|
|
|
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. |
May 12, 2005
Testimony by John Mahoney of the Ohio Municipal League in favor of SJR 2 before the Senate Finance and Financial Institutions Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for giving me the opportunity to appear before you in support of SJR 2, and to address specifically, on behalf of the League and other local government groups, our strong support for placing on the ballot in November a renewal of State Issue 2. (Please, note: the County Commissioners’ Association of Ohio and the Ohio Township Association will or have submitted their support for this issue in writing) Before I detail that support, I would first like to thank the General Assembly. Without the strong, bipartisan support of this institution, Issue 2 would never have come into being. Issue 2 was an initiative of the General Assembly. It’s passage and the subsequent partnership between state oversight and administration and local decision-making, which has made this program’s design so effective and efficient, would not have occurred without the active support of the General Assembly. For that leadership, we are very grateful to this institution.
Since 1987, the State Issue 2 program has funded over $2.2 billion in local projects involving roads, bridges, sewer, water, storm water and solid waste. That funding has helped complete 10,200 projects for cities, villages, townships and counties.
The impetus for this investment was what we saw in 1987, the growing gap between available local funding for the replacement and repair of Ohio’s basic infrastructure systems and the need for that funding. State Issue 2 was never designed to fill that gap, but was designed to place before all communities an incentive that might influence local communities to make more decisions in favor of new reinvestment in their local infrastructure systems. We strongly believe that Issue 2 has sparked local government investment in the replacement and repair of local infrastructure systems, investments that could not have been made or which would be long delayed without the state program.
Because the existence and quality of those basic service systems were and are crucial to the health and growth of local and state economies, Issue 2 was deemed to be very much in the interest of both local government and state government. That interest still exists and the need to continue to partner in the area of infrastructure investment is greater than ever. That’s why we would ask you to continue to support the Issue 2 program by voting for SJR 2 and allowing the people of Ohio the chance to continue Issue 2 for another ten years.
We also believe that the $30 million increase for the last five years of this renewal, proposed by this resolution, will be a significant improvement in the program. In 1987, State Issue 2 started out as a program that was underfunded in relation to the projected needs. Everyone agreed that it was underfunded as initially proposed, though a good start. That initial proposal was for $180 million a year. Even at the compromised level of $120 million, there was great hope that this incentive fund would still be a good start. To increase the reach of that start in its 25th year of funding would be greatly appreciated and very helpful.
Finally, let me say that the League’s Board of Trustees had a very frank and thorough discussion when asked to consider the pros and cons of combining the Third Frontier, Issue 2 and the DOD “shovel-ready” program for new industrial sites. As you can imagine, the discussion did not begin without its share of doubts as to the wisdom of such a combination. Following that discussion, however, we informed the administration that our Board could agree to such a combination for many reasons.
First and foremost of those reasons is that there is a synergy among these issues. Issue 2 has always been about reinvesting in the infrastructure of the past and present. The Third Frontier and the shovel-ready program are about creating some of the infrastructure that our communities and our economy needs in the future. Not all issues can come together well. We believe these three can.
Secondly, we know Issue 2 has always enjoyed strong public support from the people of Ohio. We think the people of Ohio will also be supportive of the shovel-ready program. And we think that the Third Frontier’s loss, by a 2% margin two years ago, was the product of some miscalculations made during the campaign. With a new and more inclusive campaign management team for this year’s campaign, we believe all three issues can and will be successful.
Finally, we think having this package on the ballot as two issues will not really solve the possibility of one issue being a drag on others or be in competition with the others. A wide variety of voter reactions would be possible either way, depending on what kind of campaign is put before them. Without being a single issue, all three issues, in practice, could end up being put forth in a combined campaign as, for example, two issues with voters being asked to vote for Issues 2&3, rather than just one issue. The other possibility would be two separate campaigns in competition for many of the same campaign dollars. We frankly don’t like some of possible outcomes of either scenario.
For these and other reasons, our Board decided that supporting the combination of these issues and full support for the entire package was our best option.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll be glad to answer any questions you or the members of the committee might have.
|
