City must address critical needs

There is no free lunch. For the past several months, Florence City Council has been wrestling with a budget that contains dangerous shortfalls, leaving critical fire and police needs unfunded.

In particular, the city has not built a new fire station in more than 28 years; this, in spite of the city’s massive growth, both in terms of geography and population, over the same period.

This absence of adequate fire protection places our lives and property in danger, and threatens our pocketbooks. The insurance industry rates fire departments on a periodic basis and sets premiums for property owners, in part, based upon those ratings.

The City of Florence was last rated many years ago at a very good “two” level rating. Level “one” is the best possible.

A current internal city study reveals that if the rating organization audited us today, our department would drop to a “four” rating or worse; resulting in dramatic increases in insurance premiums for property owners within the city. Put simply, our current rating requires that our fire department must be capable of responding to a fire anywhere in the city within three minutes.

However, there are many places in the city that our firemen cannot reach, despite their best efforts, within ten minutes. Our insurance carriers will not accept that increased risk without increased premiums.

Further, we currently suffer from one of the highest per capita crime rates in the nation. Crime, in particular gang crime, places our citizens at increasing risk, and damages our ability to recruit business.

The police department has, for years now, warned that they are in need of increased manpower. Our failure to respond has resulted in increased crime, along with increases in frustration, fatigue and overtime hours for the existing police force.

Today city residents pay zero dollars in city property taxes on their homes.

Our millage, or property tax, levels are at the same level they were in the early 1970s. We have not seen an increase in property taxes in the city in 20 years, and, in fact, the city has twice cut property taxes during that period.

The cost of this policy has been the shameful and dangerous neglect of our fire and police departments.

Thus, I propose the following: a 2.2 mill increase on property tax for the fiscal year 2009-10; followed by a 5.5 mill increase for fiscal year 2010-11.

Such increases would have surprisingly modest impacts on property taxes. In particular, this proposal would result in residential owner occupied property seeing a zero dollar increase in 2009-10.

Further, in the coming fiscal year, business property would only see an increase of $1 per month, per $100,000 in property value. Thus, in 2009-10, the owner of a $500,000 piece of business property would see an increase of $5 per month.

The change would not be much different in 2010-2011. Under this plan, in July of 2010 residential owner occupied property would pay city property taxes of $1.08 per month for a $100,000 home. Similarly, by July 2010, business property will see a total increase in city property tax of $3.75 per month, per $100,000 of property value.

This is not a good time to increase taxes in any amount. Bad news never has good timing. Certainly, city leaders should have made these changes in years past, in a booming economy.

Nevertheless, we must not reinforce the mistakes of the past with their repetition. If the city does nothing else it must ensure the safety of its citizens.

It is my sincere hope that the council will find the political courage to accept this modest impact to fund these essential needs.