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

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

Thedifference between yes and no on the city's proposed income tax increase willbe huge, the city's police and fire chiefs say.

Staffsizes. Response times. Crime rate. Each will be affected by the outcome of theproposed 0.75 percent income tax levy on the Tuesday ballot, according topolice Chief Mike Bruck and fire Chief John Sauter.

The 'yes'vote

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

Inaddition to the $250,000 earmarked for the city's police force, Bruck isbudgeting for between $300,000 and $350,000 more after 2007.

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

"Allof our money would go right back into services for the people," Brucksaid. "We need to drive our crime rate down. We need to make thiscommunity safer. That all takes money, and every penny is going to go to theservices that will allow that to happen."

Preventionand training are key for the Middletown fire services, twothings they have done little of since cutbacks squeezed the department in 2005.

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

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

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

Note this from a July 19, 2006, article in the MiddletownJournal 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 newofficers to the force and resume community policing, crime prevention effortsand some training.

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

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

*Here is the link to the first Journal story quotedabove:  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, andthe story changed by the time an article in the January 25, 2007 MiddletownJournal was published:

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

Firefighter Jon Harvey, whoalso is the president of the Middletown Firefighters Association, said the topconcern is having enough money for the city's safety forces.

Police Chief Mike Bruck saidthere 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 ofa city income tax rate increase.

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

City Manager Bill Becker saidthe council will have to act on the temporary fire budget byFeb. 20.

Acting Fire Chief Steve Botts said the fire division needs about $486,000 to keep all five fire stations open and keep servicesat 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 January25, 2007 article, the voters gave City Hall the 0.25% Public Safety levy, beginningin 2008 to the tune of OVER $2.5MILLION per year!!!!

So, firstthey 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 themnearly THREE MILLION PER YEAR, and they CUT SERVICES!!!  (And less than four years later, they arebroke again!!!) 

What happenedto the money??? 

Have theyactually spent an additional ELEVEN MILLION (+-) DOLLARS on public safety theselast FOUR years???

Here is how you can find figures that won’t lie!!!

Find the TOTAL spent on police and fire during calendar year2007 (“A”).  Find the totals spent onpolice and fire during calendar years 2008, ’09, ’10, and ’11 (“B”).

Subtract four times “A” from “B”, and call thatdifference “C”.  Compare “C” to the totalcollected by the Public Safety levy during 2008, ’09, ’10, AND ’11.  (The total collected during those four yearsshould be somewhere near $11 MILLION.) Subtract “C” from this figure, and that should be approximately what isleft on 12/31/2011. 

This figure does NOT include the second half of 2007, northe first half of 2012.  (The presentPublic Safety levy runs from mid-2007 through mid-2012.)

Seriously, though, thePublic Safety levy of 2007 was sold as money that was to be used for publicsafety in addition to that which was already being spent.  Instead, much of it was used for publicsafety 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) forfavored city employees, and to resolve the deficit spending that had plaguedour city budget in some recent years.