Citizens For A Better Norwood 2

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Two letters to Mayor Williams

1. Keith Moore's letter

January 12, 2007

Mayor Thomas Williams
City of Norwood
4645 Montgomery Road
Norwood, OH 45212

Dear Mayor Williams:


I recently received a letter from my esteemed colleague, Victor Schneider, asking you to comply with the Ohio Revised Code by submitting a budget. His letter does not mention exactly which section of the Ohio Revised Code he is talking about, but at the January 9 Council meeting, he mentioned § 705.18

Entitled “Annual appropriation ordinance; supplemental appropriation,” that section provides in pertinent part:

An annual appropriation ordinance shall be prepared by the legislative authority of a municipal corporation from estimates submitted by the mayor . . . in the manner provided in section 705.17 of the Revised Code for the annual tax ordinance. The annual appropriation ordinance shall be submitted to the legislative authority at its first meeting in January . . . .

Unfortunately, Mr. Schneider has made a common mistake. Chapter 705 does not apply to statutory cities such as Norwood. Chapter 705 lays out the rules governing charter cities, as § 705.07 makes clear:

705.07. Sections applicable to each plan
Sections 705.07 to 705.32, inclusive, of the Revised Code, apply to and are a part of each plan of government provided in sections 705.41 to 705.86, inclusive, of the Revised Code.

Sections 705.41 through 705.86 lay out the various charter forms of government a city can adopt by charter — Commission, City Manager, or Federal.

As an example of another provision in Chapter 705 that clearly illustrates that the Chapter does not apply to Norwood would be:

705.09. Auditor; duties
The legislative authority of a municipal corporation shall choose an auditor, who shall keep an accurate account of all taxes and assessments, and of all money due to, all receipts and disbursements by, and of all assets and liabilities of the municipal corporation, and of all appropriations made by the legislative authority.

As you may be aware, the voters choose the Norwood Auditor, not Council.

Norwood is, however, governed by Chapters 731 and 733, which lay out the responsibilities of the Mayor and Council. As for the budget, the only relevant provisions I can find are:

731.47. General powers
The legislative authority shall have the management and control of the finances and property of the municipal corporation, except as otherwise provided.

733.06. Mayor and officers of cities shall attend meetings of legislative authority; mayor's written recommendations
The mayor, the directors, and the several officers provided for in Title VII [7] of the Revised Code shall attend the meetings of the legislative authority of the city when specifically requested by such legislative authority, and answer at such time questions put to any of them by any member of such legislative authority, relative to the affairs of the city under their respective management and control. The mayor shall make such recommendations, in writing, to the legislative authority for the welfare of the city as seem wise to him.

Although I would love to see someone else submit a completed appropriation ordinance for me to review, there seems to be no legal requirement for that.

Oddly enough, on closer reading, even § 705.18 does not appear to require that the Mayor submit a budget. It provides that “An annual appropriation ordinance shall be prepared by the legislative authority of a municipal corporation from estimates submitted by the mayor . . . .” So if we were a charter city, you would be required to submit estimates, but Council would still be the one required by statute to “prepare” the “annual appropriation.”

Even more astonishing, although it provides that “[t]he annual appropriation ordinance shall be submitted to the legislative authority at its first meeting in January,” it makes no mention of who exactly is supposed to do the submitting.

Of course, since § 705.18 has nothing to do with Norwood, it doesn’t matter what it says.

This, at least, is my reading of the Ohio Revised Code after an admittedly brief review. I would, of course, defer to the conclusions of the Law Department if a closer study reveals that I am mistaken.

I do agree with you (and Mr. Sanker and Mr. Barlow and Mr. Mumper and Mr. Schneider) that we need to change past practices for the budget process. In the years prior to my election, as Mr. Sanker’s predecessor as Chairman of the Finance Committee put it, “The Mayor gives us the budget and we pass it.” During my tenure, Council has taken the lead, mainly by instituting the least painful cuts to get us through the year in question.

But at no time was there long-term planning or detailed analysis of expenditures to services. We need to institute both. I support your efforts to bring in a Budget Analyst and to work with Mr. Jones to find a way for us to accomplish those changes to the budgeting process.

Sincerely,


Keith D. Moore
Norwood City Council — Ward One

cc: Norwood City Council
Rick Gibson, Law Director


2. Rick Hursh's letter

January 26, 2007

The Honorable Tom Williams
City of Norwood
Norwood, Ohio

Dear Mayor Williams:

First, let me thank you for taking the time to talk about city issues yesterday. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation and believe more face to face talk between the residents of the City of Norwood and their elected officials would go a long way to improving our community.

During our conversation, you raised the concern, as I understood, it that Citizens for a Better Norwood had accused you of breaking the law regarding the city’s appropriations. You indicated that you had not read our blog but were informed of this by a supporter.

Enclosed you will find a copy of the blog in question. As you read it, you will see that, as I stated, the blog simply states the concerns raised by Mr. Schneider. In addition, the blog cites the Ohio Revised Code verbatim. If you look at the last line of the blog, you will see that we close with “If there’s been a violation, where does it rank on the scale of seriousness?”

As you can see, we did not make any accusation or draw any conclusions. Whoever misinformed you, whether out of malice or ignorance, has done a disservice to you, your office and the community.

In closing, let me thank you once again for taking the time to discuss our mutual concerns for the city.

Respectfully,


Rick Hursh

Enc.


Saturday, February 24, 2007

2/27/07 Norwood City Council meeting agenda

Council Chambers
7:30 p.m.

A) CALL TO ORDER
B) PRAYER
C) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
D) ROLL CALL
E) AMENDMENT OF AGENDA

F) REQUEST TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ON AGENDA ITEMS

G) REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL

H) SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE

A) ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICE-SAFETY TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT UNDER THE STATE BID PURCHASE PROGRAM FOR THE PURCHASE OF FIVE (5) 2007 FORD CROWN VICTORIA CRUISERS OUTFITTED WITH THE PROPER SAFETY EQUIPMENT FOR USE BY THE NORWOOD POLICE DIVISION, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

I) INTRODUCTORY READINGS OF ORDINANCES

A) ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 56-2002 TO PROVIDE A PAY INCREASE OF TWO PERCENT (2%) FOR THE AUXILIARY POLICE UNIT FOR THE CITY OF NORWOOD, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

B) ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CLERK/TREASURER TO CERTIFY UNPAID WATER AND SEWER BILLS AS WELL AS GARBAGE FEES TO THE HAMILTON COUNTY AUDITOR FOR FILING AS A LIEN ON THE TAX DUPLICATE OF THE OWNER(S) OF SAID PARCEL AND BE COLLECTED AS OTHER TAXES

C) ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROVISIONS AND FEE SCHEDULES UNDER CHAPTER 1305.05 OF THE NORWOOD CODIFIED ORDINANCES, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

D) ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND/OR SAFETY-SERVICE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLECTION SERVICES WITH CAPITAL RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC., AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

J) INTRODUCTORY READINGS OF RESOLUTIONS

A) RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITIES READINESS INITIATIVE (CRI) PLAN, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

K) ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
L) OTHER REQUESTS TO ADDRESS COUNCIL
M) UNFINISHED BUSINESS
N) NEW BUSINESS

O) COMMUNICATIONS
1. Letter from Mayor Re: Appointment to Tree Board
2. Letter from Liquor Control Re: Kkusum, Inc. Hearing
3. Letter from Dan Bly Re: Tropical Bar
4. Letter from Liquor Control Re: Tropical Bar
5. Letter from Liquor Control Re: Norwood Drive Thru
6. Letter from Tax Dept. Re: Norwood Drive Thru
7. Letter from Chief Schlie Re: Norwood Drive Thru
8. Letter from Chief Goodman Re: EMS Billing Review

P) EXCUSE ABSENT MEMBER/S

Q) ADJOURNMENT

Monday, February 12, 2007

Last known Enquirer article re reassessments of Rookwood Exchange parcels

June 27, 2006
Tax on seized property cut
Panel: Eminent-domain ruling reduces the value

BY GREGORY KORTE | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

A Norwood developer's property tax bill should be reduced because of the Ohio Supreme Court's injunction forbidding the demolition of properties taken by eminent domain, a county tax appeals panel ruled Tuesday.

That court order, which came in a precedent-setting case that will decide whether cities can take property for economic development, was an "unforeseeable and harsh" circumstance that affects the property's value.

The decision was a partial victory for Rookwood Partners Ltd., which hopes to convert 11 acres at Edmondson Road and Interstate 71 into a shopping and office complex called Rookwood Exchange

The county auditor wanted to assess the property at $21.6 million - the price the developer paid the 73 property owners. Three owners sold only after the city condemned the properties, and another three refused to sell. The city took those by eminent domain.
But Rookwood Partners complained that the property is worth next to nothing - $3.2 million - as long as the courts tie up retail development.

The Hamilton County Board of Revision said the value should be whatever the properties would be worth if the residential neighborhood still existed. That amount hasn't been determined by the auditor, but is likely to be about $11 million.

The panel also ruled that the value should be adjusted back to the sales price as soon as the Supreme Court injunction is lifted - rejecting the developer's argument that the sales prices were artificially inflated because owners held out for more money.
Richard Tranter, the lawyer for the developer, said the decision demonstrates the "unintended consequences" of the property-rights case.

"We're the owner. We are saddled with all the burdens of ownership. We have to pay taxes. We're responsible if anything happens there," he said. "But we cannot use the property."
E-mail gkorte@enquirer.com