COMMUNITY FORUM on Shared Services/Merger Draft Final Report: Monday, November 18, 7pm, Orange High School

Please visit the City website here or read the image below.

Wherefore art thou, regionalism?

Just askin' - from the Sunday Plain Dealer, "Westlake's pursuit of new water source threatens stability of Cleveland utility":

One of Cleveland's biggest customers, Westlake is working on plans to set up its own water department and buy wholesale from the Avon Lake water system in neighboring Lorain County.

The Cleveland water department, already struggling with declining consumption, is moving aggressively to stop the revolt led by longtime Westlake Mayor Dennis Clough.

It would be the first defection from the regional water system since several Lake County communities left in the early 1980s, and it could have far-reaching ramifications. Some fear that if Westlake pulls out, other dissatisfied western suburbs will follow.

Read the entire piece, as it also reveals a real battle of the consultants.

What would you do if you were Westlake? Avon? Cleveland? Another suburb using Cleveland - oh wait, we are.

Learning from other's mistakes

The salient statements are so often found in the last words of even the longest pieces.  From today's New York Times Magazine article, "Broke Town, USA":

Until voters can agree on what government services they want and will pay for, it is possible that bondholders will bank the profits while taxpayers, employees and citizens share the losses.

It is this issue of voters agreeing on what government services they want and will pay for that most resonates for me, and why, for more than a year, I've wanted a resident survey to assist us in aligning our revenues with our expenditures.

Tom Suddes on the SB5 endgame's effect on Ohio's local government funding

From today's Plain Dealer:

...if (and it's a big if) Senate Bill 5 does slow the growth in cities', counties', libraries' and school boards' personnel spending, that would give Kasich's administration and the Republican-run General Assembly an opening to prune state aid to local governments. [emphasis added]

You must read Tom's entire column for the complete argument he makes, but this is not news and anyone who suggests that it is, hasn't been paying attention.

What's this mean to someone like a local city mayor or council member?

It means that

1) the local government dollars the political subdivisions receive are, as we've been saying, endangered but, in Suddes' argument, they are being justified as endangered by the speculation that the political subdivisions can make up the loss for the local government fund money by cutting the personnel-related items they'd be allowed to cut - without any bargaining be allowed anymore - courtesy of SB5)

and

2) the estate tax dollars likewise remain endangered - although I checked the status of HB 3 yesterday and it appears that it's somewhat stalled for now - and a similar argument might be made to justify the loss of those dollars (because with SB5, local governments can make up the loss by cutting personnel-related items that SB5 would let them cut without having to go to bargaining).

Politifact Declares Ohio State Rep's Anti-Estate Tax Assertion "Pants on Fire" Lie

From today's Plain Dealer, "Did Wendy's founder Dave Thomas really flee Ohio's estate tax on his death bed?" as asserted by Ohio House Representative Jay Hottinger (R, 71st District), leader of the drive to repeal the tax from the House side:

Hottinger’s statement isn’t just inaccurate, it’s also ridiculous. On the Truth-O-Meter, it’s worthy of flame broiling. That’s why we rate it Pants On Fire. 

Please read the entire piece for the full context and the research gathered by the PD's Politifact folks.

Estate tax likely to remain source of revenue for at least near future

From the Columbus Dispatch:

A group seeking to repeal Ohio's estate tax says it will fail to meet the deadline for a second year to file enough signatures to have the legislature consider the plan, but it isn't discouraged....

That's because the group hopes the incoming Republican majority in the Ohio House and Republican Gov.-elect John Kasich will take action on their own.

...If they don't, the group could file signatures by the end of 2011 for action in 2012.

I infer from this that the estate tax - as a source of revenue to local governments such as Pepper Pike -  will continue to be levied at least through the end of 2012, unless the Republican majority Ohio House and Ohio Senate decide to take legislative action and eliminate it.

What do you want our newly elected state representative, Marliene Anielski (R, Walton Hills) to do?

Hattip to Plunderbund.

[Live-chat] THURSDAY: The Pulse of Pepper Pike, 12:00-12:30 PM

Today's Pulse will beat to the drum of the topic in this article in The Economist, "Money and Power: Beware the Lure of the Businessman-Politician."

The live-chat info/formalities are below the chat frame.

NB: There is a possibility that I will not be finished by 12noon today with an appointment that will be starting mid-morning.  The Pulse will start beating as soon as that commitment is complete and I will send a reminder email at that time for folks who might like to jump in.  Thanks so much but, as they used to say on Saturday Night Live's Coffee Talk with Linda Richman, "Discuss amongst yawselves!"  From the article:

How likely are these bosses-turned-politicians to keep their promises? There are a few successes. Michael Bloomberg has been such a hit as mayor that normally irascible New Yorkers have elected him to a third term. Businesspeople do have more experience of squeezing efficiency gains from the internet than professional politicians and they have less of a vested interest in expanding the supply of government.

But there is little evidence to support the common belief that businesspeople possess management skills that can easily be imported into the public sector. On the contrary, government and business are built on very different principles. For all the fashionable talk about empowering employees, bosses are ultimately the masters of their own domains. There are no civil-service style regulations to protect employees from the wrath of an angry CEO: when he or she says jump, you jump. Company bosses can usually escape from the pressure of public opinion and the glare of publicity that defines political life. Even those who are drafted into politics rather than forced to stand for election, find they are in a far more confusing world than the one they are familiar with.

My thoughts on a resident's "Plan For A Fiscal Responsibility Review for Pepper Pike"

Late last Tuesday evening (8/17/10), I received an email from a resident that had an attached letter and explicitly asked for a response to the information in the attached letter.  The attachment included ideas related to what the letter termed a "plan for a fiscal responsibility review for Pepper Pike."  I spent the next day reviewing the letter and placing my responses into the letter.  The resulting response document, which I sent back to the resident late in the afternoon of 8/18/10, is the bulk of this blog post. 

I consider this to be a dialogue, not any kind of definitive thing, but rather a continuation of the conversation that I would say the resident's document seeks to begin. I am as eager if not more so (as many of you know) to move forward with as many actionable ideas as possible, in as timely and responsible a way as possible. I encourage you to leave comments here, email or call me to keep that going.

As a side note, earlier this week, a different resident asked me if I felt that residents getting involved was a pain (this wasn't the first time I've been asked this!).  I smiled, paused and then said that I don't think anyone invites resident input more than I do and I take all-comers. I view it as my job as a Member of Council, elected by the voters, to integrate all input.  Much like prosecutors do not get to pick the victim, I do not get to pick the residents.  I am, however, grateful in particular for every single resident who takes the effort to voice their opinion.  No one has to agree with me, and I do not feel bound to agree with any one resident. I was not elected to agree with any one resident.  I was elected to serve the City which is composed of nearly 6,000 different individuals.

Here is what I sent back to the resident as well as to my Council colleagues, Mayor Akers and the City's finance director.

*** PRELIM NOTE FROM JILL: The red font reflects my way of highlighting the key points as if in an outline format. The text in purple font reflect my questions, comments, concerns.  Thank you very much for the time you’ve put into this.  There’s no question that if my request to do a community survey had been approved, we’d be well on our way to have a great deal of this information but with still many more questions to be answered.  To have resident support to pursue this kind of review is instrumental in getting it done, in my opinion. So again, thank you on that count. I am an editor who knows few bounds so please know that none of my commenting in red or purple is personal or with any agenda other than to clarify, improve upon, tighten and operationalize what you’ve included here.  The most major omission I see that I would want you to think about as you read my comments is a definitional section.  There are a number of terms in here that will need to be defined so that we have common understanding – because I believe that is in fact where we – as a city – are struggling.  What you mean and what another resident thinks of as “basic fire service” may not be the same, truly.  We have got to spell it out.  This takes time, but it is necessary and will prevent wiggling later on.  Anyway – that’s just one example – there are others throughout.

City updates, more/deeper/candid thoughts on City, finances, tax rate increase

Below is the text of an email I sent out today to those residents who have given me permission to email them with periodic updates. Please email me if you would like to be added to the list.  Thank you.

EDITING IN! Thank you to an eagle-eyed resident who saw that the email I sent out had the date July 13, though clearly people are receiving the email today, July 31.  I started drafting the email on July 13 and just kept working on the draft, which I finally finished and sent today, July 31.  I am sorry for the confusion, and the wrong date.

Greetings to all on this first day of August - unbelievable!

The disclaimer per usual re: being on this list: if you would like to be removed from my distribution list, please let me know. I understand and respect people's desire to receive less email. Please know that I do not share your emails with anyone, this is my personal list and those are two reasons why I keep your email addresses in the "blind copy" recipient section.

A few short City-related updates to share, and then, for those of you who remember the last long email I wrote, preceded by a warning about it being long, this email includes an even longer set of thoughts about the tax rate increase that will be decided by voters as a result of Tuesday's election.

The short updates:

1. There is a Pepper Pike Community Band concert on Monday, August 2 at 7:30pm in the Pepper Pike Park. 

2. There is a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on Monday, August 2 at 7:30p in City Hall (open to the public as always) also.  I know this happened last year and I'm told that it happens not in frequently.  I'm just the messenger (though when I noticed the conflict, I did ask about it but there was not a movement to change it.) The agenda for the meeting can be seen here.

NB: For those interested in the progress of the Waterway Carwash in Lander Circle by Chagrin, they are scheduled to be at this meeting.

3. Voting will take place in Pepper Pike on Tuesday, August 3. You can read more about it here.  Polls are open from 6:30am through 7:30pm. 

Just so people know: I will be at one of the locations for an hour or so on Tuesday (I'm not sure which one yet).  Two of my Landerwood neighbors were involved in recruiting people to be at the polls. Both of those neighbors are with the "pro" group.  However, I will be there solely as a Council Member and to thank residents for turning out to vote, period.  I do not know how, as an elected official myself who evangelizes pretty much non-stop about civic engagement, I cannot and could not and would not offer to be there to thank those of you who vote in person on that day. As far as I know, so long as people are outside the area marked by flags, as many of you too can come and thank your fellow residents for giving us a good turnout.

Tuesday 8/3/10: Great streams of people coming into both polling locations - really impressed for midday (2pm ish) - chatted with many inside and outside the station - including another council member, some City employees, and Jean Seaton who was there for the "yes" side.  And while I did not see any "no" side yard signs or greeters, I did see many people I know who were voting on different sides. Thanks to everyone for voting, in person or absentee!

4. The next Finance Oversight Subcommittee meeting is Monday, August 9 at 7:30pm in the City Hall Chambers. It is open to the public. There is not yet a meeting agenda but I will post it when there is one. Minutes from prior meetings will also be available on the site but I am waiting for the electronic versions (my scanned versions are quite inferior).

5. The next regularly scheduled council meeting is Road & Safety/Finance & Planning on Wednesday, August 11 at 7:30pm in City Hall. Public as always, I've not received an agenda for it.

Please know that if you have any questions about these or other matters, please contact me or City Hall. You can find contact information here.

And now - the lengthy thoughts about the City and the ballot issues and oh, more than you may ever want to know.  As before, I leave residents to their excellent minds to determine whether they are for or against the ballot issues to be voted on this Tuesday. I clearly have opinions, but I am not going to tell anyone how to vote (and I have been asked to do that).

I want to thank the many, many residents who have in fact wanted to know my thoughts on many of the issues described below.  The thoughts below were written by me and only me in response to one very specifically worded request for my input: "Would you be able to address the letter Jim Lemay [sic] mailed to the residents? [the June 27, 2010 letter] Is his letter, providing "new information" accurate?" 
I have attached that letter for your easy reference. [not attached to the blog post]

As last time, no one has vetted what I'm writing here except me. I take 100% responsibility and I invite critique of my thoughts, always.  That can be done by phone, email, on my city council-related blog, where this will be posted after I send it or if you would like to get together to talk. 

Thank you in advance for your consideration and patience.  Here is my very candid response to that question, in a separate color just to offset it a bit. The bolding is simply to help you as the reader scan for what may interest you and what you may want to skip over.

I don't feel that the information provided in the letter is new and I also don't feel that it is all accurate or at least in context. With that in mind, what I'm going to do is list out for you all the notes I made on my copy of the letter and go from there:

Plain Dealer coverage of the ballot issues; Beachwood passes income tax increase to 2% for November ballot

Feel free to leave comments there or here but beware - Cleveland.com commenting is notoriously anonymous and often nasty (just being honest, having blogged for the Plain Dealer/cleveland.com for a few weeks on their OPEN politics portal).  Commenting here is very different than commenting there, just sayin'.

Pepper Pike going to voters Aug. 3 with proposed income tax increase

And fyi - it appears that Beachwood is going to voters November 2 with a proposed income tax rate increase of 0.5%, moving their income tax payors from 1.5% to 2.0%.

2. Committee of the Whole
Ordinance No. 2010-101 An Ordinance amending existing BCO Section 193.03, Rate and Income Taxable, in order to provide for a one-half percent increase in the current levy on income, to a rate of two percent per annum, beginning January 1, 2011, and declaring an emergency.
Placed on First Reading: July 19, 2010.
Placed on Second Reading: July 22, 2010.
Placed on Third and Final Reading and Adopted on: July 26, 2010.

3. Committee of the Whole
Resolution No. 2010-102 A Resolution declaring the necessity of an election on the question of approving the passage of an Ordinance to amend existing BCO Section 193.03, Rate and Income Taxable, in order to provide for a one-half percent increase in the current levy on income, to a rate of two percent, beginning January 1, 2011, for the purpose of providing funds for general municipal functions of the City, and declaring an emergency.
Placed on First Reading: July 19, 2010.
Placed on Second Reading: July 22, 2010.
Placed on Third and Final Reading and Adopted on: July 26, 2010.

Beachwood joins Bratenahl, another village often followed by the reputation of being well-off that is seeking to raise its income tax exactly as Beachwood: from 1.5% to 2% (it's also seeking a millage increase in a property tax levy for operating expenses, from what it looks like). South Russell (in Geauga County though) will seek an increase from 1% to 1.25% in its income tax rate on the November ballot.

You can see the list here as of today, July 30, but municipalities in Cuyahoga County have until August 4 to certify such issues. Could be more coming up. (Geauga's issues list is not yet available online.)

Pepper Pike Election: Thoughts on Estate Taxes & Services As They Relate to Proposed Tax Rate Increase

The below text was sent as an email to those on my distribution list on Wednesday evening, July 7, 2010.

Greetings and a good summer to everyone.

First, as always, if you would like to be removed from my distribution list, please let me know. I understand and respect people's desire to receive less email. Please know that I do not share your emails with anyone, this is my personal list and those are two reasons why I keep your email addresses in the "blind copy" recipient section.

Now, a warning: this is a very long email and it's definitely written in my style of "writes like she talks."  However, I really only discuss two topics that concern the upcoming ballot issues: estate taxes and services.

I've written about these two specific topics because they relate to information in communications that many residents have asked me about and that advocate against the tax.  As you will see as you read this email, I am not advocating that anyone vote for or against the tax-related ballot issue.  I am, however, stating my opinion about these two specific topics as they relate to the tax issue.

In the communications, there are at least two assumptions that fail to be mentioned anywhere.  Yet, in my opinion, they are integral to why Council placed a tax rate increase issue on the ballot for voters to consider. Please know that these comments are 1000% mine and mine alone. Here goes:

Residents have repeatedly told us, on the record, at meetings, town halls, in emails, over the phone and face to face, two things in particular that contradict what the communications advocating against the tax issue suggest:

1. Residents have said repeatedly and in a variety of ways that they want us to stop relying on estate taxes as was done in the past and prefer that we use them to build a rainy day fund and/or capital improvements only.

Residents repeatedly and very vocally have chastised the former Council and the mayor for having relied on estate taxes for years, for not having a rainy day fund at all, and for relying on an acknowledged unreliable source of revenue (the estate tax) to fill in gaps between costs and expenses.  This criticism is exactly correct and Council and the mayor have all agreed that it was unwise to rely on estate taxes as they had been relied upon for years and years. 

The responsible response by Council and the mayor to this criticism and realization, also on the record repeatedly, was to commit to a reform effort that will create a separate rainy day fund, determine what the estate tax revenue can and should be used for, and examine what would be the appropriate amount of estate taxes to budget for, if any.  Many residents don't want us to budget for any estate tax revenue and to have "0" in the budget, though it was agreed, eventually, that that was excessively pessimistic.  That's why now there is $300,000 budgeted for 2012 through 2015. (You can see the five year budget forecast as of 5/14/10 here).

The City has to budget in the prior year for the year ahead, but we don't know what estate tax revenues we will receive until the County is accruing those revenues and we too can see what is accruing in that current fiscal year.  We receive the funds 2x a year (February and September) and we can ask for advances, but we also occasionally see the account decline once a person's estate settles and the amount they put in escrow turns out to be higher than what we actually are going to receive.

This is to say, we cannot see in November 2010, as we budget for 2011, what we will get in estate tax revenue for 2011. So all we can do is budget for what we think we will get. In the past years, the finance director has been conservative in that estimate -  $500,000 - knowing that it does come in high many times, but that it also comes in low  - and it has come in low in the past, including 2009 (when it came in at less than $500,000). 

Mr. Jim LeMay, the author of one of the communications residents have asked me about, and who is advocating against the ballot issue, previously indicated to Council his belief that we should budget according to a less pessimistic forecast.  He suggested that rather than the $300,000 estate tax revenue projection currently in the five-year projections, we base the projection on a 16 year average estate tax revenue of $1.4 million and project either $900,000 (which he wrote was "a still very conservative assumption") or $1.4 million (the actual 16 year average revenue of estate taxes he calculated).  By adjusting the projection in this way, it gives the City the appearance of having more projected revenue, allowing for more expenses to be projected and still show a balanced budget. 

In my opinion, the problem with that approach is that if $900,000 is then in the operating budget as the estimate for the estate tax revenue, and we do not receive $900,000, but in the prior year when we made the budget, we set expenses to that expectation, then what?  Last year was a year when the City budgeted $500,000 and that was not met.  Property tax and income tax revenues were also down.  I do not believe it is prudent in the least to suggest, at this time in the City's economy or the economy in general, that we want to increase how much we think we'll get in total revenues, then budget expenses based on that, and then risk that we will commit to expenses we then cannot pay.  I do not see how that matches with any concept of good planning or good decision-making.

In addition, if we budget for a higher amount, and we don't even reach that, not only have we then over-spent based on an estimate that was too high, we then also have no money to add to the rainy day fund. 

I think the city owes it to the taxpayers to budget conservatively, especially in these economic times.  We're a city providing services whose budgeting is based on whatever revenues are generated by property value, income, and who passes away.  We budget based on the fluctuation of those streams (examining what we need and what residents want to pay for is a whole other question that deserves attention too). And, we may contract our budget if those streams contract and we have no rainy day fund. 

However, up through now, surplus funds were never placed in a rainy day fund, so we cannot weather revenue contraction without making the kind of cuts we've had to make.  It is not good planning, in my opinion, to defer the funding of a rainy day fund or not budget for there to be a surplus.  It is not good planning, in my opinion, to divert estate taxes away from these important financial tool that we currently do not have.

For those looking for an example, I recommend this article about how Moreland Hills has suffered an 18.5% drop in its income tax receipts just in the first five months of this year.  Luckily, they had a surplus but in February 2010, they created an emergency expenditures fund.  So when people mention Moreland's lower tax rate, remember that they have no tax credit and be aware of Moreland's drop in revenue this year, its need to dig into its surplus and it's move to create a rainy day fund. All to protect the surplus, not spend it down.  We are not in the same shape they are in, since we do not have a surplus remotely near theirs (just over $3.8 million in surplus is predicted for the end of this year).

So, as I consider the arguments that the City doesn't need a tax rate increase because it's getting better than projected estate tax revenue this year, I see it as being completely opposite of what nearly everyone has been telling us in regard to estate taxes and what we believe as far as sound financial planning goes:

a. These arguments support the notion that the City should in fact disregard how the years of using estate taxes to fill in gaps got us to where we are now and instead, do exactly that - use the estate tax to fill in a gap and expand the ability to budget for expenses we might not be able to cover.

b. These arguments support making an operating budget with a higher amount of estate tax revenue than $500,000, even though we know that it does come in under that amount and that there are some distant but definite threats to the stream over the long term (a lot of states, ours included, want to completely eliminate the stream of revenue from estate taxes - just eliminate that tax - and so getting ourselves off the addiction to using estate taxes is a very healthy thing to work toward, in my opinion).  It also would encourage skipping committing those dollars to a rainy day fund, capital improvement or nearly anything else other than speculating on what we might have as an operating budget.

c. These arguments support what the mayor has told us is why he never asked for an increase in taxes during all the years that they were using the estate taxes to fill in the gap between revenues and expenses, and were not creating a rainy day fund - a time when I believe he should have looked to raise a road levy or some other revenue tool in order to eliminate a dangerous reliance on the estate taxes.  He has said that he never sought additional revenue from the taxpayers, so long as a surplus accrued with the help of the estate taxes, because residents could see we had a surplus and he felt who would want to have their taxes raised if they can see a surplus?

Likewise, the arguments now being offered read to me as saying, "I see you have a surplus because of the estate tax - so just use that - don't tax us more."  But on an annual budgeting basis, how is it responsible to craft service provision, in our operating budget, on a revenue stream being there at a higher amount than we can be nearly positive is going to come in? 

We would be and the former Council and mayor have been called irresponsible for having done that in the past.  Repeatedly residents have said this.  Now it seems that some residents want to take that back and are okay with us relying on something unreliable and risk the consequences (which is what this year has brought, since we have no rainy day fund).

I fail to see any wisdom or good planning in that. This estate tax argument (to increase our operating budget reliance on it, to use it to fill in gaps this year and next, to not use it to create and fund a rainy day fund that could then be used for capital needs) is, frankly, hypocritical, given how much guff the residents have given past treatment of the estate tax revenue.

2. Residents repeatedly have been on the record, since February, chastising the City for cutting the pay of personnel, whom they feel had nothing to do with the City getting into its current financial situation, by 25% since March 1.

Where arguments against the tax have asserted that city services can be maintained without a tax increase, there is a complete failure to reference in anyway the fact that since March, personnel have been employed at 2009 salaries, less 25%, except for the police, who chose to keep their pay at 100% and force five layoffs in order to get their department's 25% cut (yes, they forced the layoffs - they voted on what to do, and they voted to reject terms that, if supported, would have avoided the layoffs). Council approved the cuts specifically to be responsible, to show that we knew we had to make extremely unpopular budget cuts and we hated doing it.

Since February, residents have lamented frequently, openly and through a variety of communications just how much they say that they, the residents, hate to see the people who work for the city and deliver the taxpayer's services suffer, since they weren't the ones making the decisions that led to the current situation.

And yet this assertion that services will remain the same without a tax increase fail to address how that's possible and what it means for the employees. Does it mean that we continue paying our personnel, in 2011, 2009 amounts less 25%?  Does it mean that despite the anger that residents expressed for cutting the pay in 2010, they're no longer angry and/or it is okay to continue the personnel cuts into and maybe through 2011?  If that's the case, okay - but at least residents who feel this way should speak to these points directly since they are in fact the choices that Council has to face.  It is not an abstract issue at all.

Then again, maybe residents who are advocating against the tax increase and also saying that services can be maintained as they are, are intending that we should use the estate tax money to give personnel appropriate salaries in 2011 and not maintain 2009 less 25%.  And if this is what they have in mind, then again we are faced with a contradiction to the cry for us to not rely on estate taxes again because we do not currently foresee revenues coming in, without a tax increase, that would be able to restore the pay cuts.  Again, my opinion is that to rely on estate taxes in this way would be a giant step back from where we're trying to go regarding good decision-making, good planning and responsible, healthy fiscal management.

Also, please know that assertions about how much our personnel make are based on 2009 payroll information (and is public; if you're interested in seeing it, let me know and I'll forward to you). It does not reflect who has left this year (and several have or will have by the end of the calendar year) and it doesn't reflect the 25% pay cuts in terms of the actual, total expense to the City in all of 2010 (budgeted).

The steps Council has taken so far have in fact yielded some of the reforms for which we aimed, most notably, permanently shrinking our payroll expenses by 10% - but this too isn't mentioned in any of the material I've seen advocating against the tax and saying that services can be maintained. This objective is one that we're getting close to meeting and was set in recognition of how large the personnel portion of our expenses are. 

The question as to whether the amount that any of these personnel make is too high is a separate issue that deserves specific examination, but it does not exist as a stand-alone fact. For example:

-The average pay quoted in one of the communications is for everyone - newer hires, 35+ year employees, non-union department heads, rank and file hourly workers.
-There's no mention that we're talking public sector versus private (i.e., there's no profit to be had by us that influences pay).
-There's no mention that a significant portion of the city's pension obligations are mandated by the state - we cannot choose to not pay them, and they must be budgeted. 

I hope you're still with me! :)

To conclude, as I've told many residents, I am not going to even try to disabuse anyone of their anger at the situation, or their anger at any one or more individuals or any one or more decisions.  No one will get an argument from me about the role poor decision-making, poor choices and poor planning have had in the current situation. 

But as a city council member elected by the voters to take care of this city, I feel I have an obligation to work on getting the city back to fiscal health. And I voted to place the two ballot issues before residents for their vote because I believe that they are reasonable requests and measures to take, in the overall planning.  It is now up to the voters - as it should be.

Thank you for reading this email and hopefully considering some of my thoughts on these two specific issues - planning for the use and budgeting of estate taxes and services - and how they relate to the tax ballot issue.  I love this city and I love what I've been elected to do. 

Feel free to pass this on and, again, I appreciate you considering my feelings on these two particular points.  Any questions, comments or concerns - please call, write or bump into me.  During these busy summer days, it's not hard!

Very truly yours,

Jill Miller Zimon

FYI: City of Maywood, CA Disbands Police Department, Lays Off All Employees to Deal With Financial Shortfall

Wow, huh?

From the Los Angeles Times article, "Maywood to hire others to run the city:"

Maywood, a small working-class community south of downtown Los Angeles, plans to lay off all its employees, disband its Police Department and turn over its entire municipal operations to a neighbor — an action that appears to be without precedent among California cities.

...

Maywood's $10.1-million general fund budget has a deficit of at least $450,000, officials said. Beyond that, the city has been unable to obtain insurance because of a history of lawsuits, many involving its Police Department, which also patrols Cudahy. Operating without insurance would make even routine government services highly risky.

Special Council Meeting: Thursday, June 24, 2010 (tomorrow night)

The Mayor has scheduled a Special Council Meeting for this Thursday, June 24 at 8:00pm at City Hall.  It is, as always, open to the public and I hope those of you who can will consider attending.  The subjects to be discussed can be viewed at the City website here or on the official agenda which can be viewed at that City web page via the link.  They subjects are:


-Discussion on sequestering the estate tax
-Update on Dispatch Center
-Discussion on Funding the levy campaign


I also wanted to let you know that minutes for all previous Special Council Meetings are now posted on the City website.  The most comprehensive page from which to open these documents is here.

Absentee ballot applications for the August 3 election have started to arrive at city households.  If you have not received one and would like to, please go here for information on how to obtain one.  Remember, you do not need any specific reason to vote by mail in (or absentee) ballot. Pepper Pike will have two issues on the ballot and you can read more about them (a tax rate increase and a budget process-related charter amendment) here.

Feel free to contact me or any of your elected officials with questions, comments and concerns, as always, from here.

NOW POSTED: FAQ's Regarding Tax Increase With Sunset, Proposed Charter Amendment

Residents should be receiving in their mail, today or tomorrow, hopefully no later than Saturday, the same three documents which I've now posted to the City of Pepper Pike's website.  You can see the documents here at the web site.

If you have trouble viewing them, you can also see them below.  As always, if you have any questions, comments or concerns, you know how to find me (or should by now!).
Letter to Residents on Issues for August 2010 Ballot
FAQ's on Pepper Pike's Financial Status May 2010
Article IX of City Charter on Finances May 2010

On today's 7-0 vote to place a .5% income tax increase w/sunset provision & budget process charter amendment on the August ballot

Below are comments I wrote early this morning and read later this morning at Pepper Pike City Council's Special Council Meeting today.   I want to thank every single person who has engaged in any way and/or communicated with me and/or any member of Council or fellow resident who then in turn communicated to us their sentiments over the last four months regarding how to attack and resolve the City's fiscal situation.  Please don't stop.  It is what gave me confidence to hold my ground when and where I did, but also gave me the sense of need and direction for making the final decision today.  

I could not have imagined, when I was addressing Pepper Pike residents as a candidate for City Council just over seven months ago, how much my thoughts then would ring through my brain during the last four months.

Back then, I talked about how I see Pepper Pike as a community that is taken care of and takes care of itself.  And I said,

…the present and future challenge in taking care of our city is this: If Pepper Pike was ever homogeneous in terms of the life phase in which our residents were enjoying our city, it is far less so now. We have multiple constituencies for whom taking care of our city may have different, even competing meanings.

I also did not imagine that literally within days of being sworn in on January 13 that I would be launched into one of the most intense problem-solving processes I have ever experienced in my life, in any setting. And I was an Ombudsman at a mental health agency.

I have experienced the same emotions and asked the same questions and demanded the same explanation as many Pepper Pike residents.  The key difference – due to my decision to run for City Council and the residents’ decision to let me serve them on City Council – is that I am no longer allowed to advocate for just my position, as I was able to do from the audience. 

UPDATE: This week's Special Council Meeting to follow Road & Safety

I received notice this afternoon that the Special Council Meeting, scheduled for this Wednesday, May 12, will commence following, not preceding, the regularly scheduled Road & Safety/Finance & Planning Committee meeting (which begins at 7:30 pm in City Hall).  These meetings are open to the public.

Special council meetings have a stated purpose related to the calling of the special meeting and we've been told the following in regard to this one: "The purpose of the meeting will be to take action on a proposed tax levy for the August Special Election."

If you have an opinion or other comment to share on the topic of how you would like to see Pepper Pike's financial problems be resolved, now is definitely the time to make them known.  You can find contact information for our elected officials here.

Thank you as always.

Vote! Attend tonight's Town Hall! Attend tomorrow night's Special Council Meeting!

Have we got civic engagement for you!

TODAY: Vote in the primary - judges, U.S. Senate primary for Democrats, State Auditor and Secretary of State primaries for Republicans, and for Pepper Pike residents who vote Democratic, a choice between two candidates to run for our open Ohio House seat (District 17). 


TONIGHT: The City of Pepper Pike invites you to attend a Town Hall meeting to share your comments, questions and concerns related to the City's financial situation.  It will take place at Moreland Hills Elementary School at 7:30pm.


TOMORROW NIGHT: Pepper Pike City Council will convene in City Hall Chambers at 7:30pm for a Special Council Meeting to discuss the financial situation further.  This meeting is public and will have, as always, time for audience comments.  If you are unable to attend the Town Hall and have yet to voice your opinion on how you imagine we should solve our solvency issues, please consider attending to do so.

CVT on Pepper Pike Tax Increase Discussion With Chart of What Increase Would Cost

The article below, from today's Chagrin Valley Times, contains information about revenue raising considerations discussed at the City Council Special Council Session held last week (4/8/10). I'd urge residents to read it and ask questions. I continue to hear a belief that there are many residents who are unaware of the City's financial situation and so I'd also respectfully request that you pass on this information also and if you're not sure about some fact or number, please, let me or another member of Council know so we can get you accurate information.

Chagrin Valley Times, "Pepper Pike Eyes Income Tax Increase"

FAQs on City's financial situation, City's town hall (not Civic Leagues')

At last week's Special Council Session, each of the council members present received a copy of a draft of FAQs (frequently asked questions) that reflects the questions Councilman Scott Newell, myself and the other members of the Budget Communications Committee (Mayor Bruce Akers, Cindy Eickhoff, Jean Seaton and David Portmann) are hearing most frequently from residents and know need answers.  It is my expectation that the document will go out this week and be posted on the City website. I will also post it here on the blog and via Scribd.

The hope is that once received, the final FAQ document will spur residents to attend, provide input and ask more questions at the City's town hall meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday, April 28 at 7:30 pm (location still being decided) and has also been mentioned already in public meetings and in the local papers.

In the meantime, if you have not yet communicated directly with either the Mayor, a council member or a member of the Budget Communications Committee and have questions regarding the City's financial situation which you want to be sure get answers, please do contact any of us through whatever means you feel most comfortable.

"Hidden Costs of Local Government"

Following up on the previous post from today about an EfficientGovNow proposal being submitted by Pepper Pike, Orange Village and Moreland Hills, here's an Akron Beacon Journal article, also published today, titled, "Hidden costs of local government: How Ohio suffers from political fragmentation." 

An excerpt (I really cannot re-post too much of it re: Fair Use laws but readers should read the entire article anyway):

Ohio residents pay dearly for local control, shouldering the ninth highest level of local taxes in the country. (Ohio is 34th highest in state taxes.)

By supporting so many layers of administrative personnel and duplicate facilities and equipment, money is drained from providing services.

But the fragmentation also creates other costs. What's valuable about the Brookings report is that it lays out the full range of negative impacts, something local officials rarely discuss.

The core argument is that having so many units of local government makes long-term, regional planning very difficult, if not impossible, damaging a region's ability to compete economically.

Without a unified approach, the report argues, central cities suffer as the suburbs sprawl. In the end, a city's ability to attract young, highly educated workers decreases, thus making economic development even harder.

But what exactly does this mean for non-central cities, as in, those sprawled or sprawling 'burbs?

Some of these arguments remind me of the ones used in Columbus to abrogate local law (like oil and gas well drilling regulation and gun laws, which Ohio's AG just argued should allow for negating gun bans in cities like Cleveland) but they also remind me of the evolution from restrictive covenants to zoning ordinances - done in the name of unification and unified approaches.

The balance.  Where is the point of balance? What is gained? What is lost? And how do we size those things up? I guess that's what exploration is supposed to be about, yes?