If you have never taken a look at Stow Patch’s web site here is a link that will take you directly too it:

http://stow.patch.com/announcements/school-levy-aug-2-2011

Where is our City headed?

*The City of Stow is looking to grab a little more of your hard-earned money.  A Mayor appointed sub-committee of the Public Improvement Committee has been studying the feasibility of establishing a rental property registration and inspection program, which appears to be designed to increase city revenue at a time when the residents are already cash-strapped.  Initially, the inspection fee will start out at $45.00 per rental unit.  However, if there are violations discovered, the property owners will have to make repairs and if the work is not completed to the City’s satisfaction, additional fines will be imposed for each day the work is not completed.

 

Ward Three Council Representative, John Pribonic, wants to further embellish the program by requiring that all single family home owners also pay a yearly inspection fee of  $25.00.  If the inspected homes do not meet the City’s general requirements, the owners can face additional repair costs and fees.

This program comes at a time when the City is struggling to meet its financial responsibilities .  Income tax revenue is way below estimates for the year, while rising deficits for the Municipal Court and City owned golf course are eating away at the City’s cash reserves.  This program, similar to the collection of the water improvement fee and the storm water improvement fee, is designed to generate additional revenue for the City’s general fund.  It may not be labeled as an additional tax, but it certainly smells like one.

When is the current Mayor and Council going to get a handle on their over-spending?  People at home have had to make extreme cuts while they continue to make difficult choices.  The City has to figure their own way out of this economic downturn without continuing to burden the residents with additional fees and/or tax increases.  We in the private sector call it  “living within your budget”.  *Bob Adaska

Councilman John Pribonic, chairperson of Council’s Public Improvement Committee, answered affirmatively when asked at a meeting if this proposal could be extended to private residences.  The Mayor agreed. 

There are also questions regarding how this whole proposal came into being.  Violations of the Ohio Open Records Act (also referred to as the “Sunshine Law”) seem to have been committed by the sub-committee and possibly by others involved in the process.  There also seems to be a difference of opinion among City leaders on many fronts:  The Mayor has stated that there will be no inspector.  The $46,285 yearly salary for a part-time position seems to be a little excessive.  What will they pay a full-time inspector when that becomes necessary (probably in the not too distant future)?  Why is not Council beefing up the current laws to cover many of the “violations”?  Has anyone considered alternative programs that might not hit the people who can least afford it so hard? 

What about requiring landlords to hold in escrow a certain amount of money so that repairs that are cited by inspectors can be dealt with immediately?  Since we are already a city of laws, why not look at those laws and make a few changes?  Even Councilperson Janet D’Antonio stated that the current laws should be good enough to handle such problems.  Why don’t we just enforce them?

Why do we need to kick business in the teeth by charging  them fees for vacant buildings?  Isn’t business lousy enough right now?  Some of the long-standing vacancies in the area can still be looked at from a different, more creative perspective.  Don’t compare Stow to Cuyahoga Falls when we are doing nothing to improve one of our oldest shopping plazas.  Out of all the cities listed by the “Rental Registration/Inspection Committee”, only one (Beachwood) actually has an inspection program.  Other cities just collect fees.  Do we have to collect fees because other cities do it?

Two outside attorney firms are looking into this proposal.  Could the City be exceeding their authority?

$60,285 seems to be an awful lot of money to cover a part-time position. 

We believe the City of Stow does not have a FUNDING problem, but it does have a SPENDING  problem.

Along with other Cities across the United States, Stow too has reduced revenue. The income level of most families has gone down thereby reducing the amount of income taxes the City is collecting. The latest figure puts the City’s revenue from income taxes down about a million dollars. Couple this with the current deficit being paid to operate the new court house and golf course and this really creates some financial problems for the City. There has been some talk of raising the income tax or property tax level to offset the decline in revenues. So far the City has been reluctant to go to these extreme measures but that is because they still have some money in their reserve accounts. That might all change in the beginning of 2011. Now is the time to encourage the Council and Mayor to continue to reduce their spending. Large projects such as the improvement of the Seasons Road area as well as the widening of Hudson Drive should be suspended until the economy improves. Available funds should be focused on the minimal operations of the City and existing infrastructure. The City should discourage unnecessary travel expenses for the Mayor and her staff.   Consideration should be given to possibly halting the Community Improvement Corporation. Their loan program to help recover and expand private businesses out of the City’s treasury has got to stop.

            Some difficult choices have to be made now. This idea of pouring more and more money into economic development and less and less into our city streets, water lines and sewers has got to change. Look around your neighborhoods; have you seen any new improvements?  Two major streets have never even seen city water services while the Mayor and Council continues to dump millions of our tax dollars into a project on Seasons Road that will, at least in the short term, benefit only a few investors.

            If we don’t act today to get the City’s spending under control, you probably will see increased taxes next year. Please try to attend these important budget meetings next week. Let’s show the Mayor and Council that we are concerned about how our tax dollars are being spent.

1/30/10

(Sigh…..) We sure get tired of reporting this type of stuff.  But it does give our city officials every opportunity to prove that our website is aptly named.

As if you hadn’t heard enough about the Wyoga Lake meeting in previous posts (found here), now we have even more to add to the mess.  We are still wondering why the city legal deartment is ignoring this whole affair.

Audio clip of Mary Bednar at Wyoga Lake Meeting

The solution to this whole problem is for Council to admit that it made a mistake and held a meeting that was outside of Council chambers and was not open to the public as the city charter requires.

In summary: 

1.  Hold all meetings in Council chambers and make sure the entire citizenry is notified, or don’t drag enough Council members together in one place to constiture a quorum.

2.  Make sure the meetings are transparent.

In a previous post we notified you of the picnic/meeting held by City Council person Council Member Mary Bednar for the residents of Wyoga Lake.  Storm water drainage was the principle subject.  We let you know that a resident of the city (from a different area of the city) was threatened with arrest if  he remained at the meeting. 

We felt that his removal was a violation of the “sunshine law” (the Ohio Open Records Act).  We also felt that this meeting was in violation of the law that states that City Council meetings must be held in Council Chambers in City Hall.  We also noted that since four members of Council were present at the meeting (Mary Bednar, Ron Alexander, Janet D’Antonio and Sara Drew)  this constituted a legal Council meeting.  Why hasn’t our city Law Director addressed this blatant violation of the Ohio Open Records Act.  Why hasn’t he enforced the law of the city dictating where meetings must be held?

You can see the invitation that started the whole mess right here.

That previous post noting these violations can be found here. 

It’s a Matter of Trust…

At tomorrow’s (1/14/10) council meeting city council will propose an emergency legislation that will allow the city’s Community Improvement Corporation (CIC) to own, or partly own, a business or businesses in Stow.  This organization will also be able to offer loans and insure them.

We have no heartburn with Council’s plan to move ahead with this legislation however we do demand that the Mayor and Council proceed legally.  A few items are bothersome:

 Does this mean we will be paying city employees to attend a “voluntary” meeting?  Does Mr. Earle, the city’s Budget Director, get paid for attending this “voluntary citizens board”?

In addition to all the above, how about charter provision 4.14 that states that council cannot pass an emergency measure that will delegate part of its power to a sub-organization.  This must be done with the usual three readings of the proposal.  Is this whole thing legal?

Here is the section of the city charter dealing with emergency resolutions:

Each emergency resolution and ordinance shall contain a statement of the necessity for such emergency action, and its enactment shall require the affirmative vote of at least six members of Council if all members are present, or the affirmative vote of at least five members if one or more members are absent.

No action of Council authorizing the surrender or joint exercise of any of its powers, or in granting any franchise, or in the enactment, amendment, or repeal of any zoning or building resolution or ordinance, or in the changing of any ward boundaries, or in authorizing any change in the boundaries of the Municipality, shall be enacted as an emergency measure.

How about some of you new members of council sitting back and taking a look at this issue.  We urge you to do the job the people of Stow elected you to do.  Is some of this proposal smelling like politics as usual?  Please make sure it’s done the way it’s supposed to be done!

In short, this means that people who pay rent will be paying more rent.  

Click here to read the entire mess in all its glory.