A Look at Stow's 2012 Budget
This month, Stow City Council is reviewing the annual budget proposal submitted by Mayor Sara Drew and Finance Director John Baranek. It's truly the most important thing council does all year.
Previously, I posted the Excel spreadsheets on my website, but I realize those documents are not so helpful to the average resident. The following bulletpoints should be more explanatory…
- In 2011, Stow used $980,000 from the roads budget to pay for operational costs. In 2012, the city plans to use $800,000 for that purpose. Roads only get more and more expensive to fix as time passes without traditional maintenance. This budget is better than Karen Fritschel’s budgets with respect to infrastructure, but it’s still unacceptable.
- We will lose $667,000 in property taxes in 2012 because of property value reassessments. We are also losing $427,000 in state funding. Next year, we will have a similar decline (even when compared to 2012 revenue) because the state is phasing out the estate tax and Stow will lose another large chunk of Local Government Fund revenue. However, we did have some offsets to our 2011 losses. Healthcare costs came in much lower than expected, and income tax increased by 10 percent. In 2012, we are projecting a return to the prior healthcare costs and a 1 percent income tax increase from 2011 numbers.
- In case you’re interested, Stow’s unemployment rate is 6.2 percent. The county’s is 7.3 percent. Ohio’s is 8.6 percent. Stow’s recent high in unemployment was 9.9 percent in January 2010.
- This budget fills four employee vacancies (2 police officers, 1 service worker, 1 engineer). I agree with each of these hires — the police officers, in particular.
- Here is the most important part of the budget — does it spend more than it takes in? The answer is: “Yes. A lot more.” We currently have a carryover balance of $4.174 million. At the end of this year, we will have a balance of $3.481 million. That’s a projected budget deficit of $693,000. At that pace, we will have blown through our savings account in five years. This is a big, big problem, especially considering the additional cuts to state revenue on the horizon and the fact our roads repairs have been underfunded by about $3 million since 2009.
- In 2011, Fox Den lost $85,000 operationally. When you add in the $371,000 mortgage payment, the city spent $456,000 to own a golf course in 2011. Meanwhile, our roads are crumbling and police force was undermanned. When will the time come when we finally cut our losses or admit we need a professional management team to take over? Revenue has fallen 25% since the government took over. Some Fox Den apologists ask why I’m so adamant on this issue. This is why. A large chunk of our budget goes to subsidize the golf course every year.
- I have asked the Finance Department to put together a five-year “Doomsday Plan” that provides options for fundamental budgetary alterations that we can implement if tax revenue does not return to its prior levels within the next five years. Having a contingency plan is the responsible thing to do.
- The budget received its second reading on the floor of council on Thursday. It is projected to receive a vote on March 22. Finance Committee will meet on March 19 for discussion on the topic.
Meg Griffin
7:01 am on Saturday, March 10, 2012
Thank you for this sobering report. I am grateful that our expenses and resources are being very clearly looked at. I have never seen my street is such a state-basically a gravel pit from all the water line repairs. I applaud those who are making hard decisions right now that we may have proper staffing of our safety forces and services.
Jack Kelly
2:28 pm on Saturday, March 10, 2012
In regards to Fox Den, over the past several years I've seen people complain (usually the same ones) about it and say "dump it!" but yet do not offer up any other potential solutions. I do not golf, but I still consider this to be an amenity to the city that should not simply be unloaded without exploring every potential avenue to maximize its' potential for income (business). Is the city using every available resource to market this golf course to companies, residents, etc.? Does the golf course have the potential to host other events (I realize the clubhouse/picnic shelter are not big enough for weddings and the such, since I asked about that the other day).
Also, in regards to the budget, how much are we spending a year on Bow Wow Beach for non-city residents to use for free? (I never see anyone ask this!)
Finally -- and I know this won't be popular -- but I think we need to be realistic that with the governor cutting local budgets so he can brag (and spin) that he "balanced the state budget w/o raising taxes", that perhaps the city needs to go to the voters for a levy (temporary) to help improve the infrastructure (roads). You'll get the "we pay taxes for this" people (but, as usual, they miss the point). I equate that to someone getting a part-time job (additional income) to pay for something coming up. If we want to keep the level of service(s) we expect, then it comes at a cost.
Larry Kinnan
9:04 am on Monday, March 12, 2012
I would like to commend Mr. Rasor for providing this concise breakdown of the budget. All residents need to understand where and how their tax dollars are spent.
I also concur with Mr. Rasor that Fox Den needs professional management to insure its viability and benfit to the city rather than being a drag on the budget.
Terry
9:33 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
Mike Rasor is correct. Fox Den cannot continue to be a drag on the budget when we have more serious infrastructure and staffing issues. No one disagrees that FDGC is a wonderful resource but we simply cannot sustain the red ink it develops.
Gov. Kasich will never be everything to everyone but he has gotten a handle on the budget and making Ohio attractive to business again and that means JOBS. He has had to make some painful decisions that impact everyone, including Stow. In the long run, Ohio will be better.
Jack Kelly
11:41 am on Friday, March 23, 2012
I realize people like to dance around and/or ignore a glaring fact (like the one I brought up that continues to be ignored), but as long as we are subsidizing a beach for dogs that the users do not pay to use, then you can not complain about Fox Den being such a 'drain' on the city.
And any attempts to back-pedal or offer-up excuses/apples and oranges comparisons (i.e. "but they spend $$ in the city" or "people make donations") can be saved for someone who'll buy it. At least the users of the golf course PAY to use it. The users of Bow Wow Beach (esp. non-residents) do not & every week the city is spending several hours a week to clean it up, etc. That money (I don't care what the amount is) and manpower being spent is at the expense of the city's infrastructure.
If the users love Bow Wow Beach so much, then those users (non-residents) will not object to paying a nominal admission fee to use it (and/or offer season passes). Then the $$ raised in user fees (in addition to the donations received) -- not our tax dollars -- can be used directly on BWB.
Keep complaining about a golf course and I'll continue to point out the hypocrisy of US subsidizing a beach for dogs.