Paint Creek poker outplays Hillsboro council

By Rory Ryan
The Highland County Press

At some point, Hillsboro taxpayers ought to ask of their city officials: How much is enough?

Without delving into all of the well-publicized history of city taxpayers funding fire and EMS services over the past century and a half, one thing remains constant: Taxpayers always foot the bill.

Every once in a while, a politician – or seven – comes along with promises of a better, more efficient way. Vote for us, they say, and things will change. We’ll save you money. We’ll cut your taxes. We’ll pledge to fix your streets and sidewalks as our initial campaign promise. Tax rebates for all!

No kidding.

But the more things change, the more things stay the same.

It’s often amazed me that a small-city council, representing fewer than 7,000 residents, warrants a seven-member council, a mayor, a safety/service director, various departments and department heads, a public records custodian, a building inspector or two, and other taxpayer-funded positions, while it takes only three county commissioners (and the respective department heads) to perform similar administrative functions for more than 40,000 residents.

For the sake of comparison, a five-county community college district, representing a population of almost 200,000 and a $20 million budget, does so with a nine-member body.

Point being, while “local” government is preferred to state and federal governments, sometimes even locals have their excesses.

Hillsboro certainly does.

To his credit, Hillsboro councilman Bill Alexander at least attempted to rein in some of that excess spending during this month’s city council meeting.

No one wanted to listen to Mr. Alexander. No one. Not one single member of city council.

That’s too bad for local taxpayers, and they (council members) ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Instead of at least entertaining some measure of discussion or debate on a proposed resolution for more tax dollars to the Paint Creek Joint EMS and Fire District – above and beyond the city's existing contract – council members ignored a motion by Mr. Alexander.

Due to a lack of a “second,” the motion died.

Mr. Alexander said on Monday, Jan. 12 that he would like the city’s finance committee to review the requested funds ($30,000) prior to voting on the legislation. That seems like a more than reasonable request from this longtime local educator and public servant.

Not one member of city council had the … fortitude to second the motion. That’s what passes for public “service” these days. Most, as usual, were more pre-occupied with their personal communication devices – and this was prior to the Ohio State/Oregon kickoff.

Today, teenagers are instructed not to “text and drive.” Perhaps some older adults ought to be instructed not to “text and legislate.”

Why not put this issue in committee?

Lord knows, city council has put many, less costly matters in committee. If memory serves – and it usually does – placing potentially divisive matters in committee has been standard operating procedure for councils present and past. And that’s OK. It gives everyone an opportunity to further examine a proposed resolution, ordinance or other action.

More importantly, it shows respect for the taxpayers.

Had this issue of handing over more tax dollars to the Paint Creek Joint EMS and Fire District been placed in committee maybe taxpayers could weigh in on the ultimate decision.

No, that’s just wishful thinking. The best interests of taxpayers? Surely not.

Given that the city has an existing contract with Paint Creek Joint EMS and Fire District and given that several townships are members of the Paint Creek Joint EMS and Fire District, here’s another question: How many of the townships have offered an additional $30,000 – above and beyond current obligations – for life squads?

Maybe all of them have. If not, why not?

Maybe Mr. Alexander wanted to ask these questions during a finance committee meeting. Someone ought to be asking.

The city countered that “We thought we would go ahead and offer [the funds] up to them (Paint Creek), since that equipment is being used inside Hillsboro.”

That attempt at justification for spending more tax dollars for the same services falls short on (at the very least) two points.

1. It ignores the existing contract for EMS services between the city and the Paint Creek Joint EMS and Fire District.

2. It implies that the equipment is used exclusively within the city limits. (And maybe it is. Council is welcome to clarify that point.)

It would seem to any reasonable taxpayer that the city of Hillsboro has done enough in the way of funding, services and facilities (North East Street, etc.) for the Paint Creek Joint EMS and Fire District.

While the arrangement has been, by all appearances, profitable for the mayor (i.e., administrator), council owes it to taxpayers to ensure that their money is being similarly well spent.

This is by no means a disparagement on the Paint Creek Joint EMS and Fire District or, more specifically, its negotiating board of trustees. No one can blame the Paint board for being a better poker player. They have demonstrated a very good poker face.

But Hillsboro taxpayers should, at the very least, demand that council put all the cards on the table.

It’s sure easy to spend other people’s money, isn’t it? Ante up (again), taxpayers.

Rory Ryan is publisher and owner of The Highland County Press.