Middletown Ohio


Find us on
 Google+ and Facebook


 

Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us
Thursday, March 28, 2024
FORUM CITY SCHOOLS COMMUNITY
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 11/1/2011 Council meeting
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

11/1/2011 Council meeting

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 11/1/2011 Council meeting
    Posted: Nov 01 2011 at 7:53pm

My first impressions regarding items of interest during tonight’s City Council meeting:

Regarding Cincinnati State and any contracts between the City and/or Cinci State and/or HEP:

“Seems to be progressing.” …Pratt  “Negotiations ongoing.”  …Pratt 

Regarding preparation for meeting/“Openness”/keeping the PEOPLE informed:

Laubach’s capital street funding legislation:  Consider the wording…but no one has the wording!!!  Community Center/ Golf course budget memo:  Friday’s email—only mayor had it in front of him.  No slide, no way for public to see it.

Why can’t the PEOPLE see the pie charts and other such pieces of information that council is privy to and that were mentioned and discussed???  (These items weren’t even flashed on the screen for the usual 2 or 3 seconds.)

Regarding budget discussions:

Street lights:  “Costs the City pays”---shift it to the taxpayers!!  Everything the “city pays” is already funded by the taxpayers!!! 

Doesn’t the City Manager get it???  The “City” can’t “pay” for anything!!! The “City” has no money except for what it takes from the taxpayers—the taxpayers already pay for everything!!!  The City pays for NOTHING!!!

None of the council members seemed to care about the increased monthly cost of lighting the additional 100+ olde tyme street lamps on South Main Street.  Shouldn’t they be assessed MORE than the other residents if a “street light fee” is enacted???

--RECESS--

“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
acclaro View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote acclaro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 01 2011 at 8:42pm
Mike, may I ask a stupid question on my part, pertaining to the street lamps. Could you tell me how the city pays for that now, is it in the street fund somewhere, and if so, do you have the code number that is associated with it? I have a significant issue if I understand this correctly, which I seem to think I do. The city gets paid a % now in some fund, roads, somewhere, which covers the lighting bill. And if so, they are proposing to charge it again, at about $4.00/month, for a second time? I think that's what I recalled the fee to be. Would you please provide me with as much info on this as possible. This is not acceptable to be double billed, and I'd like to have some more specific facts if you might arm me with them.

Many thanks.
Back to Top
TudorBrown View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Aug 24 2009
Location: Highlands D.
Status: Offline
Points: 265
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TudorBrown Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 01 2011 at 9:08pm
Mr. Presta,

Would you support Laubach’s capital street funding legislation?


Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 01 2011 at 9:42pm

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)!!!

“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 01 2011 at 9:49pm
Originally posted by acclaro acclaro wrote:

Mike, may I ask a stupid question on my part, pertaining to the street lamps. Could you tell me how the city pays for that now, is it in the street fund somewhere, and if so, do you have the code number that is associated with it? I have a significant issue if I understand this correctly, which I seem to think I do. The city gets paid a % now in some fund, roads, somewhere, which covers the lighting bill. And if so, they are proposing to charge it again, at about $4.00/month, for a second time? I think that's what I recalled the fee to be. Would you please provide me with as much info on this as possible. This is not acceptable to be double billed, and I'd like to have some more specific facts if you might arm me with them.

Many thanks.

Acclaro,

I am not certain, but I believe that it comes from the General Fund.  Certainly, the people already pay for the electric to light the street lights.  If they add a “fee” to pay for the street lights, that only means that the money they use to pay for it now will be REDIRECTED to be squandered elsewhere.  This is similar to what happened with the Public Safety levy funds.

“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 01 2011 at 9:52pm
Originally posted by TudorBrown 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.

“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 01 2011 at 11:17pm
Originally posted by acclaro acclaro wrote:

...do you have the code number that is associated with it? ... Would you please provide me with as much info on this as possible. ... and I'd like to have some more specific facts if you might arm me with them. 
I'll see if I can find out more tomorrow, and send it to you.
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
acclaro View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote acclaro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 01 2011 at 11:28pm
Thank you Mike. You would think before the election, it would have been moved along further, set for motion, and passed. Staggering that $4 Mm remains, but that should easily take care of police and fire through 2012, so why were the fire fighters taking a hit? It would be so much easier if they would just be straight  and level with everyone. I was reviewing Monroe's debate, and complimented everyone for being willing to justify $1 Mm legal expense for the benefit of the property tax owner and their safety regarding SunCoke.

Really hoping you can win next week. Don't know anything about Ward 1's people, but it would be nice to have another voice.  
Back to Top
Jack Black View Drop Down
MUSA Immigrant
MUSA Immigrant
Avatar

Joined: Oct 30 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 29
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jack Black Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 01 2011 at 11:46pm
Breaking News..........................
According to today's unscientific "Mort Sample of Likely City Council Voters" it's projected that she will receive somewhere around 119% of the vote.  The margin for error is likely to be 50-75%.  This information is provided by Alfred E. Newman.
WinkWink
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 02 2011 at 12:11am

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.

“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 02 2011 at 12:25am
Originally posted by Jack Black Jack Black wrote:

Breaking News..........................
According to today's unscientific "Mort Sample of Likely City Council Voters" it's projected that she will receive somewhere around 119% of the vote.  The margin for error is likely to be 50-75%.  This information is provided by Alfred E. Newman.
WinkWink
Mr. Black,
Thank you for posting the "What, me worry?" poll. LOL LOL LOL
 
According to that poll, it appears that my only hope is that Acclaro is correct that the Fenwick folks and the rest of the Catholic population in the First Ward will vote as a block, and that they go my way!!!  After all, I donated many, many times more towards the construction of the new high school than I have spent on this campaign...and I have an aunt who is a nun!!!  Big%20smile
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 02 2011 at 12:39am

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.

“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 02 2011 at 12:59am

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

 

Find the TOTAL spent on police and fire during calendar year 2007 (“A”).  Find the totals spent on police and fire during calendar years 2008, ’09, ’10, and ’11 (“B”).

 

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

 

This figure does NOT include the second half of 2007, nor the first half of 2012.  (The present Public Safety levy runs from mid-2007 through mid-2012.)

******************************************************

NOTE!!!!  I was WRONG about this!!!!

The Public Safety levy was not passed until November of 2007.  Collection did not begin until January 1, 2008.  The levy expires December 31, 2012.  I have struck through the portion above that is in error.  The remainder is correct.  (6:59 a.m., 11/2/2011)

“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
Middletown29 View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen


Joined: Mar 30 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 474
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Middletown29 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 02 2011 at 4:59am
Carolus was right about $4 million left in police and fire levy funds. It is one of the City's best kept secrets.
Back to Top
VietVet View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 7008
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VietVet Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 02 2011 at 6:31am
Today's Journal...

Debate continues on 2012 Middletown budget
Firefighter position restored

MIDDLETOWN — City Council on Tuesday night passionately debated the proposed 2012 budget.

It was agreed that one Middletown fire department employee will be added back into the 2012 budget.

Last month, a plan called for cutting 10 positions. The money to keep the position — between $75,000 and $100,000 — will be paid for from funds left over from the public safety levy passed in 2008, council members said


THE SAFETY LEVY THAT WAS PASSED SEVERAL YEARS AGO WAS ADVERTISED BY CITY OFFICIALS AS "IF THE VOTERS PASS THIS LEVY, ALL SAFETY SERVICES WILL BE MAINTAINED".......AGAIN.....MAINTAINED. NOW THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT CUTTING 10 POSITIONS. THE VOTERS WOULD BE CRAZY TO PASS ANOTHER LEVY. TO KEEP BELIEVING THESE CITY LEADERS WHO PROMISE ONE THING BEFORE THE LEVY VOTE AND INVOKE A "CHANGE IN ATTITUDE" AFTER THE PASSAGE IS ASSININE. VOTERS ARE TO BLAME FOR CONSTANTLY GIVING THESE LEADERS WHAT THEY WANT ON FALSE PROMISES. WHY IS IT CONSTANTLY DONE? VOTE DOWN ALL LEVIES. THEY SEEM TO BE PRESENTED ON THE PRETENSE OF LIES AND DECEIT. AS THE SPIDER SAYS........"STARVE THE BEAST". CUT OFF ALL FUNDING. TAKE YOUR MONEY OUT OF THEIR HANDS.
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 02 2011 at 7:17am

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???

“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
TudorBrown View Drop Down
MUSA Citizen
MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Aug 24 2009
Location: Highlands D.
Status: Offline
Points: 265
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TudorBrown Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 02 2011 at 7:38am
Originally posted by Mike_Presta Mike_Presta wrote:

Originally posted by TudorBrown 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.



Thumbs%20Up
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 02 2011 at 8:38am

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:

  • BYLINE:    Dave Greber Staff Writer dgreber@coxohio.com
  • DATE: November 3, 2006
  • PUBLICATION: Middletown Journal (OH)
  • SECTION: MAIN 1

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.

 
Now I ask the citizens:  Is this what we received???
Firefighters and police officers:  Is this what YOU received???
What happened to the MILLIONS of dollars???
 
If you want more of the same, vote for the same old gang next Tuesday!!!  None of them think anything is wrong.  None of them think any money has been mis-directed.  They all think we need higher taxes.  None of them have asked: Where are the Public Safety MILLIONS???
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
acclaro View Drop Down
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Avatar

Joined: Jul 01 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1878
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote acclaro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 02 2011 at 9:10am
The way the city runs the numbers, and then the mismatch, is impossible to understand and keep track of the ledger. Sunset was said to have cost $75,000 to tear down, by an outside firm, but the city did it for nothing, other than the existing staff. I don't know how "phantom" Dave Duristch's numbers really were when he said in 2004, to fix the streets was a $150,000,000 problem, and would take 50 years to do. Maybe its really 10% that amount, but Mr. Becker voted no on it, when they said when he was city manager, at least 50 years or more time was required even using a 2.25% tax, and the delay would make it more expensive and the patching was a band-aid.
 
I believe it averaged nearly $1,000,000 dedicated to streets by ordinance  in 1986. With a 25 year progression, inflation (GDP), that $ 1 Mm would today, with added cost for asphalt, gas about .80/gal in 1986, the same expenditure today, would be equal to over $3.5 Mm needed today. If you bought a house for $195,000 in 1988, to break-even in today's dollars, you'd have to sell it for about $365,000.     
 
Unless there are major changes on council, willing to make tough cuts like West Chester does on the school system, council should raise taxes to 2.0%, as that is what Hamilton is, what Dayton is, what Cincinnati is.
 
I know the better deal in Blue Ash, West Chester, Mason, and Middletown will never be competitive for business with those areas, but they can bring the tax rate up, and should dedicate .5% of the 2.0%, to fixing the roads and just getting it done. I'm basing this on the number Diristch gave. If its .1$ of that, do it, get in done in 5 years, but the band-aid just isn't working.
 
And while complimenting greatly Mr. Laubach for the legislation, and council voting on it, in today's dollars, its the effect of putting 1/3 of the dollars back if it were 1986, with greater road miles, and much greater problems with repairs. A step in the right direction, but concil and the city won't push for cuts. They haven't since this budget talk begain in 2000, and the only way to fix the roads properly, is take .5% of a 2% tax rate, and plow it into streets maybe for 5-10 years, then have a vote to tame it back to 1.5%. or on auto pilot, with a firm number as to what it will cost. Like Sunset, maybe a projected $200,000,000 problem is really a $15,000,000. fix.
 
Who knows, maybe this is what Mr. Becker had iin mine when he voted no.  
Back to Top
Mike_Presta View Drop Down
MUSA Council
MUSA Council
Avatar

Joined: Apr 20 2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mike_Presta Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Nov 02 2011 at 9:26am
Acclaro,
Check your "new messages" here (up near the upper, left-hand corner).
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.121 seconds.
Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com    Privacy Statement  |   Terms of Use  |   Site by Xponex Media  |   Advertising Information