|
|
|
Ohio Municipal League email:
Also please include a phone number and/or address for instances when we need
further contact with you. Please type
“OML Inquiry” in subject line so that we can identify e-mails picked up as spam. |
February 17, 2005
The Honorable Bob Taft Dear Governor Taft, On behalf of our 813 member-municipalities and the entire Board of Trustees of the Ohio Municipal League, we would like to take this early opportunity to express our deepest concern about initial cuts made to the local government funds in the administration’s proposed biennial budget. The proposed 20% cut to cities and 10% to villages amount to a reduction, from the statutory formula, of almost $700 million over biennium in state aid to our local governments and libraries. Beyond that there are additional items in your initial budget that will deeply and adversely affect many of our members. After four years of cuts, to face another two years seems remarkably unfair. To say these cuts are “fair” is simply not the case. No other significant line item in the budget received a 20% cut in funds. And to say these cuts come on top of a frozen level of funding is also simply not true. In FY 2001, the LGF and L-GRAF received $798 million. Ever since, those numbers have been going down, so that in FY 2005 those funds received $757 million, $41 million less than in FY 2001. During the period from FY 2001 to FY 2005, the local governments funds were cut a total of $148 million. During that same period, state revenue sources that make up the local government funds grew by over $3 billion, growth that was in no way shared with local governments despite the statutory formula promising that sharing of growing revenues. To read, after the announcement of the additional cuts proposed in your budget, that our members will just have to be more responsible and creative in their budgeting with these new cuts is outrageous and insulting. Our members have done everything, mostly without tax increases, to manage their budgets responsibly. They have balanced their budgets and provided vital everyday services to their citizens in the most difficult of circumstances. They have done so despite reductions in state and federal aid and in a state that has seen a job growth rate that is 49th in the country. To have people within your administration criticize those efforts as irresponsible and lacking creativity without any basis in fact or experience is certainly not constructive. Administration officials have gone on to say the consequences of these cuts in funds and further detachment of local governments from any growth in state revenue will be minimal because the cuts will be small percentage losses in Ohio’s biggest cities. Such a view totally ignores the damage already done to those budgets by four years of cuts and freezes. If the percentage cut is the only indicator of difficulty, then, conversely, not making those cuts and the ½ of 1% this would increase state spending is also of no consequence. To say to the people of Columbus and Cleveland that the state is going to cut $10 to $11 million in city services in each of those communities, and it just shouldn’t be a problem, is ridiculous! Through years of battling budgets in tough economic times and fewer dollars of assistance from both the state and federal governments, the city surpluses put aside for hard times are exhausted. Every dollar of aid not forthcoming from the state will directly reduce city services. Unlike the state, cities do not have people who can be deleted from the service list. We can’t say that just neighborhoods above or below certain income levels will get fire and police service. As you well know, difficult budgets are done at the margins and to portray that difficulty as real for the state and fanciful for local governments is something we hope we hear less of as the budget process proceeds. On another issue, we are concerned that your budget compounds the problems of the local government fund cuts with a cut in local revenues from the Ohio Estate Tax. This is a source of revenue that has been very helpful to many municipalities and townships for decades. To pull an estimated $32 million per year out from under these communities without any replacement revenues from the state, as you are attempting to cut local government funds by 10% to 20%, seems particularly punitive. In addition, those communities and many others will have to contribute many of the dollars necessary to take Ohio EPA off the state’s GRF through the new tipping fees proposed in the budget. We know, Governor, that this is a tough budget. We face those same kinds of difficulties at the local level. However, instead of seeing local governments as a partner sharing fairly in those state difficulties, this budget seems to single out local government, especially cities and counties, for extraordinary cuts. In the past, the local government funds have been seen as a partnership in which the state helps local governments keep local problems and services local. They were programs that were seen to be in the state’s interest and something for which state officials could be proud. We hope that during the next few months, we can restore that attitude and make changes to the local government funds and these other issues that will make that attitude clear. Sincerely,
Lois M. Singleton Thomas J. George Robert Vincenzo Clerk of Council Mayor Mayor City of Trotwood City of Lakewood City of St. Clairsville President 1st Vice President 2nd Vice President
|
