Signs, signs, everywhere are signs...

[Valley Cat]

I wasn't surprised. One guy suddenly put his home up for sale - I have to wonder where he will move!

The city can do some things better and hopefully this infusion of money will help.

[EAV]

WOW 76%
Thank You Reading!!!!


 

[frankreading]

I have seen all the signs around town for the passage of Issue 13.  At first I wasn't sure what it was all about, so I asked around and then I read the literature I received at my home. I still wasn't totally convinced the city needed the money.  So I started digging a little deeper to see what I could find out about Reading's finances and how they spend our tax dollars.

In todays computer driven society, it was suprisingly easy to find out the facts.  After reading the posting from jcook, I went to the state auditor's web site and found it quite interesting.  I was able to look through the "archived audit section" and find audits done on every city/village in the state.

It is amazing to see the amount of money other cities spend each year compared to Reading.  I have always felt that the services we receive here have been excellent, and now I am convinced that it is not only excellent but a great buy for our money.

I would strongly suggest everyone check out the numbers for themselves.  I think you would agree with me and vote for Issue 13. 

[jcook]

Overall Reading has done a good job in keeping their general budget well under control.  For a City its size, population over 10,500, with a yearly budget around $6 million, this is excellent compared to other cities and villages in Hamilton County. 

July 2004 estimated census:

St. Bernard-population 4583, city budget $11 million.
Norwood-population 20,400, city budget $17 million.
Sharonville-population 13,299, fire department budget alone is over $5 million.

These are just a few examples.  In fact the most interesting one is Norwood.  The State of Ohio Auditors Office did a complete audit of the city (270 page report which can be viewed on the auditors web site).  In this audit the state made countless recommendations for cost cutting, but if you read Mayor Tom Williams letter of response, they have basicly decided to do nothing.  In fact they are in the process of hiring more personnel at this time.  They have 60 full time firemen compared to Readings 14.

I support issue 13 and am hoping it passes over-whelmingly.  I would hate to see Reading go the way of Lockland.

[RFD8301]

It is true that Reading, like so many other older towns/cities, have many " born and raised" active in their communities...not a bad thing.  In addition, Reading always welcomes new families into the community.  Reading could easily find itself in the same financial situation as Norwood if new revenues are not generated.  Whether one agrees with the use of capital monies on projects like the Reading Road Streetscape or not, the matter of the fact is that more than half of the $4million that was available for such capital improvements has been needed to supplement the general fund, supporting expenses of daily operations (police/fire/public works/recreation).  These reserves no longer exist.

The 1/2% earnings tax increase makes the most sense to generate needed revenues, rather than a property tax increase or the elimination of the reciprocal tax exemtions.  It has been 28 years since the last earnings tax increase and it is anticipated the this 1/2% increase will provide monies for short and long term operational and capital needs for Reading.  In fact, 20% of the new monies generated through the passage of this issue will provide for a meaningful residential street-paving/curb replacement program.  In allocating these funds specifically, Reading will receive additional points (10) in many grant processes.  One recent project in Reading that required a mere 10% match in funding was lost by only 3 points. 

The City has worked hard to manage its health care programs with employees, networking with the Center of Local Government.  The City has negotiated with each of the employee unions, increasing employee contributions toward their health care (currently 10%).    Recent hires of a new Safety/Service Director and Public Works Chief has saved the City several thousands.  It should be noted that prior to those reductions, each of those positions were still well under the avereage salary scale for similar positions, in communities of a similar size.   There were also reductions in administrative positions: recreation and general offices. 

Our City...Our Future

Other specific questions can be submitted to PreserveReading@aol.com

[bengal]

I understand that Reading needs more    but is the city truly broke.  Norwood is broke.  We spend our money on stupid streetscapes and then we have to take the word of the old guard in Reading that we are broke.  I am new to Reading but I can't trust the whole born and raised in Reading crowd.  They reduced some guys salary by $20k.  How much was he making?  How much do the secretaries make?  I know some city employees make way too much and they don't have to pay for their insurance like the rest of us do.  I am sure there are more cuts that can be made.  Also why go to 2.0% when they said 1.75% would get them 300,000 more than they need.  When they get 2.0%  they get an extra million.  What do they plan on doing with that.  Raise the guys salary back up $20k?  We want the truth.

[EAV]

As a young couple raising our family in Reading; I must say we are truly thankful for all of the great services and activities Reading provides.  I must say I was a little skeptical when I first learned of the proposed ½ % earnings tax.  After asking many questions and getting the answers, I can  honestly say we think passing this levy is critical for the Cities future.  I just want to summarize a few details that I learned about Issue 13.  First, there has been NO increase in 28 years;  Second, it will not affect social security, retirement, or disability income;  Third, if you work in a city where the earnings tax is 2% or higher, you will see no increase;  Fourth, 20% of the increase has to go to much needed residential paving; and Finally, most of the money will come from Non-Reading Residents.  This issue has support from both Republicans (Mayor Bemmes & Bud Elminger, Bob Ashbrock, Jim Champlin, & Tony Gertz) and Democrats (Former Mayor Schmidt & Carol Bullock Carpenter, Jim Pfennig, Mary Pletz, & Lee Roth) and Independent (Ken Nordin) so if you have any questions or doubts please ask 373-3134 or PreservingReading@aol.com Please Vote YES on Issue 13 on May 2nd, 2006.

[RFD8301]

Increasing the earnings income tax is the most effective method to provide short and long term operational and capital funding needs.  Those most affected by passage of ISSUE 13 are thosed employed in Reading, mostly non-residents.  Further, senior citizens will not pay any tax on retirement income.  Many who work outside of Reading, like in Cincinnati, already pay 2.10%...the increase would have no impact on those residents either.  Help maintain our quality City services......Please VOTE YES on ISSUE 13 - May 2ND.

[Valley Cat]

Supporting the levy. I see this levy passing, probably by a wide margin.