Starting a new thread so general Cincinnati Parks levy items can be discussed in one place. 

 

There is an official website up and running:

 

http://cincyparkslevy.com/

I'm confused about what's going on -- the proceeds from county-collected park revenue via property taxes also support city parks.  So it seems like we'd be taxed twice for the same thing.  Also, in this urbancincy report, it's stated that the mayor and City Manager will select the projects that are funded by the city's levy funds!  It sounds like the levy revenue could turn into a convenient slush fund for Cranley:

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2015/07/proposed-tax-would-provide-dedicated-parks-funding-stream-fund-85m-in-improvements/#disqus_thread

^I don't think that's correct.  If you're talking about the "Parks District" item on real estate taxes (as seen at the county auditor website), that is the Hamilton County Park District.  According to the treasurer's website, that designation indicates funding for the Hamilton County Parks District, not the city parks.  http://www.hamiltoncountyohio.gov/treasurer/taxterms2.html

 

I don't see anything in the Parks Board's annual report about receiving funding from the County for the parks, either.  Everything is paid for by city funds and donations.  http://www.cincinnatiparks.com/images/aboutus/2014_AnnualReport.pdf

 

You are correct about the city not receiving funding via Hamilton Co. property taxes, jdm00.  My mistake!  Thank you for the info.  While already funded by city, state and federal tax dollars, this city levy is to create dedicated local funding for city parks - and evidently other things - that will be at the discretion of the mayor and City Manager to fund, if the urbancincy report is accurate. 

I am baffled by our city's view on property taxes. Every year, city council votes to roll back our property tax rate. In other words: if property values have gone up, the property tax rate is reduced so that the same number of dollars are generated. Think about how ridiculous that is. As our city gets healthier, property values rise, and yet our city gets zero additional benefit from those rising property taxes.

 

And yet, for this parks plan, we are going to vote on whether to increase our property taxes, so that we can spend that additional revenue on parks.

 

...

I am baffled by our city's view on property taxes. Every year, city council votes to roll back our property tax rate. In other words: if property values have gone up, the property tax rate is reduced so that the same number of dollars are generated. Think about how ridiculous that is. As our city gets healthier, property values rise, and yet our city gets zero additional benefit from those rising property taxes.

 

And yet, for this parks plan, we are going to vote on whether to increase our property taxes, so that we can spend that additional revenue on parks.

 

...

 

 

Incidentally there is nothing in the charter saying we have to this.  It is simply a tradition started by Phil Heimlich in 1999.  The property tax rate is adjusted every year to automatically collect the same dollar amount that was collected in 1999, which I believe is around $29 million.  So collecting more tax than that has ever since become an incendiary issue exploited by COAST, Cranley, etc.  There was one year under Mallory where the rate was *slightly* raised but I can't remember which one. 

The rollback is a de facto increase in tax, so far as the bulk of Cincinnati's property owners are concerned (and the local media paints it). Cranley doesn't want to be responsible for trying to "raise" property taxes without the public getting to vote on it. He picked parks because it's probably the easiest thing to sell. In my opinion, the primary benefit Cranley is after isn't more funding for the Parks Department, but the freeing up of some city money that is spent on parks today. This levy will generate $5.2 million per year. The current city funding for parks for FY 2016 is $2.3 million for the capital fund and $16.5 million operating budget. I'm guessing that the city would likely not pay for any more capital expenses if this is passed, so Cranley gets that $2.3 million to play with (plus another $2.9 in operating budget).

It's so ridiculous that the rollback passes each year by a supermajority and there is no real debate about it. I think the Business Courier released an article last year talking about how this policy is holding the city back, but otherwise I have seen little media coverage about it.

^Didn't David Mann have something to say about this in regards to how much money the city is missing out on at that time of the discussion?  People hate on all the Tax Abatements downtown and in OTR, but won't everyone else's property taxes start falling dramatically since there is the cap once those tax abatements run their course?  Is that correct thinking?

Yes, it's all relative. So let's say property value rise by 10% in Downtown Cincinnati but remain flat across the rest of the city. The total revenue coming in will remain the same, but once tax abatements expire, downtown residents will see their property tax bills go up while residents of other neighborhoods will actually see their bills decrease.

 

That's one reason why I don't have a big problem with abatements for new developments. Because when property taxes go up, it doesn't result in additional revenue coming that can be spent on services. It just results in the new development subsidizing other neighborhoods even more.

The rollback is a de facto increase in tax, so far as the bulk of Cincinnati's property owners are concerned (and the local media paints it). Cranley doesn't want to be responsible for trying to "raise" property taxes without the public getting to vote on it. He picked parks because it's probably the easiest thing to sell. In my opinion, the primary benefit Cranley is after isn't more funding for the Parks Department, but the freeing up of some city money that is spent on parks today. This levy will generate $5.2 million per year. The current city funding for parks for FY 2016 is $2.3 million for the capital fund and $16.5 million operating budget. I'm guessing that the city would likely not pay for any more capital expenses if this is passed, so Cranley gets that $2.3 million to play with (plus another $2.9 in operating budget).

 

Exactly.  So Cranley will point the new parks money to his cronies, then point the freed up money to his cronies. 

 

Yes, it's all relative. So let's say property value rise by 10% in Downtown Cincinnati but remain flat across the rest of the city. The total revenue coming in will remain the same, but once tax abatements expire, downtown residents will see their property tax bills go up while residents of other neighborhoods will actually see their bills decrease.

 

That's one reason why I don't have a big problem with abatements for new developments. Because when property taxes go up, it doesn't result in additional revenue coming that can be spent on services. It just results in the new development subsidizing other neighborhoods even more.

 

When a $250K OTR condo abatement expires and starts paying prop tax, it will lower the prop tax of everyone in the city? Or say, four homes in Price Hill? I take it there's a formula.

Yes, it's all relative. So let's say property value rise by 10% in Downtown Cincinnati but remain flat across the rest of the city. The total revenue coming in will remain the same, but once tax abatements expire, downtown residents will see their property tax bills go up while residents of other neighborhoods will actually see their bills decrease.

 

That's one reason why I don't have a big problem with abatements for new developments. Because when property taxes go up, it doesn't result in additional revenue coming that can be spent on services. It just results in the new development subsidizing other neighborhoods even more.

 

When a $250K OTR condo abatement expires and starts paying prop tax, it will lower the prop tax of everyone in the city? Or say, four homes in Price Hill? I take it there's a formula.

 

Well it would cap everyone's property tax at a certain percentage to fullfill the $29 million it needs to generate, I believe that is correct.

 

So if it is a $500k Condo would pay the same percentage as a $100k house.  So let's say 5% for simplicity.  So that is $5,000 from the house and $25,000 from the condo.

 

So in theory then once the abatements start running out, now they are paying $0.00 but let's say then 100 properties go on the market after their rebates run out in one year and it takes away the amount the homes in another neighborhood pay because it will reach the cap faster with those 100 properties on the tax rolls.  Take that over 10 years and it is a lot more properties on the tax rolls.  And the argument that they are giving it away doesn't really make sense since most of the buildings weren't generating any property taxes in the first place, or very little.  In fact they were probably costing the city lots of money in the form of blight abatement, concentrated crime (increased police and county expenditures), and more.

 

I believe that is how it works?

The "city" part of the property tax that city property owners pay is tiny.  A $100,000 house in the City of Cincinnati pays about $2,000 in annual property taxes.  About half of that goes to Cincinnati Public Schools with the rest divided between the City, County, and a variety of very small special taxes like the Zoo, MRDD, etc.  If people really want to save money on their property taxes, they should be scrutinizing the activities of Cincinnati Public Schools much more so than the city or county or parks. 

It should be noted for residential tax abatements they are capped at around $250K.  This means that even tax abated properties still have to pay taxes on the property value over that $250K.

Great Parks, Great Neighborhoods, Inc.

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

October 15, 2015

 

 

 

CINCINNATI- Thursday, Charlie Luken, spokesperson for Great Parks, Great Neighborhood, Inc. released the following statement:

 

 

 

“Our number one priority is to support Cincinnati Parks and the passage of Issue 22, the Cincinnati Parks Levy. In recent days, a particular contribution to our organization has come in dispute.

 

 

 

Though we strongly believe that contribution from the private Meyer Fund held by the Cincinnati Park Board was, and is, above board, it has no doubt become a distraction to our goal of supporting the parks and passing Issue 22. That is why we plan to return the contribution to the Meyer Fund.

 

 

Our parks are one Cincinnati’s greatest assets, and the passage of Issue 22 will guarantee that they are maintained and enhanced for our children and all future issues. I hope that now this matter is behind us that the public dialogue can return to where it ought to be: the merits and importance of this policy.”

 

I've heard a rumor that the park board enjoys a $32 million surplus.  I don't know if this is a calculation of the value of all of its endowments or what.  But if this is true, or even anywhere near being true, I think it's scandalous that this permanent property tax levy is even being proposed at this time.

Plus, the city had a $19 million budget surplus this year. With the economy growing again, the city's budget will once again be growing and there will probably be surpluses for the next several years. So why don't use just use that money for parks instead of voting for a permanent tax increase?

I would assume they need a dedicated funding source for the size and scope of the projects proposed to come with the parks levy. And in order to sell bonds to fund major projects such as Wasson Way you would need a specific funding stream for that without hurting the ability to issue debt for other capital needs as they arise. And need the money in the future for upkeep on the new park features.

 

...Or instead of raising property taxes to pay for everything at once... use the surplus over the next few years and fund a only a couple of the projects that will have the biggest impact.

^I think I heard (on WVXU) that the $19M surplus was due to a one time event, but I don't have details on that.  So it may not be indicative of the current state of the city's finances.

Well, the city makes their budget based on what tax revenue they conservatively expect to bring in. If the economy is growing, and the city continues to estimate conservatively, there will continue to be surpluses. Unless there is some other reason why we had a large surplus (such as a company that previously received incentives leaving and having to pay them back).

Yeah, these surpluses are as far as the eye can see.  During the recession not only were income tax receipts down due to layoffs, people who stopped paying their mortgages also stopped paying property tax.  Honestly we're approaching the point where we should be talking about lowering the income tax or property tax. 

On the $19M surplus, I'm certain Glendale wants the $6.2M owed to them due to Cincinnati mistakenly receiving an estate tax payment.

On the $19M surplus, I'm certain Glendale wants the $6.2M owed to them due to Cincinnati mistakenly receiving an estate tax payment.

 

That's correct.  But the fact is that increased employment and wages mean the city is bringing in significantly more money than it was five years ago with the same rate of taxation.  In 1999 council voted to automatically cap property tax at 1999 levels.  If revenues at current rates of income taxation continue to increase, then the city should consider lowering the 1.8% earnings tax to 1.7% or 1.6%. 

 

 

Plus, the city had a $19 million budget surplus this year. With the economy growing again, the city's budget will once again be growing and there will probably be surpluses for the next several years. So why don't use just use that money for parks instead of voting for a permanent tax increase?

 

They are probably thinking parks are the most popular thing in the city that people might support a tax for, so if they could set up a dedicated funding stream for that, (and I know this is only 25% maintenance) it would free up money in the general fund for other things. Cincinnatians love parks and libraries.

 

Yeah, these surpluses are as far as the eye can see.  During the recession not only were income tax receipts down due to layoffs, people who stopped paying their mortgages also stopped paying property tax.  Honestly we're approaching the point where we should be talking about lowering the income tax or property tax. 

 

Disagree- I think 2014-2015 might mark the high point in a business cycle and there may be some economic turmoil ahead near the presidential election. Also I recall hearing there are still projected deficits in years ahead even though there's a surplus this year? It just seems like the nature of surpluses is that they are fleeting...

A few items regarding the Parks Charter Amendment:

 

1.  I wonder how this works together with Wasson Way's TIGER grant. If Wasson Way gets the TIGER grant will a lot of this money get freed up to work on other projects?  Cincinnati had two TIGER grant applications, for Wasson and the Cincinnati State road bridge connector to South Cumminsville.  Is the Cranley administration going to lobby the feds behind the scenes for the Cincinnati State road project TIGER grant in lieu of Wasson thinking that Wasson is paid for by this amendment? 

 

2.  Protecting for light rail along Wasson Way- last I saw it would be a few million dollars extra to protect for the possibility of future Wasson Way light rail in the design of the hike/bike trail.  Will the extra money absolutely not come if this amendment fails?  Will the Cranley administration be willing to pay the extra money if this amendment passes?  Since the mayor's office is so involved with the development of these projects is he going to intentionally preclude any light rail provisions?

 

3.  I love a lot of these projects.  I've been following on social media and attended the Niehoff urban studio event. To be honest, some of the opposition talking points are flimsy, and the mayor was a convincing speaker at the event.  But unfortunately this has become all about the mayor.  This has become about trusting $80 million to someone who was more than willing to watch $50 million in streetcar money go up in smoke. 

 

4.  This WAS all about the mayor but increasingly it's becoming more and more about the Parks board and Parks foundation, which includes some of the richest and most powerful people in town, and can draw on endowment accounts.  They were able to get Music Hall done after being left out of the Save our Icons sales tax, and by extension one wonders how many of these projects will get done even if this proposal gets rejected. 

 

I don’t know… I really wish all these bike trails could be built out tomorrow… it doesn't seem like that much money… but there's all this other peripheral stuff going on.   

 

So is there any general consensus on whether a yay or nay is the right vote on this?  I'm suspicious of anything Cranley does, but there seems to be a decent number of pros along with the cons here and no definitive suggestion one way or the other that I can glean. 

Are you kidding me?  After all of the stories about surpluses, lavish bonuses, perks, malfeasance of foundation funds, etc., on top of fuzzy language that even Brewster Rhoads admitted to, I'm more convinced than ever that this charter amendment is a terrible idea.  Many wealthy people have given lots of money to help develop and sustain our parks.  It's working.  The tax increase is an opportunistic move that's backfiring in light of recent revelations.

I haven't seen any of those revelations in this thread though, if there's been discussions elsewhere then fine, but I don't follow most of the political discussions here.

The biggest "beef" I have with Issue 22 is the $5 million slated to Lytle Park.  I am not certain how that one got in there, who is designing, etc.  It seems like Western and Southern threw out the design?  Why don't they pay for it since it will be surround by Western and Southern owned buildings for the most part, right? 

I have a few key reasons I’m opposing Issue 22:

 

• The city is running a surplus and now is not the right top to raise property taxes.
  
• The city’s property tax rate is already higher than suburban locations (who typically have better schools).
  
• The county is asking to renew a parks tax next year, which might see more opposition than normal because "we just voted for a parks tax."
  
• Cincinnati’s Parks are among the most well-funded in the country currently (I believe they are second place behind DC when you adjust for cost of living). The Parks Board has also proven to be far from transparent when it comes to money, much of which they claim is “private,” which is a notion I disagree with entirely on principal.
  
• If the city is going to raise taxes for anything, it should be something that needs additional funding (like mass transit), not one of the strongest and well-funded assets.
  

At the end of the Hamilton County Democratic Forum debate yesterday, the straw poll results were fifty nine percent of the people for, 41 percent against:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/10/29/mayor-opponents-clash-over-park-levy/74797180/

I think this is a pretty good call to arms for you guys.  Don't forget how the last mayoral election went down... :(

I see no way this issue fails.

I haven't seen any of those revelations in this thread though, if there's been discussions elsewhere then fine, but I don't follow most of the political discussions here.

 

Haven't you seen the headlines the past couple of weeks about Carden's and [his assistant] Klug's lavish bonuses?  They've been overpaid before and had to pay back money they received after the issue went to court.  Plus, Carden gets $1,000/mo. car allowance and memberships to exclusive clubs, etc.  all on the park board's dime.  PLUS, Klug's family bus business has some kind of deal with the parks.  Plus, park foundation monies have been used for the levy campaign which is a legal no-no because the park foundation money is essentially public funds.

 

Now, our parks are great and Carden has done a good job.  But should he be compensated quite so richly?  He already makes a 6-figure salary.  If the park board has so much money to throw around why is this levy even being proposed?  My guess is that it's an opportunistic move by the mayor to take advantage of the public goodwill in light of the popular Smale unveiling this year, not because the parks really need the money.  The mayor, without any input from council or the public, gets to decide how the levy funds are spent.  The park board can weigh in, but park board members serve at the pleasure of the mayor!  That's why there's an outcry of anticipated cronyism by opponents.

Here's yet another damning report about the park staff/administrative issues that also implicates Cranley.  Of added interest and worth reading are Bill Collins' comments on the article, specifically about the $75,000 Laketa Cole sinecure Cranley got her after she was finished working on his mayoral campaign:

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/10/30/cincinnati-parks-finances-park-levy-money-endowments/74734240/

I see no way this issue fails.

 

Just the fact that it's a vote for "parks" makes your hunch likely true. Still, that "straw poll" was of 150 people at an event where attendees likely skewed in favor of the levy. Think it'll actually come down to the wire.

Some rough numbers to do a little fact checking on the promises being made for this money.

 

Expected to raise $5.5M annually of which 75% goes to capital improvements = $4,125,000/yr.

 

I'm not a municipal bond funding expert but I did some rough numbers.  Assuming a 20 year issuance and a 3% discount rate (maybe it could be lower for a muni? Not sure)  that could raise $61M immediately.  That means there is no funding for anything new from the levy until the bonds are paid in 20 years. 

 

So, let's take a look at the promises being made here (this list from yeson22 website) and my guesstimation on costs:

Burnet Woods - $8M

Inwood Park - $6M

King Records - $2M

Lytle Park - $4M

Mill Creek Trail - $5M

Ohio River Trail West - $2M

Oskam Park - $5M ????

Roselawn Center - $5M

Smale Phase 6 - $10M

Wasson Way - $20M

Westwood Town Hall - $2M

TOTAL = $87M. 

Not to mention promises of making fixes to other parks (my latest postcard said "improved lighting")

 

Help me out here.  Refine these numbers.  Is this being overpromised? And if so, by how much?

Some rough numbers to do a little fact checking on the promises being made for this money.

 

Expected to raise $5.5M annually of which 75% goes to capital improvements = $4,125,000/yr.

 

I'm not a municipal bond funding expert but I did some rough numbers.  Assuming a 20 year issuance and a 3% discount rate (maybe it could be lower for a muni? Not sure)  that could raise $61M immediately.  That means there is no funding for anything new from the levy until the bonds are paid in 20 years. 

 

So, let's take a look at the promises being made here (this list from yeson22 website) and my guesstimation on costs:

Burnet Woods - $8M

Inwood Park - $6M

King Records - $2M

Lytle Park - $4M

Mill Creek Trail - $5M

Ohio River Trail West - $2M

Oskam Park - $5M ????

Roselawn Center - $5M

Smale Phase 6 - $10M

Wasson Way - $20M

Westwood Town Hall - $2M

TOTAL = $87M. 

Not to mention promises of making fixes to other parks (my latest postcard said "improved lighting")

 

Help me out here.  Refine these numbers.  Is this being overpromised? And if so, by how much?

 

Almost all of the park projects pursue multiple funding sources, including private fundraising and federal grants. So, ideally these funds would be used to attract "matching" grants and donations. So, for example, Smale Phase 6 would not have be funded entirely out of the funds raised by the Levy.

^^^ I don't think that is how it is being sold.  For example, the Wasson Way leaders definitely think construction starts next year if 22 passes, go poke around on their Facebook page. 

It is definitely being over-promised. When you start to ask for specifics, Cranley says, "Well, these are the projects we'd LIKE to do, but nothing is set in stone..."

I'm probably going to vote Yes tomorrow on Issue 22.

 

Sue me, but I find that helping our parks in some fashion is better than sitting around amd doing nothing. Especially if it can help Wasson Way get completed faster..and if Cranley lies, this will be more fuel to the fire as to why we shouldn't re-elect him.

But this assumes our parks are in trouble and in need of help. This city has fantastic parks and punches well above its weight in quality and diversity of parks. And we've had no trouble finding ways to fund park creation and expansion in recent years so I'm not sure why this should be necessary to continue to do so without any sort of assurance the money will be spent as stated.

 

I'm a homeowner and have absolutely no issue with spending a little more on property taxes if it's for something that guarantees an improvement to parks and the spreading of wealth so to speak. But this bill doesn't do that at all and is far too ambiguous for my vote. I love parks and think they are the backbone to community but this isn't the way to go about increasing funding for them.

Cincinnati parks are indeed killer already.

The parks are already good, what you are really doing is giving more power to a really terrible mayor.

 

I'm probably going to vote Yes tomorrow on Issue 22.

 

Sue me, but I find that helping our parks in some fashion is better than sitting around amd doing nothing. Especially if it can help Wasson Way get completed faster..and if Cranley lies, this will be more fuel to the fire as to why we shouldn't re-elect him.

I'm probably going to vote Yes tomorrow on Issue 22.

 

Sue me, but I find that helping our parks in some fashion is better than sitting around amd doing nothing. Especially if it can help Wasson Way get completed faster..and if Cranley lies, this will be more fuel to the fire as to why we shouldn't re-elect him.

Your vote endorses the Park Board's wasteful hiring of Laketa Cole at $75k/yr for a job she has no aptitude for, in reward for her working on Cranley's campaign.

I'm probably going to vote Yes tomorrow on Issue 22.

 

Sue me, but I find that helping our parks in some fashion is better than sitting around amd doing nothing. Especially if it can help Wasson Way get completed faster..and if Cranley lies, this will be more fuel to the fire as to why we shouldn't re-elect him.

 

You're also assuming that Cranley would use the money to get Wasson Way completed the right way.  IMO, he just wants to jump start it while he's still in office, so that he can kill any possibility of it being used for light rail later.

I have been struggling with this issue and find myself on the fence. I like the concept of setting up a dedicated funding stream for parks-related capital projects across the city. I don't mind that the mayor (taking Cranley out of the equation for a moment) is given the authority to initiate the projects because any mayor is either going to have a council that rubber stamps or one that forces compromise. If, ultimately, council has to vote to approve the bonds issued for any project, I don't see how that is different than the budget process in practice. Council can wield this authority to have its say.

 

Now put Cranley back into the equation. He figured out that a parks tax polls well and he could likely push in through this year to fund a handful of projects in the next few years. I'm sure he believes that these are good projects and that if he can be the one that makes them happen then it will help his political career. I don't have a problem with this either, in theory. In reality we have the questionable practices of the parks department, a not insignificant level of cronyism, and Cranley's "dictatorial tendencies."

 

A "no" argument that really speaks to me (and as I write this I think this is the ultimate decider for me) is that, as others have stated, the parks are well-funded. If we are going to raise our taxes to fund something, let's look for something like the Preschool Promise or Metro Moves that could be an immediate game-changer for our city. 

If, ultimately, council has to vote to approve the bonds issued for any project, I don't see how that is different than the budget process in practice. Council can wield this authority to have its say.

 

The problem is that City Council will not have the ability to vote up/down specific projects. Cranley will submit a massive spending package to Council that contains all of the project he wants to fund. Council will only have the option of voting yes or no on the entire package. Council will not be able to give input on whether a specific project is worthy of funding.

^There is always going to be horse-trading. This seems like a minor process issue.