 |
|
| Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us |
|
 |
Thursday, May 2, 2024 |
|
Auto & Gas Tax Fund |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | |
randy 
MUSA Official 
Joined: Jan 13 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 1586 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Auto & Gas Tax FundPosted: Mar 11 2010 at 8:44am |
|
Taken from the March 7, 2010 Middletown City Managers Report
There was a question about the Auto & Gas tax fund revenues at our last Council meeting. The revenue in this fund is derived from state gasoline tax and vehicle license fees along with money from the general fund. Total revenues in 2010 are about $2.9M, expenditures are about $3.2M. This fund is used for routine street maintenance and for traffic control along with snow plowing and grounds maintenance (mowing, landscaping, etc). There are 3 work divisions setup under this fund. Street Maintenance ($1.9M), Grounds Maintenance ($700K), and Electronics Maintenance ($616K). Most of the work accomplished by these divisions use the revenue from the state. The money transferred to the Auto & Gas Tax Fund from the general fund ($514K) is used to cover costs that would normally be paid out of the general fund, but for organizational and accounting efficiency are paid from the Auto & Gas Tax Fund. This information can be found on page 4-15 and 4-16 of your budget. The Auto & Gas tax fund is managed by the Department of Public Works and Utilities with Dave Duritsch as the department head.
Veiw the full report here: Weekly Update to City Council from the City Manager March 7, 2010
|
|
|
Call me for a www.CameraSecurityNow.com quote 513-422-1907 x357
|
|
 |
|
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen 
Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 11 2010 at 8:57am |
|
This is one item which gives me serious pause, and the explanation furthers that. It appears nearly $1.3 Mm of funds dedicated only to bridges and physical structural repair is allocated to mowing and electrical maintenance on street lights. This does not comport with the Articles at the State of Ohio as to how these funds are to be spent, which come directly from the state. Additionally, why would it be an accounting efficientcy to move dedicated funds accounted for, into the general fund, and then out. This statement is one which should give many pause and requires further investigation. This does not square. And by no means from my own review, does the Article state cities or municipalities are to be using state funds as a garnt for road and bridge maintenance to pay for mowing grass.
Others interpretations/ thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
VietVet
MUSA Council 
Joined: May 15 2008 Status: Offline Points: 7008 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 11 2010 at 9:41am |
|
Wait a minute!.....does this make any sense to any of you or is it just me not understanding this statement by Gilleland...... "the money transferred to the Auto & Gas Tax Fund from the general fund ($514K) is used to cover costs that would normally be paid out of the general fund." What?????? Then, if it was suppose to come from the general fund in the first place, why did you transfer it to the Auto/Gas Fund?
OK- let's diagram this: General Fund transfer of $514 K -------> to Auto/Gas Fund----so the Auto/Gas Fund now has $514K in it and the general fund now has $514 K LESS in it. Now, the confusing part to me.....this $514K is normally paid out of the general fund, but for organizational and accounting efficiency are paid from the Auto/Gas fund.....I'm sorry.....what????? it was just paid out of the general fund with the transfer mentioned above. How can you transfer money from one fund to another and claim it was paid from the fund you just transferred from? What's going on here? Am I missing something here in how I'm reading this? There seems to be alot of money juggling going on here that needs further explanation, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 11 2010 at 10:00am |
|
Vet, I think the real issue from I have taken a token review of the Articles from the state, is the money should remain in a separate fund called Auto/ Gas. The city received about $2.9 Mm from the state, but SPENT $1.9 Mm on street maintenance, which is what these state funds are for. The question becomes: is it legal to use the remaining $1 Mm then to mow grass and put light bulbs in the street devices? From what I have read, the answer is an affirmative NO. So, in theory, $1Mm was improperly allocated.
As to the reason for the shell game, there is no logic for that, other than convenient mixing of funds. I don't believe the state gives the city discretion on how they spend the $2.9 Mm they received, as its supposed to be used to street repair and maintenance. I did not realize grass mowing was associated with asphalt, but maybe there is new green technology she was referencing. Perhaps one of the city council leaders would have an explanation for this deviation and would check with the state Attorney General's office to confirm. Or are there liberties in interpretation being taken?
|
|
|
|
|
Pacman
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jun 02 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2612 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 11 2010 at 10:08am |
acclaro can you supply links to these State articles you reference?
|
|
|
|
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 11 2010 at 11:38am |
|
Pacman, here is one of several links I have bookmarked. I'll pull up Westlaw and see what the caselaw is with the application of the funds. From what I recall reading, it was specific to bridges and infrastructure. There may or may not be discretion in its use, or a loophole. The funds come from gasoline tax to motorists and registration of autos. The state allocates a % back to each county, and from what I have read, its to be used for physical infrastructure- maintaining roads, bridges, etc. From my initial readins, I find it unlikely maintenance would be authorized for these funds. For instance, if so, a city coud but salt for annual maintenance of the roads from snow. The idea is to use money collected to make physical investmstments in infrastucture. I don't comprehend how mowing grass constitutes a physical investment in a road or bridge. I will check this deeper in the application of its enforcement.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermes
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: May 19 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 1637 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 11 2010 at 12:30pm |
|
Sounds like a shell game to me on playing with the funds. If the city had to show the state X-amount of dollars in one fund then after the showing the funds were then tranfered to another account resulting in $0.00 in the show-me account. Make any sense ? |
|
|
No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !!
|
|
|
|
|
Mike_Presta
MUSA Council
Joined: Apr 20 2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3483 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 11 2010 at 1:24pm |
|
What?!?! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!!!
 Someone shoulkd hve pointed this out earlier!!!
|
|
|
“Mulligan said he ... doesn’t believe they necessarily make the return on investment necessary to keep funding them.” …The Middletown Journal, January 30, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
acclaro
Prominent MUSA Citizen
Joined: Jul 01 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1878 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: Mar 11 2010 at 4:13pm |
|
From Nick Kidd in a prior post:
Acclaro, the Auto & Gas Fund was NOT part of the 1987 change that allowed the INCOME TAX STREET FUND to be used elsewhere. The Auto & Gas Fund comes back to Middletown from the state from the license plate fees and gasoline taxes. The state requires that this money be used for three street related items. This fund is between $3 and $4 million dollars per year.
1. Electronic (traffic signals-streets only) but this money has been used for signal at the airport and many other uses. If you remember a few years ago several signals were removed because there was no money for repairs.
2. Street repair (where has this money gone the last 25 years)
3. Grounds (this is for the shoulders of roads and medians only.) This money is used to mow the airport and all the parks and all other city owned property. The rest of this money just disappears.
As you can see, misappropriation of these funds is and has been the normal from our city building for twenty + years.
So, the city moves GF allocation into the Auto and Gas Tax Fund, and at least $1Mm has already been acknowledged to have been used or will be used, for mowing, and other "non street and bridge infrastructure" expenses.
I haven't had time to pull up the application as to how the state enforces (or not enforces) the allocation to Cty, and from Cty to Middletown. |
|
|
|
Topic Options
acclaro wrote:|
Post Reply
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
| Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Site by Xponex Media | Advertising Information |