If you have a problems with the refuse collection at your home, it does make a difference if you call the Refuse Department and complain. So if you are frustrated or unhappy with the performance, call and let the City know, request a Supervisor to come out and inspect. The employees receive a bonus for each 2 week period they work of .80 per hour. If there are complaints, it impacts the bonus:
2121.117 Weekly Unlimited Refuse Pay
“The rate of incentive pay during the life of the contract will be established at eighty cents (.80) per hour.
The incentive pay will be made to employees by means of a separate check being issued quarterly to the employee for the number of hours for which the employee is entitled to receive the pay.
(b) Each crew will be evaluated as to the performance of its duties for each two (2) week pay period. A system will be established to keep record of bona fide complaints which have been investigated by the Foreman and are determined to have been justified. The complaints for which a crew's pay will be reduced are as negotiated between the City and the Union and are entitled, bona fide complaints for which incentive pay will be reduced. When bona fide complaints against a crew have been determined to be justified, the incentive pay of the crew will be reduced in accordance with Table 1.
TABLE 1
Bona Fide Complaints - Percent Reduction of Incentive Pay In 2-Week Period - For That 2-Week Period
0 - 4 0%
5 - 6 20%
7 - 8 40%
9 - 10 60%
11&over 80%"
Friday, August 22, 2008
Police - Sexual Misconduct & a Slap on the Wrist OUTRAGEOUS
I'm waiting for the outrage of City Council and the Administration, a demand the Police Department clean house. A demotion for this type of conduct, why is the officer(?) not fired. Is this the type of person we want walking the streets of Toledo enforcing(?) the law? And if it had not been taped, nothing would have happened. Is this the only police officer(?) who is offending the residents of Toledo or just the only one who was caught. This is a call for our political leaders to step forward and demand more than just a demotion of this person.
Article published Thursday, August 21, 2008
Police sergeant guilty of making threats to clerk
By LAREN WEBER
BLADE STAFF WRITER
A Toledo police sergeant was found guilty yesterday on departmental charges after being accused by the internal affairs unit of threatening, on more than one occasion, to arrest a convenience store clerk unless she had sex with him.
Sgt. Daniel Brandon, 40, who was appointed to the department in 1993, pleaded no contest to the charges and was found guilty of conduct unbecoming of an officer, abuse of authority in dealing with the public, and conduct subversive to the good order and discipline of the department, Deputy Chief Don Kenney said.
The deputy chief recommended that Sergeant Brandon be demoted to patrolman for one year and suspended without pay for 10 days.
The recommendation must be approved by Bob Reinbolt, the city's safety director, who said he expects to make a decision within a few days.
Sergeant Brandon, on at least two occasions, made sexual comments to the clerk, suggested the use of an illegal substance, and used vulgar language. The comments were made in the presence of other customers and were recorded on the store's surveillance video, Lt. Ed Bombrys, of the internal affairs unit, said.
Lieutenant Bombrys declined to release the name of the store or victim to protect the victim.
The first incident occurred about 4 a.m. March 20 when Sergeant Brandon approached the counter to talk to the 23-year-old clerk.
After a short conversation, Lieutenant Bombrys said Sergeant Brandon threatened to arrest the woman unless she had sex with him.
"I will take your punk [expletive] to jail and while you're sitting in the county [jail], you'll be thinking, [expletive] it was only five minutes," Sergeant Brandon can be heard saying on the tape.
The clerk's response: "I would just go to jail."
Sergeant Brandon said he was joking with the woman, whose name he didn't know. He later admitted the comments were inappropriate.
"In my mind, [there] just wasn't any seriousness to it," he told internal affairs investigators. "I'm actually embarrassed about it now because it was stupid."
But Lieutenant Bombrys said based on Sergeant Brandon's body language in the video, it didn't appear as though he was joking.
"He lowers his voice and leans over the counter. He's emphasizing something to her," he said.
In a meeting with Lieutenant Bombrys, the clerk said that during that March incident Sergeant Brandon told her that he had her license plate number and threatened to pull her over at night.
According to Lieutenant Bombrys' interview with her, she told the sergeant she occasionally drinks and drives and that Sergeant Brandon responded by giving her two options - "Have sex with me or go to jail."
On April 6, Sergeant Brandon returned to the store about 3:40 a.m. He again made sexual comments to the woman and told her that she was going to have sex with him "either willingly or by force," according to transcripts of the surveillance video.
After a few more minutes of conversation, Sergeant Brandon then told the clerk she needed to "smoke more dope." The woman responded by asking the sergeant to watch the register while she rolled a marijuana joint.
Sergeant Brandon said: "All right, as long as you roll one for me."
Although the clerk can be heard laughing in the surveillance tape during both incidents, Lieutenant Bombrys said she told him she was intimidated by Sergeant Brandon's comments and feared he might follow through with his threats.
She said she didn't want to get on Sergeant Brandon's bad side.
Sergeant Brandon, who is married, was promoted to sergeant in 2000. He was suspended for five days last year after he was found guilty of insubordination and use of informants.
He is paid an annual salary of about $62,000.
Contact Laren Weber at:
lweber@theblade.com
or 419-724-6050.
Article published Thursday, August 21, 2008
Police sergeant guilty of making threats to clerk
By LAREN WEBER
BLADE STAFF WRITER
A Toledo police sergeant was found guilty yesterday on departmental charges after being accused by the internal affairs unit of threatening, on more than one occasion, to arrest a convenience store clerk unless she had sex with him.
Sgt. Daniel Brandon, 40, who was appointed to the department in 1993, pleaded no contest to the charges and was found guilty of conduct unbecoming of an officer, abuse of authority in dealing with the public, and conduct subversive to the good order and discipline of the department, Deputy Chief Don Kenney said.
The deputy chief recommended that Sergeant Brandon be demoted to patrolman for one year and suspended without pay for 10 days.
The recommendation must be approved by Bob Reinbolt, the city's safety director, who said he expects to make a decision within a few days.
Sergeant Brandon, on at least two occasions, made sexual comments to the clerk, suggested the use of an illegal substance, and used vulgar language. The comments were made in the presence of other customers and were recorded on the store's surveillance video, Lt. Ed Bombrys, of the internal affairs unit, said.
Lieutenant Bombrys declined to release the name of the store or victim to protect the victim.
The first incident occurred about 4 a.m. March 20 when Sergeant Brandon approached the counter to talk to the 23-year-old clerk.
After a short conversation, Lieutenant Bombrys said Sergeant Brandon threatened to arrest the woman unless she had sex with him.
"I will take your punk [expletive] to jail and while you're sitting in the county [jail], you'll be thinking, [expletive] it was only five minutes," Sergeant Brandon can be heard saying on the tape.
The clerk's response: "I would just go to jail."
Sergeant Brandon said he was joking with the woman, whose name he didn't know. He later admitted the comments were inappropriate.
"In my mind, [there] just wasn't any seriousness to it," he told internal affairs investigators. "I'm actually embarrassed about it now because it was stupid."
But Lieutenant Bombrys said based on Sergeant Brandon's body language in the video, it didn't appear as though he was joking.
"He lowers his voice and leans over the counter. He's emphasizing something to her," he said.
In a meeting with Lieutenant Bombrys, the clerk said that during that March incident Sergeant Brandon told her that he had her license plate number and threatened to pull her over at night.
According to Lieutenant Bombrys' interview with her, she told the sergeant she occasionally drinks and drives and that Sergeant Brandon responded by giving her two options - "Have sex with me or go to jail."
On April 6, Sergeant Brandon returned to the store about 3:40 a.m. He again made sexual comments to the woman and told her that she was going to have sex with him "either willingly or by force," according to transcripts of the surveillance video.
After a few more minutes of conversation, Sergeant Brandon then told the clerk she needed to "smoke more dope." The woman responded by asking the sergeant to watch the register while she rolled a marijuana joint.
Sergeant Brandon said: "All right, as long as you roll one for me."
Although the clerk can be heard laughing in the surveillance tape during both incidents, Lieutenant Bombrys said she told him she was intimidated by Sergeant Brandon's comments and feared he might follow through with his threats.
She said she didn't want to get on Sergeant Brandon's bad side.
Sergeant Brandon, who is married, was promoted to sergeant in 2000. He was suspended for five days last year after he was found guilty of insubordination and use of informants.
He is paid an annual salary of about $62,000.
Contact Laren Weber at:
lweber@theblade.com
or 419-724-6050.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
REFUSE FEE Lawsuit.. thoughts
I read a few blogs about how silly this lawsuit was and a waste of time, I should spend my time doing something significant. I so completely disagree and want to say this to all the naysayers:
Interesting dialogue about the “Refuse Fee” and I wonder if the impact of the power of this illegal form of revenue enhancement has impacted the taxpayers of Toledo. According to the Toledo Municipal Code and the Ohio Revised Code, the voters must approve any additional tax in the form of a levy. Why is this? When we recently voted again to approve the ¾% “temporary tax”, had it not passed, our desperate politicians had the ability to change the “Refuse Fee” to $50 per month instead of $5.50 or $7.00 or $10.00 and the revenue would have equaled the millions achieved from the ¾% “temporary tax” (91000 households x $50 per month x 12 months $54,600,000) with the simple stroke of a pen and 7 yeas. Would Council do this? I don’t know, but the question remains, should they have the power to do this. I say NO; they should not have the power and both the TMC and ORC agree.
Also, ask this question: is this tax (not legal) or is this a fee (legal)? Through other court cases, the description of a fee has been defined: 1. Must be transactional (if you take a load of trash to the dump, you pay for that load only); 2. Must be based on usage (when you take the trash to the dump, you pay a fee based on the amount you take based on lbs. Or volume); 3, must be able to opt out of the fee (I only pay when I go to the dump, if I don’t go to the dump, I don’t pay.) Consider the other fees we pay: fee for a dog license; fee for a marriage license; fee for a drivers license; fee for a building permit; etc., and it becomes obvious this is a tax not a fee.
If this is a legal form of revenue enhancement, the City of Toledo would never need to put a tax levy on the ballot again, they would only need to increase the “Refuse Fee”. If anyone out there believes that next year it will remain $8.00 / $1.00 and the following year $10.00 / $0, then you are fooling yourself. The city spent a great deal of time patting themselves on the back at how much money they were pulling in, even over budget, and were so very proud of themselves. If done incrementally, we would become even more complacent then we are now as we justify the amount as only “$66” per year, and then only $96 per year, and then only $120 per year. When we think in this way, we make a molehill out of a mountain and that is how we ended up with a tax, which was passed as a fee.
In essence, City Council is stealing from the taxpayers through this illegal “fee”. If a shop owner catches a shopper stealing a $10 garment, they yell “thief” and want restitution… for a mere “$10” because of the accumulating effect of 1000’s of stolen $10 garments. We have laws to protect us from theft; we pay taxes for police, prosecutors, judges and jails so the “perps” can be prosecuted. And yet you cry “fowl” – a “molehill, a waste of time and effort, after all it’s only $66 per year… accumulating to $4,200,000 a year. I ask, is that really ok? Have taxpayers been harmed. You bet we have, so far in the amount of over $6,000,000!
Interesting dialogue about the “Refuse Fee” and I wonder if the impact of the power of this illegal form of revenue enhancement has impacted the taxpayers of Toledo. According to the Toledo Municipal Code and the Ohio Revised Code, the voters must approve any additional tax in the form of a levy. Why is this? When we recently voted again to approve the ¾% “temporary tax”, had it not passed, our desperate politicians had the ability to change the “Refuse Fee” to $50 per month instead of $5.50 or $7.00 or $10.00 and the revenue would have equaled the millions achieved from the ¾% “temporary tax” (91000 households x $50 per month x 12 months $54,600,000) with the simple stroke of a pen and 7 yeas. Would Council do this? I don’t know, but the question remains, should they have the power to do this. I say NO; they should not have the power and both the TMC and ORC agree.
Also, ask this question: is this tax (not legal) or is this a fee (legal)? Through other court cases, the description of a fee has been defined: 1. Must be transactional (if you take a load of trash to the dump, you pay for that load only); 2. Must be based on usage (when you take the trash to the dump, you pay a fee based on the amount you take based on lbs. Or volume); 3, must be able to opt out of the fee (I only pay when I go to the dump, if I don’t go to the dump, I don’t pay.) Consider the other fees we pay: fee for a dog license; fee for a marriage license; fee for a drivers license; fee for a building permit; etc., and it becomes obvious this is a tax not a fee.
If this is a legal form of revenue enhancement, the City of Toledo would never need to put a tax levy on the ballot again, they would only need to increase the “Refuse Fee”. If anyone out there believes that next year it will remain $8.00 / $1.00 and the following year $10.00 / $0, then you are fooling yourself. The city spent a great deal of time patting themselves on the back at how much money they were pulling in, even over budget, and were so very proud of themselves. If done incrementally, we would become even more complacent then we are now as we justify the amount as only “$66” per year, and then only $96 per year, and then only $120 per year. When we think in this way, we make a molehill out of a mountain and that is how we ended up with a tax, which was passed as a fee.
In essence, City Council is stealing from the taxpayers through this illegal “fee”. If a shop owner catches a shopper stealing a $10 garment, they yell “thief” and want restitution… for a mere “$10” because of the accumulating effect of 1000’s of stolen $10 garments. We have laws to protect us from theft; we pay taxes for police, prosecutors, judges and jails so the “perps” can be prosecuted. And yet you cry “fowl” – a “molehill, a waste of time and effort, after all it’s only $66 per year… accumulating to $4,200,000 a year. I ask, is that really ok? Have taxpayers been harmed. You bet we have, so far in the amount of over $6,000,000!
Monday, August 18, 2008
REFUSE FEE LAWSUIT - 8-15-08
Went to court on the 15th as the Court was to decide whether the case qualified as a class action suit. The opposing attorneys can question whether my attorneys have enough experience to represent a class action suit and rather than run the risk of a decision on behalf of the opposing counsel, my attorneys brought in another attorney to join the team representing all of the residents of Toledo in the lawsuit.
I mentioned we had heard from others in the community who wanted the refuse fee reversed as they, too, believed it was wrong. If you have been "harmed" by the lawsuit, please email the attorneys and voice your view. They are interested in hearing from you. Email address to use: info@cw.law.pro
After waiting for a short time in the court room, the attorneys were called into the Judge's chambers, the Attorney representing the City of Toledo requested a continuance for a month so they could review the credentials of the new attorney, the extension was granted. So, we wait again for a new court date.
I mentioned we had heard from others in the community who wanted the refuse fee reversed as they, too, believed it was wrong. If you have been "harmed" by the lawsuit, please email the attorneys and voice your view. They are interested in hearing from you. Email address to use: info@cw.law.pro
After waiting for a short time in the court room, the attorneys were called into the Judge's chambers, the Attorney representing the City of Toledo requested a continuance for a month so they could review the credentials of the new attorney, the extension was granted. So, we wait again for a new court date.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
REFUSE FEE LAWSUIT - update
The attorneys put their heads together on JUNE 27, 2008 AT 10:30 A.M for a pretrial conference and decided on a court date in mid-August.
One must be very patient when dealing with the courts.
One must be very patient when dealing with the courts.
PayDay Lenders and City of Toledo Department of Public Unitilities
Richard Cordray was interviewed on Conklin and Company June 22, 2008. The first topic was PayDay Lending and unfair credit card practices. As time passes, the credit card companies are shortening the time to pay the bill which causes late payments and the consumer is then charged late payment fees and interest making it more and more difficult to get out of credit card debt. There are new federal rules being discussed which are "pro-consumer" for example, you will "have to be given at lease 21 days to pay your bill".
So what does that have to do with the City of Toledo Public Utilities? One bill I have the most trouble paying on time is the water bill and I didn't understand why for years as I don't bring in the mail, my husband does. He drops it into a mail basket and about every 10 days I go through, open the bills and pay them. But I never knew what day the water bill arrived until last quarter.
Last quarter the bill was dated March 19, 2008, it arrived March 22, and payment was due April 3 -- that's only 15 days.
This quarter the bill is dated June 18, 2008, it arrived June 24, and payment is due July 7 -- that's only 18 days.
I watch more closely now that I realize how short the payment cycle is for the water bill; however, if Mr. Cordray is so concerned about unfair billing practices, he needs to look in our own back door. The utility company should be required to extend the billing cycle. I wonder if the cycle is purposely short so the late fees will enhance revenue? With a quarterly billing cycle, most would expect more time, not less, to pay a bill.
I want to know:
What per cent of the water department revenue is generated through late fees
What amount is collected in late fees
What amount is collected in regular billing
Are the late fees billed against the refuse fee
Total amount collectd in refuse fees
Total amount collected in late fees against the refuse.
So what does that have to do with the City of Toledo Public Utilities? One bill I have the most trouble paying on time is the water bill and I didn't understand why for years as I don't bring in the mail, my husband does. He drops it into a mail basket and about every 10 days I go through, open the bills and pay them. But I never knew what day the water bill arrived until last quarter.
Last quarter the bill was dated March 19, 2008, it arrived March 22, and payment was due April 3 -- that's only 15 days.
This quarter the bill is dated June 18, 2008, it arrived June 24, and payment is due July 7 -- that's only 18 days.
I watch more closely now that I realize how short the payment cycle is for the water bill; however, if Mr. Cordray is so concerned about unfair billing practices, he needs to look in our own back door. The utility company should be required to extend the billing cycle. I wonder if the cycle is purposely short so the late fees will enhance revenue? With a quarterly billing cycle, most would expect more time, not less, to pay a bill.
I want to know:
What per cent of the water department revenue is generated through late fees
What amount is collected in late fees
What amount is collected in regular billing
Are the late fees billed against the refuse fee
Total amount collectd in refuse fees
Total amount collected in late fees against the refuse.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Trash Talk of Swampville
By Karen Shanahan, June 25, 2008
Cast of characters:
Bumbley C-Rights - Council
Bumbley A-Right - Administration (Mayor)
Almost Potential Swampville - Toledo and/or its Residents
Mrs. Daring: - Lawsuit complaintant
Inspector Sternway: - Mrs. Daring's Attorneys
FEE: - Refuse fee, trash tax
CANS - Trash cans
For the past many months "Almost Potential Swampville" has been hammered with trash talk, not of strong economic development which was promised during campaign speeches by Bumbley A-Right. The following is Trash Talk of Swampville.
Many months ago on a dark and dreary day in Almost Potential Swampville,
Bumbley A-Right saw nasty alleys which he found absurd:
He decreed, "Swampville must "PUT THEIR TRASH AT THE CURB!"
Obedient, Almost Potential Swampville complied, though disturbed.
Bumbley A-Right, a 3:00 p.m. bus tour of Swampville he took,
Only to find, !HORRORS! cans at the curb.
"Cans at the curb the day before trash day!
This is too early", he roared: "this cannot be,
This cannot exist, absolutely, it must desist!"
So A-Right commanded,
"The times to see cans on my streets I will alter!
This must be done, we must not falter!"
But alas, the decree in winter required
Swampville Seniors to tromp in the dark with their cans
They would stomp through the snow and the ice in the dark,
"No! No!" cried Bumbley C-Rights, “this must be banned,
Bumbley A-Right, he must amend his decree.”
After many discussions and much ado,
The time was adjusted for me and for you.
Swampville cans could go out in the daylight you see,
But A-Right would be watching to confirm our deeds.
"Not enough!" screamed Bumbley A-Right,
We must punish infractions to increase budgets by fractions.
I shall decree!" Bumbley A-Right, intracted
"if Swampville puts cans out early each day,
Surely, surely and definitely, they absolutely must pay!"
So Bumbley A-Right declared forty bucks each infraction.
And this was his cry – "Swampville, you know will comply!"
"But how, oh how, can we possibly check, what a plight!
I know," he announced! "we'll deputize Block Watch and precinct alike,
To pounce on the ones who put cans out in early light.
Ahhh… feels right, feels good" they heard him exclaim,
"I covered it all and yes, all must pay the same!”
"But WAIT!" Yelled Bumbley C-Rights, "we can't do this, it hurts!
For Swampville will revolt, they too want some perks!
C-Rights spoke: “Call me if you get this fine,
You won't have to pay, we'll wipe it away!"
A sigh of relief from Swampville, they were pleased,
They were happy, that their C-Rights did thus agree!
So now comes the next phase of trash in the queue…
"The budget, the budget, oh what shall I do? "
Exclaimed Bumbley A-Right just to himself.
"Money is short, this cannot be,
We need more, we need more, I know…
The trash, we'll just add a FEE!"
And so on the budget he dumped in the middle,
An additional, a little, right in the middle,
An extra FEE for Almost Potential Swampville to pay.
"Hee, hee," he snickered; "I've done it for sure,
An extra five million, now that's a real cure."
"Not so fast", Bumbley C-Rights, they did reply,
"We must discuss this, we can't just comply."
Ah yes, but it's buried in the budget you see,
So maybe, just maybe, we can just let it be.
It passed with the budget and one more time we complied,
We here in Swampville, we did not decry.
Oh weary, so weary we are of this trash.
If you need more money, should not a levy you pass?
Bumbly A-Right again was poised to perform.
He told of his scheme for savings and more.
Trash again?, Swampville wondered, what more could he do?
A brilliant scheme by A'Right's point of view.
Holidays, holidays, always a drain.
We won't collect trash 'til next week to relieve the pain!
"Works for me" we did hear him eagerly exclaim!"
But then to A-Right this was explained,
On some occassions at his own house he would discover
No trash pickup until three weeks would be covered.
"Oh no, not my house" all heard him groan,
"Never, ever, will they ever miss MY home!"
The plan was foiled, as onward trash crews toiled.
For Bumbly A-Right was convinced with not even a wince.
All remained quiet as quiet can be,
The trash issue passed and Swampville rested at last.
As the months passed and the FEE was collected,
It seemed just not right and a matter to question.
"Oh no you don't", Mrs. Daring implored,
"I won't let it rest, I'm just not so sure."
Inpector Sternway agreed too, and he did say,
"Almost Potential Swampville is not to pay."
"A ploy, a plot, it just isn't right! "
So replied Bumbley A-Right when he learned of the fight.
But Bumbley C-Rights just went along, ho-hum,
We won't speak, let the courts beat this drum.
But they did not remain quiet on trash you will see,
Instead they announced that change there must be.
Automate to extricate the trash from the street,
One armed bandits instead of the three.
Lengthen the route, increase the hours,
Save us more money, that's our desire!
Test runs, trial runs, we'll give it a try,
Almost Potential Swampville again they just sighed.
"Are you done yet Bumbley A-Right and C-Rights", they asked?
"Oh no, it's a new year and more money we ask!.
Recycle will save you but if you do not,
The amount you must pay will grow a lot."
On their own, without the budget request,
The C-Rights the FEE they did adjust.
Swampville answered: "Recycle, we'll do it, just tell us we could,
We need not be taxed if its something that’s good."
Bumbley A-Right and C-Rights still they decreed:
"This money we need, we require you pay
For the games each day we want to play."
Mrs. Daring and Sternway exclaimed, "NO WAY!
Right it is not, the lawsuit will stay
And in the end, it's the Rights that shall pay!”
But Almost Potential Swampville replied:
"We are just so tired, so weary of trash.
Go away, PLEASE, let this pass."
Not to be, not to happen, an end to this ruse
The one armed bandit is trouble to use.
Long hours, long days has put holes in the budget
Now, the Rights must devise how to fudge it.
"How at his point can more cash be raised for this joint?"
A-Right ponders our fate as Swampville does wonder
What will they devise next our pockets to plunder?
Cast of characters:
Bumbley C-Rights - Council
Bumbley A-Right - Administration (Mayor)
Almost Potential Swampville - Toledo and/or its Residents
Mrs. Daring: - Lawsuit complaintant
Inspector Sternway: - Mrs. Daring's Attorneys
FEE: - Refuse fee, trash tax
CANS - Trash cans
For the past many months "Almost Potential Swampville" has been hammered with trash talk, not of strong economic development which was promised during campaign speeches by Bumbley A-Right. The following is Trash Talk of Swampville.
Many months ago on a dark and dreary day in Almost Potential Swampville,
Bumbley A-Right saw nasty alleys which he found absurd:
He decreed, "Swampville must "PUT THEIR TRASH AT THE CURB!"
Obedient, Almost Potential Swampville complied, though disturbed.
Bumbley A-Right, a 3:00 p.m. bus tour of Swampville he took,
Only to find, !HORRORS! cans at the curb.
"Cans at the curb the day before trash day!
This is too early", he roared: "this cannot be,
This cannot exist, absolutely, it must desist!"
So A-Right commanded,
"The times to see cans on my streets I will alter!
This must be done, we must not falter!"
But alas, the decree in winter required
Swampville Seniors to tromp in the dark with their cans
They would stomp through the snow and the ice in the dark,
"No! No!" cried Bumbley C-Rights, “this must be banned,
Bumbley A-Right, he must amend his decree.”
After many discussions and much ado,
The time was adjusted for me and for you.
Swampville cans could go out in the daylight you see,
But A-Right would be watching to confirm our deeds.
"Not enough!" screamed Bumbley A-Right,
We must punish infractions to increase budgets by fractions.
I shall decree!" Bumbley A-Right, intracted
"if Swampville puts cans out early each day,
Surely, surely and definitely, they absolutely must pay!"
So Bumbley A-Right declared forty bucks each infraction.
And this was his cry – "Swampville, you know will comply!"
"But how, oh how, can we possibly check, what a plight!
I know," he announced! "we'll deputize Block Watch and precinct alike,
To pounce on the ones who put cans out in early light.
Ahhh… feels right, feels good" they heard him exclaim,
"I covered it all and yes, all must pay the same!”
"But WAIT!" Yelled Bumbley C-Rights, "we can't do this, it hurts!
For Swampville will revolt, they too want some perks!
C-Rights spoke: “Call me if you get this fine,
You won't have to pay, we'll wipe it away!"
A sigh of relief from Swampville, they were pleased,
They were happy, that their C-Rights did thus agree!
So now comes the next phase of trash in the queue…
"The budget, the budget, oh what shall I do? "
Exclaimed Bumbley A-Right just to himself.
"Money is short, this cannot be,
We need more, we need more, I know…
The trash, we'll just add a FEE!"
And so on the budget he dumped in the middle,
An additional, a little, right in the middle,
An extra FEE for Almost Potential Swampville to pay.
"Hee, hee," he snickered; "I've done it for sure,
An extra five million, now that's a real cure."
"Not so fast", Bumbley C-Rights, they did reply,
"We must discuss this, we can't just comply."
Ah yes, but it's buried in the budget you see,
So maybe, just maybe, we can just let it be.
It passed with the budget and one more time we complied,
We here in Swampville, we did not decry.
Oh weary, so weary we are of this trash.
If you need more money, should not a levy you pass?
Bumbly A-Right again was poised to perform.
He told of his scheme for savings and more.
Trash again?, Swampville wondered, what more could he do?
A brilliant scheme by A'Right's point of view.
Holidays, holidays, always a drain.
We won't collect trash 'til next week to relieve the pain!
"Works for me" we did hear him eagerly exclaim!"
But then to A-Right this was explained,
On some occassions at his own house he would discover
No trash pickup until three weeks would be covered.
"Oh no, not my house" all heard him groan,
"Never, ever, will they ever miss MY home!"
The plan was foiled, as onward trash crews toiled.
For Bumbly A-Right was convinced with not even a wince.
All remained quiet as quiet can be,
The trash issue passed and Swampville rested at last.
As the months passed and the FEE was collected,
It seemed just not right and a matter to question.
"Oh no you don't", Mrs. Daring implored,
"I won't let it rest, I'm just not so sure."
Inpector Sternway agreed too, and he did say,
"Almost Potential Swampville is not to pay."
"A ploy, a plot, it just isn't right! "
So replied Bumbley A-Right when he learned of the fight.
But Bumbley C-Rights just went along, ho-hum,
We won't speak, let the courts beat this drum.
But they did not remain quiet on trash you will see,
Instead they announced that change there must be.
Automate to extricate the trash from the street,
One armed bandits instead of the three.
Lengthen the route, increase the hours,
Save us more money, that's our desire!
Test runs, trial runs, we'll give it a try,
Almost Potential Swampville again they just sighed.
"Are you done yet Bumbley A-Right and C-Rights", they asked?
"Oh no, it's a new year and more money we ask!.
Recycle will save you but if you do not,
The amount you must pay will grow a lot."
On their own, without the budget request,
The C-Rights the FEE they did adjust.
Swampville answered: "Recycle, we'll do it, just tell us we could,
We need not be taxed if its something that’s good."
Bumbley A-Right and C-Rights still they decreed:
"This money we need, we require you pay
For the games each day we want to play."
Mrs. Daring and Sternway exclaimed, "NO WAY!
Right it is not, the lawsuit will stay
And in the end, it's the Rights that shall pay!”
But Almost Potential Swampville replied:
"We are just so tired, so weary of trash.
Go away, PLEASE, let this pass."
Not to be, not to happen, an end to this ruse
The one armed bandit is trouble to use.
Long hours, long days has put holes in the budget
Now, the Rights must devise how to fudge it.
"How at his point can more cash be raised for this joint?"
A-Right ponders our fate as Swampville does wonder
What will they devise next our pockets to plunder?
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Marina District - A question for Frank Szollisi
So Frank, are you saying that in order to be employed in Toledo you must be a member of a Union?
Your latest demand that all work on the Marina District be performed by Union members is so anti-business it is disappointing. The Unions can take care of themselves, they don't need you legislation.
Back off!
Your latest demand that all work on the Marina District be performed by Union members is so anti-business it is disappointing. The Unions can take care of themselves, they don't need you legislation.
Back off!
Vacant Property Registry Folly
Vacant Property Registry
What is the purpose of this registry?
What is to be accomplished by the registry?
If I understand the purpose of the legislation, it is to provide easy access to the name and address of the owners of vacant properties so they can be billed for city work to maintain the property if the owner does not.
I had a discussion with a councilperson about this and it became quite intense. If I own a home, maintain it, clean it, keep it in repair, mow the grass, shovel the walks in the winter, pay the taxes… it is ABSOLUTELY none of the business of this or any other government entity whether it is or is not inhabited. If I am in compliance with the laws on maintaining MY property, it is ABSOLUTELY none of the business of this or any other government entity whether it is or is not inhabited
There are already regulations for those who have vacant property which is in decay, not maintained and condemned. If the city does maintain the grounds, condemns the building and then demolishes the home, the owner is billed.
We are assured there are many “exclusions” to the registry, but we have to request the exclusion after registering the property. The property is then on a registry visible to anyone who requests the information. What happened to the term “private property?”
When I asked the council person what will be accomplished when the registry is put into effect, it was explained it will help the city know how many vacant homes exist in Toledo to help determine revenues for the city and help control the dilapidated properties in Central city. Are you aware the City owns almost 600 vacant properties which are 30' frontage, many in Central City? Will they register these properties?
My point to all on council is this: those who do not maintain their properties are not going to register the properties. When I offered this opinion to the councilperson, I asked what ultimately would be accomplished and the response was more fees would build up. What good will that do when the City is not proactive enough to collect the fees currently owed?
The responsible residents will once again bear the brunt of city inefficiencies by the requirement to report to a city that already has proven they do not follow through with the regulations. It will be randomly and inefficiently be applied and undoubtedly another person will be needed to maintain this registry and answer all the requests for exclusions. As government is best at creating, this is another quagmire in the political arena of Toledo politics designed to appease the politically connected CDC’s..
If in fact there is close to $3,000,000 in unpaid fees against vacant and abandoned property the department responsible for collecting the unpaid fees should be held accountable, not create another regulation or registry which will be impossible to maintain.
Council should require a report with:
A list of properties with fees already assessed which they have not been able to collect.
The amount owned against each property
The name and last know address of the owner of the property
The efforts taken to collect the owned fines
It is extremely disappointing to see this Council continue to punish with additional regulations the citizens who pay the bills and vote them into office.
What is the purpose of this registry?
What is to be accomplished by the registry?
If I understand the purpose of the legislation, it is to provide easy access to the name and address of the owners of vacant properties so they can be billed for city work to maintain the property if the owner does not.
I had a discussion with a councilperson about this and it became quite intense. If I own a home, maintain it, clean it, keep it in repair, mow the grass, shovel the walks in the winter, pay the taxes… it is ABSOLUTELY none of the business of this or any other government entity whether it is or is not inhabited. If I am in compliance with the laws on maintaining MY property, it is ABSOLUTELY none of the business of this or any other government entity whether it is or is not inhabited
There are already regulations for those who have vacant property which is in decay, not maintained and condemned. If the city does maintain the grounds, condemns the building and then demolishes the home, the owner is billed.
We are assured there are many “exclusions” to the registry, but we have to request the exclusion after registering the property. The property is then on a registry visible to anyone who requests the information. What happened to the term “private property?”
When I asked the council person what will be accomplished when the registry is put into effect, it was explained it will help the city know how many vacant homes exist in Toledo to help determine revenues for the city and help control the dilapidated properties in Central city. Are you aware the City owns almost 600 vacant properties which are 30' frontage, many in Central City? Will they register these properties?
My point to all on council is this: those who do not maintain their properties are not going to register the properties. When I offered this opinion to the councilperson, I asked what ultimately would be accomplished and the response was more fees would build up. What good will that do when the City is not proactive enough to collect the fees currently owed?
The responsible residents will once again bear the brunt of city inefficiencies by the requirement to report to a city that already has proven they do not follow through with the regulations. It will be randomly and inefficiently be applied and undoubtedly another person will be needed to maintain this registry and answer all the requests for exclusions. As government is best at creating, this is another quagmire in the political arena of Toledo politics designed to appease the politically connected CDC’s..
If in fact there is close to $3,000,000 in unpaid fees against vacant and abandoned property the department responsible for collecting the unpaid fees should be held accountable, not create another regulation or registry which will be impossible to maintain.
Council should require a report with:
A list of properties with fees already assessed which they have not been able to collect.
The amount owned against each property
The name and last know address of the owner of the property
The efforts taken to collect the owned fines
It is extremely disappointing to see this Council continue to punish with additional regulations the citizens who pay the bills and vote them into office.
A Question for Mr. Wilkowski
As a former Law Director, an Attorney, a public figure for 20+ years and a probable candidate for Mayor of Toledo, I request your official opinion on the legality of the Refuse Fee. Do you consider the "refuse fee" a legal form of revenue for a municipality? If you decide to campaign for the office of Mayor, it is important to understand your position on taxation and fees.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
ESM - Business Plan
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)