11/1/2011 Council meeting

Mr. Mulligan mentioned that having Mr. Landen draft the legislation to create a “street fund” and bring it back at the next meeting will allow time for “the citizens to provide input”.  That’s a joke!!!  The only ones that the majority on Council will accept “input” from are that close group of cronies known as MMF.  Any input received from the real citizens is promptly filed in the “round file”.

It certainly sounded like Mr. Corolus said that there would still be over $4 million left from the “Public Safety levy” at the end of 2011 (before Ms. Gilleland quickly interrupted him)!!!

TudorBrown wrote: Mr. Presta, Would you support Laubach’s capital street funding legislation?

TudorBrown,

I support the concept, but I think that the amount should be higher!!!  I also believe that every single penny of CBDG money that we can get our hands on should go towards street repairs/repaving.

Acclaro,

Thank you for the kind wishes!!!  The Ward One demographics run the complete spectrum, and include some of our city’s wealthiest residents as well as some of the poorest, but is mostly middle-class.

I think that Laubach’s “street ordinance” did not move along further because the powers that be want to maintain the fiction that we just can’t afford it.  They would’ve either had to have found a few hundred thousand dollars “tucked away in one of our other funds”, or admit that they just were playing politics to position things to get higher taxes and fees in place.  Also, to have “found” the money for this while claiming to be broke and threatening to lay off police and fire, might have exposed certain candidates who think they have these powerful unions on their side.  For the unions to realize that there is still FOUR MILLION from the Public Safety levy available at the end of 2011 may sway their support away from the “mainstream” candidates.

Seriously, though, the Public Safety levy of 2007 was sold as money that was to be used for public safety in addition to that which was already being spent.  Instead, much of it was used for public safety in place of that which was already being spent.  The public safety money that it “replaced” was then squandered on pet projects, risky schemes, raises (or promotions) for favored city employees, and to resolve the deficit spending that had plagued our city budget in some recent years.

The 2006 police and fire budgets were approximately $11 million and $8 million, respectively.

Note this from a July 19, 2006, article in the Middletown Journal about budget discussions:

“What would they do?

The Middletown Police Department - with an extra $250,000 - would replace six officers. They also would be able to add four new officers to the force and resume community policing, crime prevention efforts and some training.

The Middletown Fire Department - with an additional $250,000 - would hire four firefighters, bring daily staffing up to 20 from 19 and add one more person to station five.”*

Please note that, with a TOTAL of only $500,000, both departments claimed they would be able to INCREASE personnel to provide added safety for the citizens of Middletown.

*Here is the link to the first Journal story quoted above:  http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=112F890C41525548&p_docnum=4

The 0.75% levy on the ballot in November of 2006 failed, and the story changed by the time an article in the January 25, 2007 Middletown Journal was published:

“Funding for safety forces. Should the city consider a property tax levy or an income tax increase?

Firefighter Jon Harvey, who also is the president of the Middletown Firefighters Association, said the top concern is having enough money for the city's safety forces.

Police Chief Mike Bruck said there are number of issues, such as how the city is going to operate in 2007, what will the city do in 2008, and come up with a long-term funding solution following the November defeat of a city income tax rate increase.

Bruck said police need $250,000 to cover the costs of two patrol officers, a jailer and a dispatcher.

City Manager Bill Becker said the council will have to act on the temporary fire budget by Feb. 20.

Acting Fire Chief Steve Botts said the fire division needs about $486,000 to keep all five fire stations open and keep services at the current levels.”**

In just six months (from July 19, 2006 to January 25, 2007) it appears that instead of $500,000 to INCREASE safety forces, it will take $750,000 just to maintain the same level!!!

**Here is the link to the second Journal story: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=116E10DCB9F35F78&p_docnum=8

However, instead of the $750,000 mentioned in the January 25, 2007 article, the voters gave City Hall the 0.25% Public Safety levy, beginning in 2008 to the tune of OVER $2.5 MILLION per year!!!!

So, first they needed $500,000/year to INCREASE public safety.  Then, just six months later, they needed $750,000/year to simply MAINTAIN the same level of services.  Then, less than a year later we gave them nearly THREE MILLION PER YEAR, and they CUT SERVICES!!!  (And less than four years later, they are broke again!!!) 

What happened to the money??? 

Have they actually spent an additional ELEVEN MILLION (+-) DOLLARS on public safety these last FOUR years???

In November of 2006, when the 0.75% payroll tax levy increase was coming up for a vote, City Hall promised that 0.25% would go towards Public Safety.  Well, that levy failed…but the following year a 0.25% levy, solely for Public Safety DID pass!!!  Let’s look back at a November 3, 2006 article in the Middletown Journal to see what was promised for the Public Safety portion (0.25%) of the levy that failed, and ask ourselves if this is what we got when a 0.25% Public Safety levy DID pass:

Editor's Note: As soon as city officials began talking about bringing an income tax increase before voters, area residents wanted to know details. In July, City Manager Bill Becker and other department heads presented their plans for how additional funds would be spent. Still, residents wanted more. The following series takes a deeper look at how the additional $9 million per year would be spent among streets, public safety, economic development, parks and recreation and the city's Rainy Day Fund. Today: Middletown Division of Fire and Division of Police.

The difference between yes and no on the city's proposed income tax increase will be huge, the city's police and fire chiefs say.

Staff sizes. Response times. Crime rate. Each will be affected by the outcome of the proposed 0.75 percent income tax levy on the Tuesday ballot, according to police Chief Mike Bruck and fire Chief John Sauter.

The 'yes' vote

For the Division of Police, a 'yes' vote Tuesday will allow the force to be more proactive than reactive, Bruck said.

In addition to the $250,000 earmarked for the city's police force, Bruck is budgeting for between $300,000 and $350,000 more after 2007.

The department would reinstitute foot and bike patrols; officers would spend more face-to-face time with residents; response times would decrease; and there would be more opportunity to apply for state and federal grants for programs like Weed and Seed, which has seen success in cities such as Hamilton.

"All of our money would go right back into services for the people," Bruck said. "We need to drive our crime rate down. We need to make this community safer. That all takes money, and every penny is going to go to the services that will allow that to happen."

Prevention and training are key for the Middletown fire services, two things they have done little of since cutbacks squeezed the department in 2005.

Approval of the November tax increase will add three more firefighters to Division of Fire, said Sauter and Assistant Chief Steven Botts.

Three more men and women on the line - for a total of 20 per shift - allows more time for training, lower response times and greater availability of resources and equipment.