Before you start voting for all these permanent tax levy I would advise you to consider the other major problems that are facing the city and the clock of this bomb is ticking...

September 24, 2007
138 Million EPA Sewer Project

“We have to reduce taxes,” [Butler County Commissioner Don] Dixon said. “Taxes burden not only businesses, but the average person. People should not have to choose between paying their electric bill or to buy clothes for their children because they are overtaxed. Taxpayers are tired and they don’t want to pay anymore.”

Doing more with less and sharing resources regionally between governments is a must and will be the norm in the future, said both Sheriff Richard Jones and Dixon.

It has been interesting to observe this discussion on the public service levy and the levy for the Senior Center. It was pretty academic until Mr. Klug got personal and referred to Acclaro as telling lies, in effect calling him a liar. Well, Mr.  Klug, Acclaro is guilty at times of overstatement, on a couple of occasions had his facts wrong and on a couple of other occasions he was just wrong but most of the time he is well informed and adds a great deal of information to any of these discussions. However, I have never known of him to intentionally lie or misrepresent anything.

    There is a lot of misrepresentation on these issues and some downright lying but it is from the city. Before I address them let me be plain as to my great support for our police, fire and EMS departments. They are all very professional and serve our city as good as any departments in the country. All those who know me understand my strong feelings in this regard. The same goes for the Senior Center. I’m convinced that Ms. Munafo could turn the center around except for the fact that the city is forcing her to take the political approach in favor of their special interests rather than in the interests of seniors and the center. Why doesn’t the city just come forth and rectify the damage they did in the sale and building of the new center and support Ms. Munafo the right way?

     I received one of the mailers requesting a vote for Issue 2 on August the  7^th. It was filled with misrepresentations (lies) Mr. Klug.

Misrepresentation:  “Currently, the 2.9 M pays for 27 firefighters and police officers collectively.”  Mr. Klug, that comes to $107,407.40 per employee. That isn’t true is it?

Misrepresentation:  “This levy will keep your community much safer!”  The levy is paying this money now until December 31^st. Why aren’t we as safe now with the same money as we will be in the future if the levy passes?  You and I both know that the safety of our community is based on the priorities of the city and of the police department. Some have suggested on this blog the efficacy of a zero tolerance policy. That is not likely to happen in Middletown because of greed and the lack of vision and foresight for the city.  I’ve heard it said that we need the crime because of the revenue it produces. How shallow that kind of thinking is. Others have said its because of Section 8 renters and people in the lower income level that bring the increase of crime. Not necessarily. There are thousands of “poor folks” who are honest, God fearing people who have never committed any crimes. It will take new priorities and different police methods to make our community safer.

Misrepresentation:  “Vote for Issue 2 will NOT  increase taxes”.  The last tax was for five (5) years. This tax is proposed as a PERMANENT TAX. Please don’t insult our intelligence. Of course this is a tax increase. If I paid you a thousand dollars for five years and then said I’d pay you a  thousand dollars forever would you be getting an increase? Of course you would.

Mr. Klug, these misrepresentations (lies) are made by our city council and administration. When political officials make misrepresentations or lie that is corruption. Our city government has been corrupt for many years. Its time to change that. We can pay our public safety employees adequately without all of the corruption. I shall address that further in another blog and I shall be very interested in your response to what I’m going to be recommending. I know that you and I are on the same side of this issue but disagree on the tactics to get where we want and need to be. Thank you.            Paul Nagy

Regarding the public safety levy, Neil Barille who understands the workings of the city probably better than most on this forum makes some very poignant observations that should not be ignored.

“Eastsider, the misuse of Public Safety funds referenced above refers to the fact that the city took the .25% increase last time and rather than dedicating it solely for PS just ran it through the general fund and used as a piggy bank for running the city.  Plus some police and fire were laid off anyway.  Don't think of this farce as a PS levy, think of it simply as a 5 year old tax increase that is now being made permanent.  That is all it is. 

As for all these sheep who think having a few more cops around will solve this  crime issue in town -- wake up.  If you're worried about break-ins, do you think there will be an officer on foot patrol in your neighborhood deterring all these break ins?  What exactly will a few extra cops do --- investigate the crime after the fact, right?

As acclaro said, this is nothing more than saving city head count. “       Neil Barille

Add to that the serious question posed by Spiderjohn who also understand the workings of the city in depth and we are given an interesting dilemma.

“very strange questions and direction, Mr.Goose

so--let me throw one back at you:

do you see passage or failing of either up-coming levy as having great impact in turning around the direction of our city's future? Are these issues at the core of our situation?”        Spiderjohn

In my mind these statements pose the question, How do we make this levy election impact the direction of our city’s future?

Well, I’d like to ask Mr. Klug and all other city union members to consider a couple of possible scenarios. It is being said that in the next ten years 60 % of all municipalities in the United States will be going into bankruptcy. I thought the discussion on municipal bankruptcy was quite expedient and wish it would go on a bit more. Also, I read the other day that Scranton, Pennsylvania had to start paying their public employees minimum wage. Now those are scary thoughts.

I’m interested in making sure that in the future our city has adequate public safety personnel. When I have brought up the subject in the past both city officials and fire and police employees chose not to think about the future but make certain that they could get what they could right now. It seems to me that in our current national predicament that is very short-sighted. Mr. Klug and Mr. Harvey its time for you to serve your members better by working for their future as well as their present. In one city a union official was quoted as saying, “We’ll get what we can now and let the union officials in the future worry about the problem.” Tell  their wives and children that and see  the reaction you get.

How about using this levy to make a great impact and change the direction of the city and protect your interests for years down the road? Why not all of us vote against this levy and defeat it. Then, let us immediately turn around and negotiate a new levy with a time limit and other conditions, such as; taking public safety funds out of the General Fund permanently and having a permanent public safety account that can’t be used for any other purpose or account.

Divide the Account into as many different departments as necessary – the Police Department, the Fire Department and the Emergency Services Department. Get it in writing that those funds are to be transparent at all times.  There may be other points to be negotiated but these give you the idea.

If the departments will vote with the 27% of citizens that voted for me in the last election and then the remainder of citizens doing the same, this should provide a mandate to change the direction of the city and guarantee our public servants what they need to do the job. We should do the same with  the seniors, infrastructure and economic development.  Have you got the vision and the courage to make meaningful change?      Paul Nagy

Public safety levy supporters make final plea for voters

By http://www.middletownjournal.com/staff/michael-d-pitman/ -

Staff writer

MIDDLETOWN —

Middletown voters will decide in just over a week if city leaders will need to make more tough public safety cuts later this year.

On Aug. 7, voters will be asked in a special election to approve a 0.25 percent income tax levy that will raise money to help pay for police and fire department operations.

In order to balance the 2012 budget, the city made $3.7 million in cuts, with the lion’s share being cut from public safety. Those cuts resulted in eliminating 16 police and fire positions, and that resulted in five firefighters losing their jobs. The rest were just vacant openings.

The income tax public safety levy, if approved, would replace the current levy that expires on Dec. 31. However, there will be one difference —the proposed tax levy replacement would be a permanent levy.

The levy provides a $2.9 million supplement to the collective $21 million police and fire budgets.

A taxpayer who earns $50,000 annually will continue to pay $125 a year, or just under $10.50 a month.

If the levy passes, the chiefs of both the police and fire departments say there will be no reduction in services. However, if it fails, jobs will be cut.

“Our budget is cut so thin now, we’ve trimmed everything out of it that we could trim,” said police Chief David VanArsdale. “We have no place to go but for personnel, and that’s going to mean bodies.”

Most of the city has been canvassed since the campaign officially kicked off last month. Potential special election voters have also been called and hundreds of pro-levy signs have been placed around the city.

“I think with people having the knowledge that there will be no reduction in services — that we’ll at least maintain the services — that people will be supportive of the levy,” said Harvey Poff, levy campaign chairman.

“We’ve gone door-to-door, we’ve put up the signs and talked with folks individually. We’re not asking for anything other than a continuance of what we have.”

The need to replace the expiring levy was always planned, but City Council had debated if the levy should have a sunset or be permanent. The city had a number of focus group discussions, said Fire Chief Steve Botts, and results from those discussions indicated the community would support the levy.

“I’m hopeful (the levy passes) because … it will protect our current resources and continue to deliver needed services to the community,” he said.

“I don’t want to see our resources reduced,” said Botts, who added that the fire department’s response times have already increased because of the recent personnel reduction and the loss of a fire truck. He said if more cuts are made, he would be “very concerned.”

The fire chief said if the levy does pass, the city can then accept a $1 million federal Staffing for Adequate Fire and EMS Response grant that will pay for six firefighters — essentially reinstating those laid positions plus add one more — over two years. If the levy fails, cuts in the fire department will happen, he said.

VanArsdale said if the police department looses any more officers, “it’s going to mean a change in the way we do business, what calls we respond t0 and what calls we follow up on.”

Poff said the hope is a Plan B or C — asking voters again in November or making cuts — won’t be needed.

“We trust that the person who goes to the poll, that they analyze what these issues are, what the ramifications are and the what the benefits are, and that it’s not going to cost any more money than what they pay now,” Poff said.

If the levy fails in August and City Council decides to ask voters to reconsider it in November, the levy will be on the same ballot as the five-year, 1-mill levy request for the Middletown Area Senior Citizens, which would pay down its mortgage for the senior center.

Can you spot the lies???  Or the statments that make you go hmmmm???

If the levy passes, the chiefs of both the police and fire departments say there will be no reduction in services.

This is the same promise we received in the last levy that lasted five yrs. The problem came in 4th yr when we had to elimate 16 positions and lay off 5 personell. With the fire and police personell getting on average 3% raises plus retirement plus excellent health care benefits, does anyone thinnk we'll make through 4 yrs again? 3 - 3yrs raises alone will bring us to a more than 10% increase in pay with these personell. I would expect in the 3rd yr or sooner we will run into same problem of the levy not covering the number of personel we have. This will result once again in another request for a 0.25% tax increase.

Stop and think before you vote.


The income tax public safety levy, if approved, would replace the current levy that expires on Dec. 31. However, there will be one difference —the proposed tax levy replacement would be a permanent levy.

No Levy for Public Safety can ever be a permanent levy.  At the rate that Police and Fire receive raises & benefits it is mathematically impossible for this levy to be permanenty set at 0.25%.


The fire chief said if the levy does pass, the city can then accept a $1 million federal Staffing for Adequate Fire and EMS Response grant that will pay for six firefighters — essentially reinstating those laid positions plus add one more —over two years.

Can anyone see what makes you go hmmm with this assumption???  Who the hell is going to pay for these Firefighters after the first two yrs.  If the grant funds will last that long.  This makes it all the more probable that there will be an increase in this levy in the 2nd or 3rd yr if we are lucky.

PACMAN

The promises made to promote passage of the public safety tax five years ago have not been kept.  We are told this is because the State of Ohio reduced payments to cities and ruined their budgets.

Here’s a fair question:

Does this mean if the state reduces some payment again, this administration will balance the budget by reducing public safety forces as they did this time???

Isn’t it likely this administration will use any other similar excuse (sales taxes went down;  EPA says we have to fix the sewers;  the bike path got washed out and must be repaired;  expenses on mothballed Cinci State building were higher than expected;  our self-insured medical expenses were higher than anticipated;  Pendelton needs a bail-out;  the fake gas light electric bill went up;  someone successfully sued the city for gross negligence;  a pothole in front of the mayor’s house must be repaired;  one of our water towers collapsed due to lack of maintenance;  council decides we need more water features;  etc, etc, ad nausem) to divert funds from this NEVERENDING tax in the same way???

They did it once...why should we believe they won't do it again???  (Especially if the voters prove that we won't hold it against them!!!)

Right you are, Mr. Saunders!!!

And this administration has made it perfectly clear that they don’t have ANYWHERE to go except to public safety to re-balance the budget while saving their precious arts and historic districts.

They will cut our police and fire forces in a heartbeat (no pun intended).

Don’t believe me???

They have the 0.25% right now!!!  How did they balance the 2012 budget???

They cut PUBLIC SAFETY!!!

What more proof do you need???

Yet they were licking their chops to pay more every month for electricity for decorative lamps for South Main. 

They subsidize arts right and left.

They buy buildings for all of their friends.

They give thousands to MMF.

Hundreds of thousands for “enhanced gateways”.

A million for bike paths.

A hundred grand for a couple more brick pillars for the “Welcome to Middletown” sign.

But they had to CUT PUBLIC SAFETY!!!

And you think that they won’t do it again????