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.