Paula’s Perspective- City Council- December 8th
December 9, 2008
by Paula Tobias
Disclaimer:
I try very hard to listen, think about what they’re saying, and write key points down. If I’ve missed something please let me know.
Tonight’s Agenda
http://www.cityoflorain.org/city_council/agendas.shtml
I only stayed through the Police & Fire Committee’s special call.
The evening began with the passage of the Firefighters Contract. Mr. Given reminded council that the City may not be able to afford this contract (and I assume others as well) next year with the anticipated economic downturn and loss of revenue. But it was passed unanimously by council.
ED NOTE: Correction from Kalin apparently Mr. Flores 2nd Ward voted No.
First item to be discussed under the Police & Fire Committee was the use of traffic cameras. Mr. Adams the assistant deputy safety director from East Cleveland was invited to attend to answer questions and explain how his city has done with traffic cameras.
It was good to have the view from a city that is currently using the system.
Prior to tonight’s meeting I forwarded these websites to council to review:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/08/red_light_camer.html”
http://www.motorists.org/blog/how-to-give-out-178000-traffic-tickets-and-accomplish-nothing/
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/
http://www.motorists.org/blog/10-reasons-to-oppose-red-light-cameras/
Sorry Mr. Holcomb that they weren’t considered credible, I wanted to make council aware of the “issues” that could be brought up in opposition.
A lot of discussion regarding the purpose; is it a revenue stream or is it to “Make the City Safer”.
Council is interested in the Police Department providing numbers, Mr. Adams provided some ballpark numbers as to what East Cleveland has seen as far as Revenue, Collections and Fees for the cameras.
I believe I heard:
Revenue of $8 million dollars
Collection 35%
Fees $$
Net $900,000 for the City.
Sergeant Pittak mentioned after researching he felt it was a good idea to deter speeders.
An interesting suggestion for deterring speeders was made by a citizen; I’ve read this is being used in other states around the country, placing plastic Police blow up dolls in cruisers at select intersections.
I wonder what a true deterrent for the general population of Lorain is? I know where the cameras in Cleveland are and I avoid the areas. If East Cleveland can only collect from 35% of their citations what do you think our percentage would be? Will the knowledge that our city uses traffic cameras coupled with the conditions of our roads deter people from coming into our town?
These are questions I have, I know council will continue to ask for answers to these and more as this continues.
Next Item on the Agenda was in regards to the delinquent tax bill of Black River Historical Society. It appeared that council was very disturbed with the City that the oversight caused the Society to incur this bill.
More importantly, once again Council was given vital information in decision making just minutes before the meeting. They were very vocal in making known that this continued action is not appreciated and must stop.
Can you hear me now?
Meetings between the Administration and the Black River Historical Society are scheduled and Council needs time to review the information presented from the Administration.
Entry Filed under: Paula's Perspective, city of lorain, personal opinion. .
19 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1. Don Killinger | December 9, 2008 at 4:48 am
The Lorain City Health Department faced the same situation in having to pay county taxes on its office building as they had not been paid since the health department moved in in 2003. They were unaware that taxes were owed and that the city had not filed for any tax exempt status for this property on W. Erie Ave. Clearly, a waste of taxpayers money.
2. Mark | December 9, 2008 at 5:24 am
Whose responsibility is it to take care of filing the tax exempt status for these entities?
As far as council is concerned regarding BRHS, I don’t see what information needs to reviewed. If the City is/was responsible for taking care of the taxes as has been reported, then the City needs to dig deep and take care of this situation.
Why are simple things made to seem so difficult?
3. Kalin | December 9, 2008 at 5:56 am
“The evening began with the passage of the Firefighters Contract. Mr. Given reminded council that the City may not be able to afford this contract (and I assume others as well) next year with the anticipated economic downturn and loss of revenue. But it was passed unanimously by council.”
Actually, it wasn’t unanimously. Dennis Flores, who apparently did his homework and contacted the firefighters, voted against this.
From my view of the situation, the firefighters are not happy with the deal that was negotiated. I can’t remember who asked the question, but it was interesting. (from my poor memory) Councilman: “do we anticipate any layoffs in 2009.” After a considerable pause Phil Dore: ” We don’t know yet.”
From my observations, it seems like the Fire dept is upset about the 60/40 split on insurance. Also, most of them will get a raise, but some will be laid off in the next year if the budget is not increased and the new contract is mandated.
4. Kalin | December 9, 2008 at 6:03 am
re: “Whose responsibility is it to take care of filing the tax exempt status for these entities?”
I’m sounding like a Flores campaigner so far, but he was the one who asked this questions….AGAIN, for the second meeting in a row.
For the second time the mayor talked about some one pound of flesh when pointing fingers, and then went on not to answer the question.
I think this was decided: Anyone who runs a department in the city who gets a tax bill needs to give it to the Auditor.
5. Eastsider M | December 9, 2008 at 9:23 am
The historical society provided information and questions. The bill was never taken care of by city officials, therefore, it is on the city. They didn’t file the necessary paperwork, why not? Do they only take care of what they want to and let the rest just sit around waiting for someone to catch it? Not a very responsible way to do business.
6. Paula | December 9, 2008 at 10:05 am
Kalin,
Thanks for pointing that out, we really do need to have these meetings televised.
The question was repeatedly asked which department was responsible, maybe that department should come up with the money?
They said they have a procedure now to rectify the situation.
I got the impression there may be more properties affected.
7. susie | December 9, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Lorainne,
sorry to get off topic like i so well do…but “debbie webbie” pretrial … 12-11 @ 2:00 in Judge Mihok Chambers.
I am thinking about going…could be interesting…how about you?
Duff is her atty.
8. thatwoman | December 9, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Thanks Kalin I have made a note in the article.
Mark things are never as easy as it sounds: Apparently the lease that BRHS signed with the City has them agreeing to paying taxes if any are due. HOWEVER a non profit does not pay property taxes, bit like churches and schools BUT you have to file for an exemption for those taxes it is my understanding that that was the responsiblity of Community Development and or the City – I am not sure who was the go to person in 1999 when it should have been taken care of…. But because it wasn’t the bill kept accumalating
The question is I would think that tax bills would have been sent out by the county….they had to go somewhere…. my understanding is that BRHS never received them so WHO DID and what happened to them….. and why wasn’t it acted upon.
The problem is you have an “all volunteer” organization that brings in people, works extremely hard to preserve and educate the people of Lorain on their history area wonderful asset NOW faced with this burden It is wrong! NO two ways about it The have had to pay out thousands already so they can file the paperwork for exemption….. The department at fault needs to pick up the tab on this in my opinion!
Thanks Susie – what happens at a pretrial?
9. thatwoman | December 9, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Kalin that 60 40 split is if they go out of network such as the Superior Medical Group problem ….itis 80 20 otherwise but it means staying in network…….which is why I put up the Superior Groups problems as a great deal of local and city workers use those Dr.s
10. Brian | December 9, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I asked the question about the difficulty of the paperwork to get the exemption. Ron Mantini replied that it was a very SIMPLE 5 page document.
The mayor doesn’t seem too concerned about the “pound of flesh”. Why should he? He is only the mayor. If the residents want “justice” does anyone know any unemployed super heroes?
Nothing is happening. No employee manual, no road plan, no revenue enhancement, no nothing. nada zip. zilch.
That goes along with our no road salt and no money.
Is the current administration trying to BANKRUPT the city?
11. thatwoman | December 9, 2008 at 2:20 pm
In fairness Brian this administration was handed this latest fiasco re the tax exemptions …. the dates occur with the Foltin administration …. when everyone was talking about Krasienko going to bat for the LCCAA I don’t recall anyone bringing up the fact Foltin ( and I am glad he did otherwise we would have had another vacant building in Charleston Village) he persuaded the city to purchase the Wickens Herzer Cook and Batista building now known as the heath dept which as Don states is also hit with these taxes…… so someone one dropped the ball but I don’t think it is fair to blame this Administration …this was all mentioned I think in January ???? of this year and Mr. Mantini stated again going from memory that the number of exemptions that were not filed were being filed and had been filed so they have done something to remedy the situation.BUT it is as I said not the fault of the BRHS they tried to address the issue in 1999 Loraine
12. Paula | December 9, 2008 at 3:31 pm
A question just came to me,
Who keeps the monies collected? Police or the City?
13. Brian | December 9, 2008 at 5:59 pm
In fairness to the administration, they did not cause the situation. We have that issue out of the way. This administration DID NOT CAUSE the problem.
This administration DID NOT create the current housing problem in our city. It has been here for a long time. No blame for creating that problem either.
In fact, the administration didn’t create a thing before coming into office. The problems were all there before hand, so lets pay the new mayor ninety some grand a year and have him wait until a NEW PROBLEM ROLLS AROUND so he can show us him problem solving skills.
This mayor doesn’t know if there will be lay offs next year? There are THREE FREAKIN WEEKS LEFT IN THE YEAR AND OUR MAYOR DOESN’T KNOW WHAT IS COMING THREE WEEKS AWAY? Talk about running the job by the seat of your pants.
Give him a break? If he would finish ONE THING, he has been in office almost a whole year, ONE THING. The mayor can say that he STARTED a whole bunch of shit, but what has he finished?
14. word of mouth - Red Light Cameras | December 9, 2008 at 6:11 pm
[...] http://thatwoman.wordpress.com/2008/12/09/paulas-perspective-city-council-december-8th/ [...]
15. Loraine Ritchey | December 9, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Brian , all I am saying is that in this instance this administration wasn’t to blame and I believe they have tried to sort out the problems that are left to them. NOW that being said are they making more problems you tell me
16. Liz | December 10, 2008 at 3:14 am
I have lots of questions about the red light cameras:
Most people driving in Lorain cannot afford to pay the fine. (Of course they could just slow down) But what is the procedure if fines aren’t collected or are unable to be collected?
Does the city have the manpower, money for their salaries, and time to process the paperwork and legal stuff?
And from my knowledge, the owner of the car is fined, not necessarily the driver. What do they do if the car was borrowed or stolen? They’re S.O.L.?
How will they determine where to put cameras? By schools (childrens’ safety)? Busy intersections ($$$)?
How have the cameras helped/hurt Cleveland?
If anyone can answer these that would be grrreat!
17. muley | December 10, 2008 at 5:55 am
……..try this Liz. This was in July when the idea was first proposed. http://mulemeister.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/somebodys-watching-me/
And they must be doing good with them in Cleveland, they just put up another one in a “high” accident area: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/11/new_red_light_camera_installed.html
And a federal judge just ruled today that their constitutional, as seen here: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/12/traffic_cameras_ruled_constitu.html
Hope these will answer some of your questions.
18. thatwoman | December 10, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The Mj Editorial today
http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2008/12/10/opinion/mj334249.txt
19. thatwoman | December 11, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The minutes of the meeting and especially with regard to the Black River Historical Soc. are up
http://www.cityoflorain.org/documents/council/12-8-08p&f_847.pdf