To: Councilpersons Robert Bailey, Wes Kantor, Karen Conison, Chris Rodríguez, JoAnna Heck, Larry Morrison, Lori Elmore

From: Gerald Dixon

re: Ord. 61-2021

Dear Councilors,

I am writing you today to implore your ‘no’ vote on Ordinance 61-2021, the utility surcharge legislation.

As for myself, I would be able to afford the $100 extra yearly expense were this legislation to pass but, my fight isn’t about me, it is about the other Whitehallians and your doing the right and responsible thing.

As you are aware, Whitehall is not the wealthiest suburb in Columbus. As such, attaching an additional $100 or so to everyone’s utility bill cannot be done without serious consideration for those constituents you represent who may not be able to handle this additional expenditure; the seniors on fixed incomes, the single Mother or family trying to make ends meet and put food on the table for their children. It is them, and others alike, who I fight for and whom you must give your most serious consideration. That is why careful consideration must be given where the money already is and how it is being spent. While the Administration will pull out all the stops with numerous power-point presentations and endless mind-numbing jargon related to sewer/water business, you must ask yourself if this is the only side to that story. Naturally, the Administration will sell you on everything related to their point of view but, as representatives of the people this $100 Damocles Sword hangs over, it is your obligation, to them, to look at all areas and viewpoints this situation contains. That’s where I’ve come in.

As you’re no doubt aware, I have taken my own personal time to look at those other points of view, as noted in this blogpost:

https://whitehallwatchblog.com/2021/07/20/whitehalls-spending-number-for-the-last-10-years-or-so/

and this one:

https://whitehallwatchblog.com/2021/07/21/interesting-city-hall-spending-artifacts/

and this one:

https://whitehallwatchblog.com/2021/07/23/original-city-hall-arguments-from-2010-to-raise-the-city-income-tax-to-2-5/

and, finally, this one:

https://whitehallwatchblog.com/2021/08/04/city-hall-wants-you-to-pay-for-their-irresponsible-spending-the-utility-urcharge-iue/

In them, I have shown how the Administration has, by and large, spent a great deal of money on various things that are more on ‘want‘ lists, as opposed to ‘need‘ lists, certainly that ‘need’ list where crumbling infrastructure certainly belongs. While the Administration defended their spending by saying the splash pad and YMCA and ‘community center’ were things that had been promised citizens during the hype to pass Issue 30, as the fiscal manager and titular head of our city, the Mayor had the fiscally responsible obligation to pass on the tough news to us regarding our crumbling infrastructure and the city’s responsibility to make that a higher priority. She can defend all she wants providing the citizens with what they wanted but, when you have critical needs right in front of you, it is wholly irresponsible to instead make pleasing everyone the higher priority. Now that that has been done, the critical need and its cost still exist and now the administration wants us to financially pick up where their irresponsibility left off, AND, make no concessions to cut back or be more responsible with the .5% income tax that still fills the city’s coffers.

That is why I say to you; table 61-2021. Insist, come budget time, that definitive cuts be made in as many areas as possible (our job as a city is not to employ a million people, our job is to make certain the people’s hard-earned money is spent with efficiency, responsibility, common sense and restraint). Then, when the Administration shows that its serious when it comes to fiscal responsibility towards the city’s health, then reintroduce the ordinance, with a lesser sum in the surcharge, for the benefit of the people’s wallets and pocketbooks, not, the city’s. Another’s fiscal irresponsibility with the citizen’s money should never be the citizen’s responsibility to pay for. If cuts are not made, then either kill it in future Committee or bring it forth and vote ‘no’ on it.

The second option is to simply vote ‘no’ on it at the 3rd reading this Tuesday. That will force the Administration to deal with ways in which to find the money for the water/sewer issue.

The 3rd option, were you afraid of political fallout over this ‘backdoor’ Council tax, is simply to make them put it to the voters. Even then, if the voters say yes to it, the administration has their funds. If they vote ‘no’, then she still has to come up with funds to pay for the infrastructure.

Thank you,

Gerald Dixon