Lehigh County Executive Don Cunningham--a closer look, part 3

 NOTE:  THIS CONTAINS A CORRECTION OF AN EARLIER MISCHARATERIZATION OF SCOTT OTT'S VIEW ON STATE PASS THROUGH PROGRAMS 

 

In looking ahead, Cunningham is not willing to concede that a tax increase is inevitable. It seems to be with the available reserves likely to be exhausted in 2010 or 2011. But, Cunningham still looks to the state to meet its obligations and start paying for the county courts (which actually are part of the state’s Unified Court System.) That would bring $26 million to the county and replenish the Taxpayer Relief Fund. As Cunningham says, when the state doesn’t pay,”you can’t fire the judge and his staff.”

 

Realists will say that the state has owed that money for two decades so don’t cash the check yet. Even the GOP contract with the county calls for a balanced budget (without reserves) by 2012. That suggests they assume 2011 will be out of balance on a current receipts basis. That seems almost 100% certain. And, oh, by the way, other than a small Green Futures Fund balance, there are no more funds to tap without touching the Stabilization Fund, a rainy day reserve. There will be great opposition to using that in an actual budget (it is for unforeseen emergencies). So a tax increase seems likely!

 

Still, when asked if tax increases are certain, Cunningham responded “No one knows what the future holds.”

 

Cunningham acknowledges the tenuous state of county government. A large portion (about 70%) of the county budget represents state r federal programs that are administered at the county level. The funds come from the state or federal government, when funds are indeed flowing, and from medical plans that cover residents in the nursing home. The concern is that there is no guarantee as to state funding.

 

Cunningham’s opponent, Scott Ott, recently opined in an op-ed piece that the county should not rely on state funding for these programs.  He objected to having funds take the roundtrip from taxpayers in the county to Harrisburg and back again. Rather than fund these programs by raising taxes, Ott calls on private funding.  Ott wrote in this regard "I did indicate that I believe in local solutions for local people...and indicated that some of the best solutions do not come from government, but rather from individuals and their voluntary associations.  Government intervention turns altruism to compulsion, strips the dignity of the recipients, deprives them of accountability, insulates the benefactors from the impact of their beneficence and deprives everyone of the secret ingredient of charity...which is love."

The two differ on their view of these programs.

 

Cunningham looks at the programs as creations of the state where the county is put in the position of administering them. There is no choice for the county in most cases and if state funding dries or is reduced, it will not change the needs of the clients. He has his administration working on contingency plans as to what can be cut back or eliminated if state funding is reduced. “The county is not in the position to pick up more obligations,” Cunningham said.

 

Still, Cunningham stopped short of agreeing that the state should simply take back its programs. He does suggest, however, that it might be more understandable for citizens if there were two separate budgets. One would show those items where the county is simply the intermediary, like the nursing home (where all but about $1 million per year comes from sources other than county taxes) or human services in general (where about $7 million of county taxes goes into nearly $200 million in spending). That $7 million (or $7.1 to be exact) is at or below the level when Cunningham took office, so the county contribution has not increased even though services have.

 

The second budget would track the county-funding spending he has some control over. This is about $110 million out of the $412 million total.

 

The county executive is unapologetic about “raiding” funds (he is emphatic that they are not reserves) to balance his budget. After all, the Taxpayer Relief Fund was created for the very purpose it is being used. It was set up because the 70% tax increase (before Cunningham’s time) was more than was needed. Rather than cut out the entire surplus, the county kept some money coming into the relief fund to smooth things in bad days. These are those days.

 

Cunningham and Ott differ here at least as to terminology. Ott clearly thinks Cunningham is using reserves and his budget is not balanced as a result.

 

Cunningham’s 2010 budget will use the $14.2 million or so that will be in the Taxpayer Relief Fund. It will also use some money ($5.275 million according to Tom Muller) from the Green Futures Fund, which was set up for open space preservation and parks. Before critics complain too much, that fund received a $12 million influx a few years ago, out of the Taxpayer Relief Fund (when days were better).  Well, right now, the Taxpayer Relief Fund may need those dollars more and Cunningham readily defends the use. It seems to be the right thing to do since those were originally Taxpayer Relief Fund dollars.

 

In presenting a budget that only increased by $7.3 million (about $8 million in the county funded portion), Cunningham had to deal with a $4.3 million expense due to an extra pay period next year. There are 27 bi-weekly pays in 2010 instead of 26. He also saw pensions go up by another $4 million or so (they have gone from $4 million to $12 million in two years). He did so by cutting some program grants and by controlling spending by the elected officials in the county.

 

In announcing his budget, Cunningham blasted those who would advocate across-the-board cuts. That was aimed at Scott Ott who said he would have asked each department to cut spending by 11% or 12%.

 

On the issue of a county option sales tax, while not rejecting a sales tax per se, as Ott urged him to do, Cunningham does reject the optional tax. He said he prefers a uniform approach by all 67 counties rather than having different rules among the counties (ok, all 65 other than Philadelphia and Allegheny because they already have their own rules). He says he would never implement an optional sales tax. As to adding a sales tax across the state to fund local government, Cunningham said that was “too much of a hypothetical.”

 

 

To quote (sort of) his county website: Cunningham served in government as an elected or appointed official over much of the past two decades. He has served as a mayor, a city councilman, a state cabinet secretary and the president of the Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities.

Don is best known as the former mayor of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, where he led the economic renaissance of Bethlehem from a city that lost nearly 25 percent of its tax base with the closing of Bethlehem Steel Corp. to the city today with two flourishing downtown retail districts and $2 billion in new investment. 

 

Don Cunningham lives in West Bethlehem and is a product of the Pennsylvania Public School System.  His children all attend the same public school system that Don grew up in, and Don still lives in the same West Bethlehem neighborhood in Lehigh County where the Cunningham family has lived for five generations.

 

His county website also shows Don’s artistic side, playing guitar in his band, Don Cunningham and his Cabinet.

 

His campaign website adds:

 

 

 

So, that is Don Cunningham. He and Ott will continue to refine their differences during the campaign. I’ll continue to try to identify them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Election 2009