the energy the Council, Administration and Blade coverage of the budget. We hear virtually nothing of any plans to reduce spending, freeze wages, require 8 hours work for 8 hours pay... it's just "give me more money" through the refuse "fee". Why not? After all, it's a cash cow for the city as there are no restrictions on how high they can raise the fee to generate revenue to pay for exorbitant expenditures. For the 4.9 million in projected revenue, Council could do an across the board cut of .09% over the $545 million budget rather than push this unnecessary fee.
I have this to offer regarding the Blade editorial:
"The Blade position regarding the city budget is curious given the fact they shut out their employees just recently to force concessions on wages, benefits, employee hours, etc. Not only did the Blade receive numerous concessions, they did so without affecting service. Why doesn’t the Blade as vigorously advocate for the taxpayers by holding the Administration and Council to the same standards and demand similar concessions. Could the Blade remain viable with 28% retirement payments, 0 in medical benefit copay, employees working 4 hours a day though paid for 8 hours, 15 paid holidays, etc.? I doubt it! But then, it is much easier to spend the money of others. This continued position of tax and spend on the part of the Blade is both disappointing and irresponsible as these contracts are crippling the city."
Sunday, March 09, 2008
TIMING – MOTIVATION -- POLITICAL GAIN -- WHY
TIMING
One of the 5 points on my platform was opposition to the “Trash Tax” as I was running for the District 2 Council seat. I believed as so many others that if Council passed it in the budget, and it was put in the budget by the Mayor, it must be legal, but I did not approve of the fee. After losing in the Primary in September of 2007, as I had spent every available waking moment outside my job campaigning, I needed time to put our home in order and enjoy the holidays.
At the beginning of January, 2008, as talk of continuing the “fee” surfaced, I decided to do some research and found information that convinced me it was not legal. I unsuccessfully tried to confirm this with some attorneys and Judges I personally knew, in fact, they did not even want to discuss it. Finally, I contacted Maggie Thurber and after she researched the issue she agreed it was not legal. Maggie then referred me to Kurt Wicklund, Attorney.
When Kurt and I first started talking, he felt the same as everyone else, it didn’t seem quite right, but it was probably legal. However, as we discussed my research and he did his own research, he came to the same conclusion as Maggie and I, it was not legal. He agreed to take the case. The plan was to wait until after the March primary so it would not conflict with the issues, but with the considerable conversation about the subject and quotes in the Blade, it was deemed prudent to file when we did.
MOTIVATION
This fee is powerful, if legal. It would never again be necessary to put a tax or levy on the ballot, all Council would need to do is raise the fee to accommodate the amount needed. Had the ¾% tax not passed, the fee could be raised to $53 per month x 91,000 households. TAH DAH! $57,876,000!!. I’d like to believe this would never happen, but believe me, it could and no legislative body should have this type of power for revenue “enhancement”. That is why I’m filing this lawsuit. This is protection for our future generations … let them look back and say “they got it right!” Hopefully, the courts will agree.
POLITICAL GAIN
For those who want to know if I’m doing this for political gain, that is laughable. I’m a realist. Though I had a very strong desire to represent Toledoans in City Council, it did not happen and in all reality, I have sealed my fate with the White Paper I wrote and this Refuse Fee Complaint and my views on the exorbitant, unsustainable, ridiculous wage and benefit packages with are paying the city employees. Who would vote for me… certainly not policeman, fireman, city employees, their families, or their friends! Who would support me, not the Democratic Party bosses nor businesses for fear of retribution. It is because I let go of running for office that I was able to file, because I knew there would be nothing to gain politically. I faced the fact that the residents of Toledo do not vote issues; they wouldn’t even recognize my name on the ballot and associate it with the lawsuit.
WHY?
Because it needs to be done! I waited all these months for someone who knows the laws, knows the courts, and has connections to do something, and no one else did. There it is and I’m taking the time to say this because I believe Toledoans have a right to know why … after all, this is going to be a class action suit. If I’m including everyone, then the least I can do is offer an explanation.
One of the 5 points on my platform was opposition to the “Trash Tax” as I was running for the District 2 Council seat. I believed as so many others that if Council passed it in the budget, and it was put in the budget by the Mayor, it must be legal, but I did not approve of the fee. After losing in the Primary in September of 2007, as I had spent every available waking moment outside my job campaigning, I needed time to put our home in order and enjoy the holidays.
At the beginning of January, 2008, as talk of continuing the “fee” surfaced, I decided to do some research and found information that convinced me it was not legal. I unsuccessfully tried to confirm this with some attorneys and Judges I personally knew, in fact, they did not even want to discuss it. Finally, I contacted Maggie Thurber and after she researched the issue she agreed it was not legal. Maggie then referred me to Kurt Wicklund, Attorney.
When Kurt and I first started talking, he felt the same as everyone else, it didn’t seem quite right, but it was probably legal. However, as we discussed my research and he did his own research, he came to the same conclusion as Maggie and I, it was not legal. He agreed to take the case. The plan was to wait until after the March primary so it would not conflict with the issues, but with the considerable conversation about the subject and quotes in the Blade, it was deemed prudent to file when we did.
MOTIVATION
This fee is powerful, if legal. It would never again be necessary to put a tax or levy on the ballot, all Council would need to do is raise the fee to accommodate the amount needed. Had the ¾% tax not passed, the fee could be raised to $53 per month x 91,000 households. TAH DAH! $57,876,000!!. I’d like to believe this would never happen, but believe me, it could and no legislative body should have this type of power for revenue “enhancement”. That is why I’m filing this lawsuit. This is protection for our future generations … let them look back and say “they got it right!” Hopefully, the courts will agree.
POLITICAL GAIN
For those who want to know if I’m doing this for political gain, that is laughable. I’m a realist. Though I had a very strong desire to represent Toledoans in City Council, it did not happen and in all reality, I have sealed my fate with the White Paper I wrote and this Refuse Fee Complaint and my views on the exorbitant, unsustainable, ridiculous wage and benefit packages with are paying the city employees. Who would vote for me… certainly not policeman, fireman, city employees, their families, or their friends! Who would support me, not the Democratic Party bosses nor businesses for fear of retribution. It is because I let go of running for office that I was able to file, because I knew there would be nothing to gain politically. I faced the fact that the residents of Toledo do not vote issues; they wouldn’t even recognize my name on the ballot and associate it with the lawsuit.
WHY?
Because it needs to be done! I waited all these months for someone who knows the laws, knows the courts, and has connections to do something, and no one else did. There it is and I’m taking the time to say this because I believe Toledoans have a right to know why … after all, this is going to be a class action suit. If I’m including everyone, then the least I can do is offer an explanation.
2008 Toledo Budget, Grants
It may be nothing to consider, but I would like additional information about State and Federal Grants. In 2004, 2005, and 2006, the City of Toledo received between $25,000,000 and $45,000,000 (2006) in State and Federal Grants. In 2007 and 2008, the budget was $300,000 (as shown in the budget submitted for 2007 and 2008). One explanation for 2007 is that the funds are applied to the account once received and they are then applied to the appropriate account. I checked back to the 2007 budget and it showed $45,000,000 for 2006, so that must not always be the case.
So. what is happening here. A couple possibilities:
1. The funds are budgeted on a different line item under a different heading and transfered when they are received and the transfer was not accomplished for 2007 in November when the budget was presented for 2008.
2. The City of Toledo only will receive $300,000 in State and Federal Grants for 2007 and 2008.
3. The City of Toledo did not budget for revenue of these amounts and will end up in a surplus when they are received in 2007 and 2008.
If #1 is correct, I would like to know which line items the amounts are budgeted so we have a real sense of the expected revenues for State and Federal Grants.
If #2 is correct, are we missing available money? Why a drop of $44,700,000 in Grant money for 2007 and 2008.
If #3 is correct, then we would have a surplus of over $30,000,000 not a deficit.
Because I have filed a lawsuit against the City of Toledo, I am not allowed to request this information. Hopefully, someone else will.
If you would like to review the information, it is linked here: GRANTS
So. what is happening here. A couple possibilities:
1. The funds are budgeted on a different line item under a different heading and transfered when they are received and the transfer was not accomplished for 2007 in November when the budget was presented for 2008.
2. The City of Toledo only will receive $300,000 in State and Federal Grants for 2007 and 2008.
3. The City of Toledo did not budget for revenue of these amounts and will end up in a surplus when they are received in 2007 and 2008.
If #1 is correct, I would like to know which line items the amounts are budgeted so we have a real sense of the expected revenues for State and Federal Grants.
If #2 is correct, are we missing available money? Why a drop of $44,700,000 in Grant money for 2007 and 2008.
If #3 is correct, then we would have a surplus of over $30,000,000 not a deficit.
Because I have filed a lawsuit against the City of Toledo, I am not allowed to request this information. Hopefully, someone else will.
If you would like to review the information, it is linked here: GRANTS
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Toledo Refuse Fee Complaint
Over the past year, I was increasingly convinced the Refuse Fee imposed on property owners in Toledo on April 28, 2007, was not legal. My gut instinct just does not accept that the City can add a "fee" against every property owner in Toledo to pay additional monies and call it a "Refuse Fee" when we already pay income tax which is supposed to pay for refuse services. Once collected, it is dumped into the general fund.
Have you considered that if the 3/4% tax does not pass, if the Refuse Fee is legal, Council could simply increase the amount of the fee to cover the amount lost by non-passage of the 3/4% tax. They probably would not do that, but they could, if the Fee is legal. All they would need to do is raise the "Fee" to $53 per property (91,000 per Mike Collins) per month to equal the $58,000,000. If it is legal for Council to do this, then there would be no reason at all to ever put a tax on the ballot.
To anyone interested,
THIS IS A TAX -- THIS IS NOT A FEE -- VOTERS MUST APPROVE A TAX!!
That's the bottom line, the nitty gritty of this lawsuit, this "fee" is not legal.
For several months, I spent an extensive amount of time researching and reaching out to advisers regarding the Fee.
In the search, Maggie Thurber recommended I contact Attorney Kurt Wicklund, as he may be interested in the case. He and the attorneys of the Law Firm, Ciolek & Wicklund, 520 Madison Avenue, Suite 820, Toledo, OH 43604, (419) 931-6431, Fax (866) 890-0419, Email: wicklund@ciolekwicklund.com, initially agreed with my assessment but took the challenge to further research the issue to confirm whether the Fee is or is not legal.
As a result of this research, it was determined the fee is not legal and today, February 28, 2008, a complaint has been filed in Common Pleas Court on behalf of myself and property owners of Toledo against the City of Toledo. The complaint is in the list of "Links" on this page.
Have you considered that if the 3/4% tax does not pass, if the Refuse Fee is legal, Council could simply increase the amount of the fee to cover the amount lost by non-passage of the 3/4% tax. They probably would not do that, but they could, if the Fee is legal. All they would need to do is raise the "Fee" to $53 per property (91,000 per Mike Collins) per month to equal the $58,000,000. If it is legal for Council to do this, then there would be no reason at all to ever put a tax on the ballot.
To anyone interested,
THIS IS A TAX -- THIS IS NOT A FEE -- VOTERS MUST APPROVE A TAX!!
That's the bottom line, the nitty gritty of this lawsuit, this "fee" is not legal.
For several months, I spent an extensive amount of time researching and reaching out to advisers regarding the Fee.
In the search, Maggie Thurber recommended I contact Attorney Kurt Wicklund, as he may be interested in the case. He and the attorneys of the Law Firm, Ciolek & Wicklund, 520 Madison Avenue, Suite 820, Toledo, OH 43604, (419) 931-6431, Fax (866) 890-0419, Email: wicklund@ciolekwicklund.com, initially agreed with my assessment but took the challenge to further research the issue to confirm whether the Fee is or is not legal.
As a result of this research, it was determined the fee is not legal and today, February 28, 2008, a complaint has been filed in Common Pleas Court on behalf of myself and property owners of Toledo against the City of Toledo. The complaint is in the list of "Links" on this page.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
2008 Toledo Budget
In the Links section of this blog is a link to the budget on an Excel spreadsheet which can be downloaded and used for your own analysis of the budget. Help yourself!
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Commentary #5 Toledo Budget 2008, Revenue
Revenue Analysis
Are revenue items missing in the budget for 2008? As I reviewed the Revenue section, it seemed there were gaps which may be of concern and the following information and analysis is offered for consideration.
The linked spreadsheet is an analysis of the expected revenue as reported by the Administration. It is sorted by the greatest actual dollars by Organization in 2006 compared to the expected dollars by Organization in 2008. Many of the accounts had one or two items with a variance in the detail, while others (such as "Treasury") had great variations. Next to the dollar amounts is a brief explanation of the cause for the increase or decrease in the revenue with the exception of Taxation.
In the Detail for taxation, no allowance for refunds to businesses or individuals was included in the model. This would seem to leave the City open for unfunded costs since the amount of refunds were significant 2004: -1,089,790; 2005: -1,124,086; 2006: -1,386,489; 2007 & 2008 -0-. Is it possible there were no refunds in 2007 and none expected in 2008?
Treasury is a total different situation as there are numerous differences between 2006 and 2008 by Account Description. The detail begins on Row 47.
It has been well documented that Federal and State Grants have declined, but the difference in Grants between 2006 and expected in 2008 is staggering. Have we missed opportunities or has the availability of Grant money really dissolved? The comparison is referenced beginning with Row 124 which shows:
GRANTS
Federal Grants $18,777,186 (2006) (2008 - "0")
State Grants $18,122,466 (2006) (2008 - "0")
State Grants/Federal Fnds $8,676,909 (2006); $300,451 (2008)
TOTAL GRANT REVENUE $45,576,560 (2006); $300,451 (2008)
Are revenue items missing in the budget for 2008? As I reviewed the Revenue section, it seemed there were gaps which may be of concern and the following information and analysis is offered for consideration.
The linked spreadsheet is an analysis of the expected revenue as reported by the Administration. It is sorted by the greatest actual dollars by Organization in 2006 compared to the expected dollars by Organization in 2008. Many of the accounts had one or two items with a variance in the detail, while others (such as "Treasury") had great variations. Next to the dollar amounts is a brief explanation of the cause for the increase or decrease in the revenue with the exception of Taxation.
In the Detail for taxation, no allowance for refunds to businesses or individuals was included in the model. This would seem to leave the City open for unfunded costs since the amount of refunds were significant 2004: -1,089,790; 2005: -1,124,086; 2006: -1,386,489; 2007 & 2008 -0-. Is it possible there were no refunds in 2007 and none expected in 2008?
Treasury is a total different situation as there are numerous differences between 2006 and 2008 by Account Description. The detail begins on Row 47.
It has been well documented that Federal and State Grants have declined, but the difference in Grants between 2006 and expected in 2008 is staggering. Have we missed opportunities or has the availability of Grant money really dissolved? The comparison is referenced beginning with Row 124 which shows:
GRANTS
Federal Grants $18,777,186 (2006) (2008 - "0")
State Grants $18,122,466 (2006) (2008 - "0")
State Grants/Federal Fnds $8,676,909 (2006); $300,451 (2008)
TOTAL GRANT REVENUE $45,576,560 (2006); $300,451 (2008)
Monday, February 18, 2008
Commentary #4 Toledo Budget 2008, Refuse Fee
Fred LeFebvre interviewed D. Michael Collins about the proposed Refuse Fee which will most likely be approved to generate additional revenue again this year as it was last year. In all comments about the refuse fee, there is no suggestion that anyone on Council is taking a hard line look at the budget with the plan to live within the means of the projected revenue.
If Mr. Collins is so terribly concerned about the landfill, then perhaps he should look at alternatives such as waste to energy incineration. Waste for Energy
To consider investing in new and additional equipment, containers with micro-chips to verify a resident is recycling is just more government imposing more constraints on the residents. Next, there will be a penalty for any household that signs a waiver stating they will recycle and they don't, -- another fine for the indiscretion. If the budget is complete and we look at 91,000 households, the average cost per year for refuse collection is $124.50 per household. The planned increase in fees would potentially cost each household and additional $120.00 per year unless the resident chooses to recycle, we have yet to hear what that will cost.
City Council must do better, doubling the cost is not acceptable.
City Council must do better.
Notes of Interview with D Michael Collins, 2/18/08, a.m. by Fred LeFebvre, 1370 WSPD radio.
D. M. Trash tax or fee, however you want to look at it.
What is good public policy, I delved into recycling issue.
Joe McNamara and I challenged each other with ideas.
The gist: recycle, no fee. No recycle, $10.00 per month
It’s difficult to capture the whole notion [provided following #’s]
91,000 households in city
32% said they recycling
Reality is 26% recycle not 32% recycle
Fred: How do they check
D. M.: They do not
They do not police the system
I consider [sic saying they will recycle but do not] this misrepresenting the city
We are loosing $100,000 for those who do not recycle
If we are not counting who is recycling, how do we come up with 26%
I went through neighborhoods and checked, I checked for 6 weeks in 3 of my neighborhoods and counted how many recycled. It was closer to 26% not 32%.
27 years for the landfill, $80 million to replace
I want to see recycle at 60% 18000 tons not into landfill
We pay a tipping fee to EPA, $5.50 per ton, removing 18,000 tons out of landfill equals $100,000
Money we receive from recycle will double to $125,000
We create a new cell every 4 years ($4 million per cell), increase life by 15 to 17 months
Looked at Portland, Or, they are hoping to get 70% of community to recycle
I would like 100%
Fred: If that happened, no income
D. M. But that won’t happen
Fred: Who won’t recycle?
D. M. Hope 40% (not hope but realistic) will reject. There would be no minimum requirement.
Fred: How to implement?
D. M. Will have to retool the equipment, less packers, more recycling. It will be a shift in the concept, it must be phased in. there will be a chip in the recylce containers, the city will buy and supply the containers, buy new equipment, we will need to buy new trucks because the city has to go to automated equipment. Right now we have 6 trucks in the recycling system, will have to double, it’s about $120,000 to re-double that #. To micro chip, it’s between $120,000 to $140,000 to equip that brings the fleet up to that number.
Fred: Just sounds crazy, would it be good public policy to privatize?
D. M.: Once you’ve done it, you’ve sold all your equipment, your out of the business, to recaptilize, to go back into it in case you’ve made a mistake, is literally speaking, impossible. You can’t go back into it. The rate of $8.00 per household in Perrysburg is limited to one can.
Fred: Has the city looked into privatization at all?
D. M. I haven’t seen the studies, I’ve been told they have.
The problem you have with recycling is you can go into the first year and have a very apealling number, the 2nd year it may look appealing but the 3rd year you’re over the barrel and you’re going to be at their mercy with privatization.
In Lambertville, they are paying $17.00 per month for controlled refuse pick up and paying within the $17.00 a fee for recycling.
Population on fixed income, all they have to do is recycle and it doesn’t take anything out of their annual income flow.
Fred: Emails & calls -- Don’t have trash to recycle, I take it to Krogers, they don’t like it.
D. M. Not talking about how much volume is in the container, how do we as stewards of our environment, best protect the ecology and also cost defer all these issues to the future? And recycling at that # saves us in a cost deferment millions and millions and millions of dollars, I think is realisticly selfish if we don’t take the measured steps if we don’t increase the lifespan of the that landfill by 10 years because we may not be burdened by that expense, but a generation behind us will and they are going to have to figure out to fix it and it’s not going to be $80 million when the fix is needed.
Fred: At some point that landfill will be filled and our kids will have to look at it.
D. M. What we’re really doing is slowing down the filling of it.
I look at it from an analagous situation, our car is going to have to be replaced, so why change the oil? Because if we don’t change the oil, we’re still going to have to replace the car, we’re just going to have to replace it sooner. And so I use that as a way of using an analogy.
Fred: But you aren’t involved in the cost of my car, if I said I would have to pay a fee if I didn’t change my oil, that would be different. In this case Council is looking at putting a fee to force people to do something that maybe they just don’t want to do. There are people out there that just don’t want to recycle for one reason or another. Not cost effective, don’t believe in it. Being penalized for that belief.
D. M. Not really, they are making that decision. Your penalizing them is you say everybody must pay a fee which is the current program. You have the option of saving $120 a year by recycling. All you need to do is in a bin provided by the municipality, enter you recylables and the benefits are as follows:
· You’re gong to save $100,000 per year on tipping fees (sic EPA) which we pay
· You’re going to increase the landfill life by 9 years
· You’re going to increase the cell life by at least 15 to 17 months.
If Mr. Collins is so terribly concerned about the landfill, then perhaps he should look at alternatives such as waste to energy incineration. Waste for Energy
To consider investing in new and additional equipment, containers with micro-chips to verify a resident is recycling is just more government imposing more constraints on the residents. Next, there will be a penalty for any household that signs a waiver stating they will recycle and they don't, -- another fine for the indiscretion. If the budget is complete and we look at 91,000 households, the average cost per year for refuse collection is $124.50 per household. The planned increase in fees would potentially cost each household and additional $120.00 per year unless the resident chooses to recycle, we have yet to hear what that will cost.
City Council must do better, doubling the cost is not acceptable.
City Council must do better.
Notes of Interview with D Michael Collins, 2/18/08, a.m. by Fred LeFebvre, 1370 WSPD radio.
D. M. Trash tax or fee, however you want to look at it.
What is good public policy, I delved into recycling issue.
Joe McNamara and I challenged each other with ideas.
The gist: recycle, no fee. No recycle, $10.00 per month
It’s difficult to capture the whole notion [provided following #’s]
91,000 households in city
32% said they recycling
Reality is 26% recycle not 32% recycle
Fred: How do they check
D. M.: They do not
They do not police the system
I consider [sic saying they will recycle but do not] this misrepresenting the city
We are loosing $100,000 for those who do not recycle
If we are not counting who is recycling, how do we come up with 26%
I went through neighborhoods and checked, I checked for 6 weeks in 3 of my neighborhoods and counted how many recycled. It was closer to 26% not 32%.
27 years for the landfill, $80 million to replace
I want to see recycle at 60% 18000 tons not into landfill
We pay a tipping fee to EPA, $5.50 per ton, removing 18,000 tons out of landfill equals $100,000
Money we receive from recycle will double to $125,000
We create a new cell every 4 years ($4 million per cell), increase life by 15 to 17 months
Looked at Portland, Or, they are hoping to get 70% of community to recycle
I would like 100%
Fred: If that happened, no income
D. M. But that won’t happen
Fred: Who won’t recycle?
D. M. Hope 40% (not hope but realistic) will reject. There would be no minimum requirement.
Fred: How to implement?
D. M. Will have to retool the equipment, less packers, more recycling. It will be a shift in the concept, it must be phased in. there will be a chip in the recylce containers, the city will buy and supply the containers, buy new equipment, we will need to buy new trucks because the city has to go to automated equipment. Right now we have 6 trucks in the recycling system, will have to double, it’s about $120,000 to re-double that #. To micro chip, it’s between $120,000 to $140,000 to equip that brings the fleet up to that number.
Fred: Just sounds crazy, would it be good public policy to privatize?
D. M.: Once you’ve done it, you’ve sold all your equipment, your out of the business, to recaptilize, to go back into it in case you’ve made a mistake, is literally speaking, impossible. You can’t go back into it. The rate of $8.00 per household in Perrysburg is limited to one can.
Fred: Has the city looked into privatization at all?
D. M. I haven’t seen the studies, I’ve been told they have.
The problem you have with recycling is you can go into the first year and have a very apealling number, the 2nd year it may look appealing but the 3rd year you’re over the barrel and you’re going to be at their mercy with privatization.
In Lambertville, they are paying $17.00 per month for controlled refuse pick up and paying within the $17.00 a fee for recycling.
Population on fixed income, all they have to do is recycle and it doesn’t take anything out of their annual income flow.
Fred: Emails & calls -- Don’t have trash to recycle, I take it to Krogers, they don’t like it.
D. M. Not talking about how much volume is in the container, how do we as stewards of our environment, best protect the ecology and also cost defer all these issues to the future? And recycling at that # saves us in a cost deferment millions and millions and millions of dollars, I think is realisticly selfish if we don’t take the measured steps if we don’t increase the lifespan of the that landfill by 10 years because we may not be burdened by that expense, but a generation behind us will and they are going to have to figure out to fix it and it’s not going to be $80 million when the fix is needed.
Fred: At some point that landfill will be filled and our kids will have to look at it.
D. M. What we’re really doing is slowing down the filling of it.
I look at it from an analagous situation, our car is going to have to be replaced, so why change the oil? Because if we don’t change the oil, we’re still going to have to replace the car, we’re just going to have to replace it sooner. And so I use that as a way of using an analogy.
Fred: But you aren’t involved in the cost of my car, if I said I would have to pay a fee if I didn’t change my oil, that would be different. In this case Council is looking at putting a fee to force people to do something that maybe they just don’t want to do. There are people out there that just don’t want to recycle for one reason or another. Not cost effective, don’t believe in it. Being penalized for that belief.
D. M. Not really, they are making that decision. Your penalizing them is you say everybody must pay a fee which is the current program. You have the option of saving $120 a year by recycling. All you need to do is in a bin provided by the municipality, enter you recylables and the benefits are as follows:
· You’re gong to save $100,000 per year on tipping fees (sic EPA) which we pay
· You’re going to increase the landfill life by 9 years
· You’re going to increase the cell life by at least 15 to 17 months.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Commentary #3 on 2008 Toledo City Budget -AMBULANCE SERVICE
In 2007, it was decided by Council to approve the take over of the private industry Ambulance Service to "enhance" revenue. On the surface, it was estimated the take over could generate $1.2 million per year. Toledo Blade article
As it would begin in July of 2007, it was estimated the revenue generated would be approximately $600,000. There was no consideration in the model to include the cost of labor for the service as the fireman "They agreed the department could staff the five basic life support ambulances with current firefighters". In reviewing the budget, with benefits, wages and pension, the Toledo paramedics who would staff the ambulances earn an average of $45.00 per hour.
To determine the true cost and net revenue, the cost of labor must be considered in addition to the loss of revenue which would have been generated through taxes if the services had been performed by the private sector. The model used to determine the gross revenue and total profit of this service should include:
# of Runs
Total manhours for runs
Total $ Billed
Total $ Received
Amount of revenue lost from private sector through fees and taxes
Cost of Vehicles
# of Vehicles leased
Any maintenance costs
Manhours to maintain
(clean, fuel, restock supplies, etc)
Lease fee
Were additional fire fighters called to report to fight a fire because the on-duty men were on an ambulance run and not available?
If so... additional cost for this coverage.
As it would begin in July of 2007, it was estimated the revenue generated would be approximately $600,000. There was no consideration in the model to include the cost of labor for the service as the fireman "They agreed the department could staff the five basic life support ambulances with current firefighters". In reviewing the budget, with benefits, wages and pension, the Toledo paramedics who would staff the ambulances earn an average of $45.00 per hour.
To determine the true cost and net revenue, the cost of labor must be considered in addition to the loss of revenue which would have been generated through taxes if the services had been performed by the private sector. The model used to determine the gross revenue and total profit of this service should include:
# of Runs
Total manhours for runs
Total $ Billed
Total $ Received
Amount of revenue lost from private sector through fees and taxes
Cost of Vehicles
# of Vehicles leased
Any maintenance costs
Manhours to maintain
(clean, fuel, restock supplies, etc)
Lease fee
Were additional fire fighters called to report to fight a fire because the on-duty men were on an ambulance run and not available?
If so... additional cost for this coverage.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Commentary #2 Toledo Budget 2008 Payroll
In an attempt to determine salaries and benefits for all city employees, I went through the budget and created the classification “payroll” and then sub-accounts to describe the expense.
Payroll analysis
The following is a summary of the wage and benefits for the Employees of the City of Toledo which are projected for 2008:
2978 Estimated # of employees for 2008
$51,711 Average wage
$29,806 Average benefits
$81,517 Total average wages and benefits
$242,757,173 Total estimated wages and benefits 2008
The 3 major increases are for Base Salaries, 9%, Retirement Contributions by the City, 18.5%, and Medical Insurance, 22.9%. There is also 2.9 million allotted for “severance” (63.7%) for 2008. It would be an alert City Council who would seek a benchmark of the private sector to determine comparable wage and benefit packages for comparison to use as a model in the next negotiations with the unions.
With an increase in medical insurance of almost $7,000,000 dollars, it is necessary to expect city employees to pay a portion of the benefits. At $200 per month (on average), almost $7,000,000 in contributions to the plan would be generated. Additionally, co-pay for doctor visits and prescription drugs of $15 to $20 would be appropriate. The study of private industry would help in the decision on how to manage the benefits in the future.
The retirement benefit package needs to be revised, we cannot continue paying 28% towards the Pers program.
Why is Personnel Services Reimbursement cut by $731,000 + ?
In looking at the negatives on these last categories, are we confident the estimates are accurate? For example, why a negative on “compensated absences” unless it was applied to a different line item; if so, what line item has absorbed this cost; if not, an explanation is warranted.
It is obvious the payroll budget has outpaced the revenue of the city and the private sector, it must be amended.
Payroll analysis
The following is a summary of the wage and benefits for the Employees of the City of Toledo which are projected for 2008:
2978 Estimated # of employees for 2008
$51,711 Average wage
$29,806 Average benefits
$81,517 Total average wages and benefits
$242,757,173 Total estimated wages and benefits 2008
The 3 major increases are for Base Salaries, 9%, Retirement Contributions by the City, 18.5%, and Medical Insurance, 22.9%. There is also 2.9 million allotted for “severance” (63.7%) for 2008. It would be an alert City Council who would seek a benchmark of the private sector to determine comparable wage and benefit packages for comparison to use as a model in the next negotiations with the unions.
With an increase in medical insurance of almost $7,000,000 dollars, it is necessary to expect city employees to pay a portion of the benefits. At $200 per month (on average), almost $7,000,000 in contributions to the plan would be generated. Additionally, co-pay for doctor visits and prescription drugs of $15 to $20 would be appropriate. The study of private industry would help in the decision on how to manage the benefits in the future.
The retirement benefit package needs to be revised, we cannot continue paying 28% towards the Pers program.
Why is Personnel Services Reimbursement cut by $731,000 + ?
In looking at the negatives on these last categories, are we confident the estimates are accurate? For example, why a negative on “compensated absences” unless it was applied to a different line item; if so, what line item has absorbed this cost; if not, an explanation is warranted.
It is obvious the payroll budget has outpaced the revenue of the city and the private sector, it must be amended.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Commentary on the 2008 Toledo City Budget
Once again voters will be asked to renew the ¾% “temporary tax”. This ¾% tax was originally passed on June 6, 1982. At that time, refuse collection had been cut in the summer to every other week, was limited to quantity allowed at the line and no white goods (appliances). Additionally, 1600 city jobs had been cut, the police force was at 615 and they had lost all of the 86 civilian staff. Vehicles were in disrepair, the parks were closed and the pools were not opening. The tax was expected to generate $22 million (link to Blade article http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd7thkjj_2hgwbxvtb). Now, 26 years later, we are in the same predicament.
In 1982, Councilman, Donna Owens, believed the tax could be sold to the voters because it was temporary (a ½% permanent increase was soundly defeated the year before) she commented about the possibility of renewing the tax in the future stating: “and they have the chance to say so at the polls if they do not like the way the additional money is spent”.
The language of the levy guaranteed the revenue would “funnel the proceeds in 3 areas:
- ¼% police and fire for hiring 115 police officers and 32 fire fighters and for upgrading equipment (especially fire equipment)
- ¼% to the general fund for restoration of weekly garbage collection, reopening the parks and restoration of cutbacks in the health department.
- ¼% for capital improvements fund for repayment and rescheduling the city’s debts, resurfacing streets, restoration of storm sewers and demolition of vacant and vandalized houses.
Over the past years, the wording has been diluted until it no longer specifically covers refuse collection which has gone unnoticed by the majority of voters. Ask your neighbors “what is to be paid for by the ¾% temporary tax?” Most will say, police, fire and refuse collection. Instead per the Municipal code, it covers:
· one-third (1/3) shall remain in the General Fund for police, fire and other Safety Department responsibilities,
· one-half (1/2) of said increase shall remain in the General Fund,
· one-sixth (1/6) of the said increase shall be allocated to the Capital Improvements Fund.
With this wording the city is no longer bound to provide the refuse service we expected when we voted for the levy in 2004.
How is the money being allocated? Our politicians have spent 26 years “negotiating” unsustainable contracts with the Unions representing the city employees. We will not survive as a community if our City leaders continue on this path of unrealistic wage and benefit packages. How did this come about as we entrusted our taxes to the politicians of Toledo?
The Blade article last week which covered the Mayor’s fundraiser paints a picture of what is to come when they reported that in attendance at the $500 per ticket fundraiser were “all the union chiefs”. Blade article
Backroom deals are cut with the union chiefs to garner endorsements, contributions and campaign workers for the candidate who will offer the best package if elected. The result over the past years has been an exploitation of the generosity of the electorate who continues to offer up additional taxes to pay for these agreements. Voters are not naïve and accept this is “politics as usual” accepting the status quo; however, it has gone too far and needs to be remedied.
The challenge for those currently in office is to understand we are at a critical turning point in Toledo politics. They must set aside self-interest and concern for reelection with the understanding that the funds to finance the current contracts do not exist and voters are financially unable to continue digging deeper to finance such folly.
Commentary # 2 to follow.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
White Paper: Fixing Toledo
After 2 years of campaigning, some of the issues facing Toledo have become very clear and the resistance to deal with the issues by elected officials is often driven by a concern they may lose the backing of the unions and city employees. The last election highlighted the reality of this as the electorate did not vote. Those elected won by connections in the political and union arena, not by issues, so to survive as an elected official, there is logic in appeasing the political party and unions. However, this is not to the benefit of Toledoans and we need elected officials to work for the good of the city not the good of the unions. Though my venture into Toledo politics is over, my concerns are not.
We need a good school system but we don’t have one. The city can do everything right to grow economically, but it will not until the school system or alternative schools offer our children a good education. Middle-income families are fleeing Toledo to the suburbs to escape the ineffective public school system. The chokehold TFT (Toledo Federation of Teachers) has on the system inhibits creative, flexible and innovative programs.
We have more than enough revenue in the general budget, we just plain blew it when we negotiated the city labor contracts and gave away the bank. Residents of Toledo do not need to pay more taxes; we need to realign the employee compensation to reflect the market.
It is time to stop manipulating business opportunities to further political agendas. It does not take long for interested businesses to feel threatened and chose the suburbs to bypass Toledo politics.
The following is a list of recommendations offered for consideration by elected officials and residents of Toledo. Our community would be in a much better position if we approached the business of the City of Toledo as a business. The residents are the customers of City Government and we are not treated very well.
EDUCATION
Embrace charter schools and the voucher program, it is offering a much-needed alternative to a failing public school system and can be instrumental in retaining and recruiting families to Toledo. They also provide a buffer to the threat of teacher strikes. Criticizing charter schools because they are “for profit” is invalid as they must perform and meet the expectations of student’s parents or they will not stay in business.
TPS needs to earn back students through quality educational programs, not through squelching competition.
TPS personnel should observe successful charter schools as a learning experience not consider such visits a threat to TPS. The following quotes demonstrate the negative attitude regarding charter schools. Quote from TPS management personnel and an elected official: “it would be the same as a scab crossing the picket line” or “I wouldn’t step foot in one of those places”.
Send out a blind survey and ask the 60% of teachers and administrators of TPS why they don’t live in Toledo and also to those who do live in Toledo but send their children to private schools. They are the professionals in the industry; we need to understand why so many do not send their children to TPS and ask for recommendations to improve the system.
BUDGET
Taxpayers disapprove of the trash tax and threat of reduced services, as they should. Balance the budget by looking inward for cost savings not outward for more revenue. As the UAW recognized the necessity to adjust the contracts to retain auto industry jobs in this area, so likewise, the Union leaders representing city employees must recognize the same need with the city to keep the threat of privatization off the table. Without a realignment of city employee compensation, the electorate may very well revolt and demand privatization of services and refuse to pass the ¾% “temporary” payroll tax the city has enjoyed for over 15 years. Such recognition of reality and a partnership between the unions and the City is pro-union as it will ensure job retention while keeping the city healthy.
· Within two years, eliminate the 10% city pick up of the employee portion of payment to PERZ and provide a 5% pay increase
o First year: reduce by 5% the city pickup of the employee contribution to PERZ but provide an across the board 2.5% pay increase.
o Second year: again, reduce by 5% the city pickup of the employee contribution to PERZ but provide an across the board 2.5% pay increase.
· Effective Jan. 1, 2008, all city employees would contribute $100 per month towards their medical coverage and $20 co-pay for office visits and prescriptions.
· Establish a task force to study medical coverage programs offered by private industry in the surrounding area and modify the program accordingly.
· Establish a task force to study the general budget and determine what percent of the general budget should be applied to wages and benefit packages for police/fire and trash collection. This percent would be the benchmark for future contract negotiations.
BUSINESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
· Stop bundling groups of legitimate businesses to vilify (i.e., convenience stores). If they do not comply with the laws, take the appropriate legal measures.
· Review the cost and frequency of inspections. They may increase city revenue, but at what cost to small business.
· Create a complete list of all yearly inspections and the inspection costs to determine whether they are necessary (they have dramatically increased in frequency and cost over the past few years). Those identified as frivolous and designed primarily to increase revenue should be eliminated.
· Bundle into one package all costs and permits required to establish a new business; establish one office to administer all the information, forms and communication for businesses, simplify this process.
· Eliminate the living wage law in Toledo. It is used to manipulate businesses as it is not uniformly applied and hinders our ability to encourage new business.
Work with Toledo hotels to create shopping packages as Bass Pro is completed to draw visitors into Toledo as well as Wood County. With regional cooperation with Wood County both communities would benefit by creating “mini-vacations” for visitors.
CITY BEAUTIFICATION
Seek more volunteer organizations to handle the beautification projects.
CITY GOVERNMENT:
· Reduce the size of council. Keep the 6 district seats but reduce at large to 2 seats. Residents need a representative who is accountable to them, without district seats, who would be accountable to their calls for service and how would the requests be assigned to an all “at-large” council. However, we need “at-large” seats to embrace all district issues and assimilate the needs into a citywide view of the requests.
· Do not reduce the pay for the Mayor; it must be attractive enough to draw quality candidates.
· Respond to requests for information and not use the “right to information” laws to delay response and avoid providing answers.
· Answer emails and phone calls.
· Embrace business and stop agreeing to additional fees to supplement the budget when there are shortages.
· NO NEW TAXES – hidden or otherwise.
· Responding to the hype of political candidates is detrimental to the well-being of Toledo and should be banned.
· The Administration would be more successful by operating and administrating with positive reinforcement rather than negative. The negative approach is tolerated but discourages open dialogue, ideas and growth.
· If a program is going to change, consider the programs a contract with the residents and give at least 30 days proper notification before implementation.
POLICE
The police department could use some realigning. In 2006, the numbers were as follows:
692 number of policemen
300 number of patrolmen on the beat
120 number of Command officers
292 number of policemen assigned to other duties besides patrolling the streets
33 number of patrolmen on any given day out of service for various reasons
67 number of patrolmen available per day at each stationhouse for 3 shifts
· Create a relationship with Owens Community College to offer a degree which would prepare students to be employed by TPD after graduation so the “police class” could be cut from one year to 3 months.
· Determine an appropriate ratio for Command Officers to Beat Officers, a 3 to 1 ratio is too high. We need the men on the streets.
· What are the 292 policemen duties?
· In the morning and evening, position a police car at a school for 15 minutes during the busiest time and have the lights flashing. Rotate the school location each day so at the end of the week, there was a police presence at every school in the city. The police would still be available to respond to a call, but since they have to be somewhere in the city, why not at a school on school days.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Multiple calls of complaint are costly to the City, as they all deserve a response. Create a web-based list of all repair requests for streets, potholes, and complaints which can easily be accessed by residents. It could be a free Google spreadsheet with a link on the City Web Page. The list should be prioritized by severity, listing: location, type of call, date of call, date of expected repair, estimated cost of repair and completion date. To the public, there is no rhyme or reason to how the requests are considered, prioritized, or assigned, this would answer those questions.
VACANT PROPERTY
The city has ownership of hundreds of residential properties with 30’ frontage primarily in the central city. They all must be maintained by the city: grass mowing, snow removal, police patrolling, etc., which is a cost with no revenue to the city. It drains our resources and our budget. Make it inexpensive, simple and easy to get these properties off the city books and generate some revenue through property taxes.
· Have a fire sale; offer each property to any buyer for $1.00.
· Bundle the closing costs, title transfers, etc. into one simplified package and low cost fee; i.e., $25.00.
· If the property has a condemned house, bundle the permits required to demolish and into one package, again, at a low cost fee.
· Offer a $500 incentive to the owner upon completion of the demolition of the building.
REFUSE COLLECTION:
Not only the residents of Toledo, but Toledo as a whole benefits from the unlimited trash collection program, it is instrumental in keeping the city clean. Continue the program, we already pay for it.
Be consistent in the messages to residents. First we are told the Administration wants to eliminate recycling because it costs too much money and isn’t worth the cost. Then we are told we must recycle and to get residents involved, they will pay $3.00 per month. Educate the residents on the recycle program and be consistent.
Return trash pickup to the alleys. If an area is littered and needs cleaning, have the refuse truck driver note on a route list, turn it over to the appropriate compliance department issue a 30 day warning to the property owner. The notification should contain an estimate of cost for the city to clean the area. If not cleaned in 30 days, send a crew or hire an independent contractor to clean the area and send a bill to the owner.
When the ¾% temporary tax was passed, it was to include an incinerator. With the issue of landfills, recycling and energy, it is time to revisit the possibility of an incinerator. Technology advances can offer better processes and the heat emitted can be used to generate electricity. A committee should immediately begin researching the latest technology of refuse incineration.
For the health of Toledo, we need to move away from "politics as usual", our elected officials should be expected to make the difficult choices for the health of Toledo, not to ensure their next election.
We need a good school system but we don’t have one. The city can do everything right to grow economically, but it will not until the school system or alternative schools offer our children a good education. Middle-income families are fleeing Toledo to the suburbs to escape the ineffective public school system. The chokehold TFT (Toledo Federation of Teachers) has on the system inhibits creative, flexible and innovative programs.
We have more than enough revenue in the general budget, we just plain blew it when we negotiated the city labor contracts and gave away the bank. Residents of Toledo do not need to pay more taxes; we need to realign the employee compensation to reflect the market.
It is time to stop manipulating business opportunities to further political agendas. It does not take long for interested businesses to feel threatened and chose the suburbs to bypass Toledo politics.
The following is a list of recommendations offered for consideration by elected officials and residents of Toledo. Our community would be in a much better position if we approached the business of the City of Toledo as a business. The residents are the customers of City Government and we are not treated very well.
EDUCATION
Embrace charter schools and the voucher program, it is offering a much-needed alternative to a failing public school system and can be instrumental in retaining and recruiting families to Toledo. They also provide a buffer to the threat of teacher strikes. Criticizing charter schools because they are “for profit” is invalid as they must perform and meet the expectations of student’s parents or they will not stay in business.
TPS needs to earn back students through quality educational programs, not through squelching competition.
TPS personnel should observe successful charter schools as a learning experience not consider such visits a threat to TPS. The following quotes demonstrate the negative attitude regarding charter schools. Quote from TPS management personnel and an elected official: “it would be the same as a scab crossing the picket line” or “I wouldn’t step foot in one of those places”.
Send out a blind survey and ask the 60% of teachers and administrators of TPS why they don’t live in Toledo and also to those who do live in Toledo but send their children to private schools. They are the professionals in the industry; we need to understand why so many do not send their children to TPS and ask for recommendations to improve the system.
BUDGET
Taxpayers disapprove of the trash tax and threat of reduced services, as they should. Balance the budget by looking inward for cost savings not outward for more revenue. As the UAW recognized the necessity to adjust the contracts to retain auto industry jobs in this area, so likewise, the Union leaders representing city employees must recognize the same need with the city to keep the threat of privatization off the table. Without a realignment of city employee compensation, the electorate may very well revolt and demand privatization of services and refuse to pass the ¾% “temporary” payroll tax the city has enjoyed for over 15 years. Such recognition of reality and a partnership between the unions and the City is pro-union as it will ensure job retention while keeping the city healthy.
· Within two years, eliminate the 10% city pick up of the employee portion of payment to PERZ and provide a 5% pay increase
o First year: reduce by 5% the city pickup of the employee contribution to PERZ but provide an across the board 2.5% pay increase.
o Second year: again, reduce by 5% the city pickup of the employee contribution to PERZ but provide an across the board 2.5% pay increase.
· Effective Jan. 1, 2008, all city employees would contribute $100 per month towards their medical coverage and $20 co-pay for office visits and prescriptions.
· Establish a task force to study medical coverage programs offered by private industry in the surrounding area and modify the program accordingly.
· Establish a task force to study the general budget and determine what percent of the general budget should be applied to wages and benefit packages for police/fire and trash collection. This percent would be the benchmark for future contract negotiations.
BUSINESS & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
· Stop bundling groups of legitimate businesses to vilify (i.e., convenience stores). If they do not comply with the laws, take the appropriate legal measures.
· Review the cost and frequency of inspections. They may increase city revenue, but at what cost to small business.
· Create a complete list of all yearly inspections and the inspection costs to determine whether they are necessary (they have dramatically increased in frequency and cost over the past few years). Those identified as frivolous and designed primarily to increase revenue should be eliminated.
· Bundle into one package all costs and permits required to establish a new business; establish one office to administer all the information, forms and communication for businesses, simplify this process.
· Eliminate the living wage law in Toledo. It is used to manipulate businesses as it is not uniformly applied and hinders our ability to encourage new business.
Work with Toledo hotels to create shopping packages as Bass Pro is completed to draw visitors into Toledo as well as Wood County. With regional cooperation with Wood County both communities would benefit by creating “mini-vacations” for visitors.
CITY BEAUTIFICATION
Seek more volunteer organizations to handle the beautification projects.
CITY GOVERNMENT:
· Reduce the size of council. Keep the 6 district seats but reduce at large to 2 seats. Residents need a representative who is accountable to them, without district seats, who would be accountable to their calls for service and how would the requests be assigned to an all “at-large” council. However, we need “at-large” seats to embrace all district issues and assimilate the needs into a citywide view of the requests.
· Do not reduce the pay for the Mayor; it must be attractive enough to draw quality candidates.
· Respond to requests for information and not use the “right to information” laws to delay response and avoid providing answers.
· Answer emails and phone calls.
· Embrace business and stop agreeing to additional fees to supplement the budget when there are shortages.
· NO NEW TAXES – hidden or otherwise.
· Responding to the hype of political candidates is detrimental to the well-being of Toledo and should be banned.
· The Administration would be more successful by operating and administrating with positive reinforcement rather than negative. The negative approach is tolerated but discourages open dialogue, ideas and growth.
· If a program is going to change, consider the programs a contract with the residents and give at least 30 days proper notification before implementation.
POLICE
The police department could use some realigning. In 2006, the numbers were as follows:
692 number of policemen
300 number of patrolmen on the beat
120 number of Command officers
292 number of policemen assigned to other duties besides patrolling the streets
33 number of patrolmen on any given day out of service for various reasons
67 number of patrolmen available per day at each stationhouse for 3 shifts
· Create a relationship with Owens Community College to offer a degree which would prepare students to be employed by TPD after graduation so the “police class” could be cut from one year to 3 months.
· Determine an appropriate ratio for Command Officers to Beat Officers, a 3 to 1 ratio is too high. We need the men on the streets.
· What are the 292 policemen duties?
· In the morning and evening, position a police car at a school for 15 minutes during the busiest time and have the lights flashing. Rotate the school location each day so at the end of the week, there was a police presence at every school in the city. The police would still be available to respond to a call, but since they have to be somewhere in the city, why not at a school on school days.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Multiple calls of complaint are costly to the City, as they all deserve a response. Create a web-based list of all repair requests for streets, potholes, and complaints which can easily be accessed by residents. It could be a free Google spreadsheet with a link on the City Web Page. The list should be prioritized by severity, listing: location, type of call, date of call, date of expected repair, estimated cost of repair and completion date. To the public, there is no rhyme or reason to how the requests are considered, prioritized, or assigned, this would answer those questions.
VACANT PROPERTY
The city has ownership of hundreds of residential properties with 30’ frontage primarily in the central city. They all must be maintained by the city: grass mowing, snow removal, police patrolling, etc., which is a cost with no revenue to the city. It drains our resources and our budget. Make it inexpensive, simple and easy to get these properties off the city books and generate some revenue through property taxes.
· Have a fire sale; offer each property to any buyer for $1.00.
· Bundle the closing costs, title transfers, etc. into one simplified package and low cost fee; i.e., $25.00.
· If the property has a condemned house, bundle the permits required to demolish and into one package, again, at a low cost fee.
· Offer a $500 incentive to the owner upon completion of the demolition of the building.
REFUSE COLLECTION:
Not only the residents of Toledo, but Toledo as a whole benefits from the unlimited trash collection program, it is instrumental in keeping the city clean. Continue the program, we already pay for it.
Be consistent in the messages to residents. First we are told the Administration wants to eliminate recycling because it costs too much money and isn’t worth the cost. Then we are told we must recycle and to get residents involved, they will pay $3.00 per month. Educate the residents on the recycle program and be consistent.
Return trash pickup to the alleys. If an area is littered and needs cleaning, have the refuse truck driver note on a route list, turn it over to the appropriate compliance department issue a 30 day warning to the property owner. The notification should contain an estimate of cost for the city to clean the area. If not cleaned in 30 days, send a crew or hire an independent contractor to clean the area and send a bill to the owner.
When the ¾% temporary tax was passed, it was to include an incinerator. With the issue of landfills, recycling and energy, it is time to revisit the possibility of an incinerator. Technology advances can offer better processes and the heat emitted can be used to generate electricity. A committee should immediately begin researching the latest technology of refuse incineration.
For the health of Toledo, we need to move away from "politics as usual", our elected officials should be expected to make the difficult choices for the health of Toledo, not to ensure their next election.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
FOOD RAISER
We had wonderful response and filled the truck! About 25 stopped by and gave and gave. One Mom and her 12 year old son stopped with 2 large boxes and several bags of food which he collected from family and friends as a service project for school. Another gentleman stopped by with several bags of food and 2 checks for $100 each for the Salvation Army. In all $315 was donated in addition to the food. We dropped off everything after we shut down at 1:15 and got home around 2:45. It was a very good day!
Friday, August 31, 2007
FOOD RAISER
The Salvation Army Food Pantry was bare Thursday morning
Join us in a “Food Raiser” event
Sat., Sept. 1, 9:00 am to 1:00 pm
Martial Arts Center Parking Lot
5122 Heatherdowns Blvd; (at Reynolds Road)
Fill a pick up truck with food!
Needed items: Primarily canned goods, boxed goods such as:
Canned fruit, Canned vegetables, Canned beans. Canned meats, Canned soups; Small packs of chips, Small packs of cookies, Crackers, Rice, Dry pasta, Canned spaghetti; Instant noodles, Instant potatoes, Box cereal, Peanut butter, Boxed dinners, Instant milk
No glass containers, frozen foods, perishables
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)