The cost of the new levies will reportily cost the owner of a $100,000.00 home an average of $56.65 a year. For those who may claim that they already pay too much in taxes or cannot afford to pay anymore, here is some perspective:
- A pack of cigarettes a day = $1460.00 per year @$4.00 a pack
14 less packs a year will pay for the levy - One MickyD Value Meal a week = $234.00 per year @ $4.50 ea.
13 less Value Meals a year will pay for the levy - A six-pack of Budweiser a week = $208.00 per year @ $4.00 a pack
14 less 6-packs a year will pay for the levy
According to an Economic Impact Study conducted by the Center for Policy Analysis and Public Service at Bowling Green State University released in 2004, indicated that
"the Toledo Zoo makes a nearly $70 million annual economic impact on the local economy and for each $1.00 the Zoo receives in tax levy funds, it generates $7.90 in local economic activity. This economic impact benefits local small businesses and corporations by way of increased revenues and benefits the citizens of Northwest Ohio by creating annually 1,385 fulltime-equivalent jobs."
I find it curious that a community (for the most part) who supports giving tax abatements to the tune of 2.5 million dollars to lure Costco into Westgate because of the possibility (no guarantees) of 180 or so good paying jobs, would snub their nose at a relatively small tax increase to support the Zoo. It would be a shame if these levies did not pass because of notions instilled in the taxpayers by bias media reporting and anti-zoo organizations who have a "grudge" to settle. It is time, we as a community, put all the petty bickering and self righteousness behind us and forge ahead in our continued support of this fine institution and restore it to the glamour for which it became known for.
The Zoo has made great strides to fixing the ills that befell them last spring. They have listen to the Task Force and implemented 115 of 123 recommended changes. They have removed or forced into retirement the parties involved with all the controversies. They have hired a new director in Anne Baker who has an optimistic vision of where and how the Zoo should proceed into the future, and judging by her resume the skills and education to get it there.
For a return on investment which results in job creation outside the zoo and job security for current Zoo staff, an economics boost for the community, expansion and maintenance of one of our few local treasures, environmental and wildlife education, and recognition as one of the top 10 Zoological Parks in the nation, I believe $50.00 +/- dollars a year is a small price to pay.
(less I forget....brrreeeport)
5 comments:
I think the Toledo Zoo should be continued to be supported, however continuing funding and adding increased funding can be two separate issues. I'd personally have to take a look at had visitor numbers increased/decreased and what other things had been considered first before I would support an additional levy. I think you really have to make sure that this 100% necessary before you come to the taxpayers asking for a new or an increase. I know they broke one million visitors in 2004 but it doesn't look like that happened in 2005. They don't have alot of information and their history doesn't list the one million visitors in 2004, it only states, 1988, 1994, and 1999 with an average attendance of 875,000.
I'm not for abatements especially for retail projects such as Costco so I would agree with you that money could be better spent.
I would point out though that anti-zoo feelings from the past should not come into this, it should be based merely on the merits.
That said? Typically I support local levies, and I will seriously consider this one once I have read all of the facts concerning it.
:-)
Lisa,
While I agree that accountability must be a factor in determining if you are going to support the levy is instrumental, I do not think that the attendance figure should be of primary concern. As with any attraction, visitor counts are subject to a great many variables; Weather, the local economy, new attractions, marketing and pubilcity all play a role in whether a person decides to visit an attraction or not. In my opinion, the fact that attendance tends to flucuate from year-to-year (decreasing in some years) is not a good barometer for judging whether the organization is performing up to standards. While a dramtic drop-off in attendance would suggest that something is askew, a reduction of a few thousand visitors for an attraction of this size does not neccessarily indicate a problem. Other area attractions like Cedar Point and COSI have also seen a decline in attendance.
I think an average of 875,000 visitors is a very honorable figure for the Zoo when you compare their demographics and population/marketing base to much larger parks like San Diego or Zoo Atlanta. Per quota, the Toledo Zoo is attracting more visitors then either of these other two institutions. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the Toledo Zoo to hit attendance figures of 1,000,000 every year.
I think you misunderstood my attendence figure ponderings. If attendence had increased above the average then perhaps a slight increase in fees could help reach their goal. If attendence figures had declined then the first question would be why, then the next one is that predicted for the following year?
I wasn't implying 875,000 as an average was good or bad, just that was what was stated and that several years had broken the one million visitor number, including 2004.
ZzZzZzZz Shhhh I'm sleeping in the den with the bears. Wake me up when this convo is over.
Becareful...bears are hungry when they wake up....
:-)
Post a Comment