And Now, Another Episode of "As the Council Churns!"

In our previous episode; A proposed ordinance (A-08-12) for an appropriation of $250K to fund the drug task force restart (10K), the city’s new tow-in lot ($50K) and $190K for purposes not yet named was introduced for 2nd & 3rd readings by D5 Councilwoman Ms. Benedetti.



Following which a lively discussion between (primarily) CM’s Messer & Coffey concerning the advisability of handing the England administration a “blank check” for $190K.


Although testimony from several sources (including previous statements from City Controller Kay Garry) that the dollars could not be spent without further council approval, Dan successfully squelched the $190 and the Mayor’s office walked away with only $60K!

And now, tonight’s episode;

Going in, this the second September meeting of New Albany’s Common Council looked to be short & sweet. The only agenda items were a report for CM John Gonder concerning his Housing Committee, a resolution for the transfer of funds (R-08-40), and the 1st reading of a bill to annex 40 acres of fringe property to expand our industrial park area (X-08-01).

The Gonder report was without incident as after two meetings nothing of consequence has occurred save the realization that code enforcement in any meaningful way is not happening. (Old news)!

During the public comments section, there was only one gentleman who approached the podium to speak about the smoking ban only to find that it wasn’t a topic of discussion for this evening.

No Public Officials had anything to say and the Mayor (i.e.; Deputy Mayor Malysz) presented an update on the city’s post hurricane cleanup activities.

Then the fun began. R-08-40 (a transfer of funds request of once again, $250K) to pay for the cleanup thus far was introduced by CM Coffey.

Coffey came out of the box in ardent support of this appropriation without question. “We have an emergency and the people need help!” he quipped.

Some council members asked why this request differed from A-08-12 (the one from the previous meeting for the same amount).

The Coffey response was the $190K asked for on September 4th, had no specific earmarks attached.

CM Messer countered that this one did not either. It was merely a blank check for “cleanup”. There were no specifics on to whom,  for what, and how it was to be distributed.

CM Coffey came back once again that this was an emergency and the need was dire.

CWM Benedetti offered that if the full $250K had been approved at the last meeting, the administration would be 2 weeks closer to having at least $190K in hand to deal with the current issue. In addition, none of it, thewn or now, can be distributed without further Council approval.

About this point both CM’s Coffey & Price pointed out to Ms Benedetti that she needed to listen and learn!

She responded that she was learning everyday and she still didn’t see the difference between this request and the aforementioned one.

This makes the second meeting in a row that she has been reprimanded publicly (by CM President Gahan at the last meeting)  for daring to voice an opinion.

If I may interject, you’d think she’d understand the status quo doesn’t appreciate being challenged by freshmen CM's any more than they do the public.


However, on the other hand I say with gusto “YOU GO GIRL!!”

CM Price then said that this should be a “wake up call” for the city. “We need a rainy day fund just for such events” he continued. “This just underlines the need for the city to watch its pennies! (Paraphrased quote)

In the end after nearly an hour of quibbling, the measure passed unanimously.

Then came the introduction of X-08-01 (the Grantline Industrial Park West Annexation) for 1st reading.

Mr. Malysz presented the details including the need for infrastructure & utilities to serve the annexation and it also passed with little ado.

The gavel dropped and Mark & I retired to the city hall annex (i.e.; Studio’s) for the regularly scheduled post-meeting meeting.

We thought our cohort (Bluegill) was going to join us but he apparently got detained for further discussion with various council persons & city officials following our departure.

Perhaps we’ll hear more on that later.

One final note; Mr. Malysz said he’d been assured by Duke Energy that all power for New Albany will be restored by sometime Saturday. And stay away from those power lines still entangled in downed trees!

OH! and did I mention this was one long meeting for just two agenda items??

IF I MAY.........?

If I may (or even if I may not) I’d like to respond to the latest contribution from our friends over at Freedom of Speech.


Their post this morning entitled “YOU BOYS JUST DON’T GET IT” brings up some interesting points. Many of them, I in principle, agree with. Others however I’d like to expand upon.

First things first. My take is that the Council Committee really is looking for ways to make New Albany safer, cleaner, and healthier for its citizens (children & seniors alike).

As to why the administration’s entities charged with effectively enforcing the ordinances on the books are not doing so is question I also would like answered.

My suspicion is that the answer lies in part to the lack of staff & resources.

I’m convinced after attending several public meetings on the subject that a lack of understanding of the applicable laws is in play as well.

And finally I think it goes without saying at this point that there is a lack of will (political or otherwise) to take the lid off that particular can of worms.

It is true that there are over 22,000 parcels of property listed as being within the cith limits of New Albany
 in the data bases of the Assessor, the Auditor, the Recorder, and the Platt Room computer systems.

However, that information very often does not match from one office to the next. There are in fact parcels listed as vacant lots that have (and have had for 2 years or more) houses on them.

There are in fact houses on parcels of property that the transfer of ownership has never been recorded. In other words, persons building structures on property they do not legally own at least in terms of a recorded deed transfer.

There are in fact instances (including those like the ones mentioned in the previous paragraph) where said structures were constructed without permit one being applied for much less approved by Zoning & Planning.

There are in fact cases of owners of multiple properties claiming homestead exemptions on more than one of them. Once again, my understanding of the statute is that provision is one per customer.

All of these examples add up to a loss of income (via property taxes) for New Albany. The net result is a lack of dollars available to the city for its many needs to be met.

I don’t mind paying taxes to pay for city services. As a matter of fact, I’ll gladly do so in order to retain that cozy feeling of safety when I lay my head on my pillow at night.

I do however object profusely when I find that not all are required to carry their portion of the burden because they managed to slip thru the cracks.

Are there a lot of these instances? At this point, I honestly can’t say. However one or a hundred it begs the question of “who’s minding the store?” Is the water cooler talk of favoritism more than just talk?

Answers anyone?

And just what does all this have to do with code enforcement and the call for rental property registration?

Well first of all, it explains in part why there are so few dollars that have to be spread so far. It explains in part why the work load overwhelms the staffs in place.

 I will agree that in the case of owner occupied homes, access to the responsible party is relatively easy. He/she lives in the home in question (usually).

However, in more than a few cases locating the individual(s) who have the authority to address a code violation issue for rental properties is much more difficult and time consuming.

As I have said in previous posts on this site and others as well Pam Badger, & Ron Hartman both have cited instance upon instance of not being able to locate said individual which adds weeks, months and even years to a satisfactory solution to the issue.

So as shown by other cities/towns/burgs/puddle stops around the state/country, registration of rental property and the requirement that the owner or his/her agent live either in the city or an adjacent county cuts the time, money, & resources required to solve said issues substantially.

There need not be a fee attached for registering. However failure to do so can result in some serious fines.

Registration need not be a cause of fear for those landlords that are keeping their properties up to snuff. Contrary to popular belief, I choose to think those folk are in the majority.

What it will do is shine the spotlight on those that are not (i.e.; slumlords). While I will acquiesce that “ghosts” may be and probably are hard to locate I’d submit that if efforts could be shifted to doing so instead of being spent digging thru four separate data bases to weed out the offenders from those doing the right thing, the focus of enforcement could shift and become more productive.

As I have mentioned before, after getting the registration data base in place, it will be up to the various entities of the administration to follow thru all the way to a solution case by case.

While it is true that at there may be a requirement for an additional staff person to create, administer, and keep the data in this program current, I can’t envision it being a major budget item.

Anyone with a working knowledge of Excel can put this thing together. Once in place it should not be that difficult to keep current. Assuming of course the person(s) involved want it to remain so.

To paraphrase a quote from FOS, “It ain’t that complicated Boys (Girls)”

Fair?

Yes!

Difficult?

Yes!

Impossible?

Only if the administrators choose it to be!

Only if we the people sit quietly by and allow our elected/appointed government officials to continue doing “business as usual”!!

On The Eve of Another Council Housing Committee Meeting.........

The 2nd meeting of New Albany Common Council’s “Committee on Housing” is this Wednesday evening at 6 PM in the 3rd floor assembly room in the City/ County building.


This whole process has caused quite a stir within neighborhood groups, local realtor organizations, landlord’s coffee breaks, bar’s, pub’s, blogs, and various city government offices.

Those opposed to any accountability for their business practices ( Ooops I forgot…rental housing is not a business silly boy!) have resorted to calling advocates of such measures to solicit  support! Say what??

In their latest contribution to the cause, the folks over at the premier (Hrrrmmm!) community affairs blog (Freedom of Speech) went to great lengths to tell us what we already knew.

We also have read the New Albany Code Book thank you! We've found it wanting in some areas.

They also informed us that Code enforcement Officer Pam Badger was well versed in wading thru the 4+ separate local government entities to determine who owned a particular piece of property as she is also a part time employee of the assessor’s office.

Well excuse me maam, err…sir, but she is the first city official (there have since been many others) to tell me how difficult, time consuming, and many times dead end that process is. This wheel is broken and we are merely suggesting ways of fixing it.

At any rate being as I have nothing better to with my time (cough, choke) I went to the sacred halls of the City/county Building and looked for myself.

After asking many questions of again, many offices I’ve finally learned how to read much of the hieroglyphics involved in ascertaining the genealogy of a given parcel of land in this city.

What I’ve found is very enlightening. There parcels listed on the tax roles as vacant lots that have houses sitting on them.

There are houses in single family zoned areas that have been made into multifamily living quarters that never went thru the process of acquiring the proper variances’ to operate as such.

And my personal favorite, there are instances of homeowner homestead exemptions on multiple properties of the same ownership. I always thought that was a one per customer gig. Perhaps I am mistaken. If so I’m sure FOS will let me know.

Now before someone starts on the Building Commissioner, Zoning & Planning, the Code Enforcement Officer, etc know this. There are within New Albany Township, there are well in excess of 22,000 parcels of land.

To expect any of the above mentioned offices to do other than put out wildfires as they pop up is ludicrous. With the budgets, staff, & resources they have at their disposal just keeping up with new construction is cramming 12 hours into an 8 hour day everyday.

I can attest that when they become aware of a problem they proceed to do what they can as quickly as they can. Having said that, once it leaves their desk to the next step in the process, it invariably drops off into the abyss.

Hence our suggestions of ways to make their jobs just a little easier.

Hence rental property & abandoned housing registration.

Hence requiring that a responsible party live in or around New Albany (i.e. a surrounding county)

Hence the concept of investigating how other cities around the country deal with these issues and possibly adopting them for New Albany.

By the way, it is our belief that if our Council has the intestinal fortitude to pass legislation that gets deep into the pockets of those who choose to ignore the law and our Mayor’s administration (i.e. law department) has the political will to uphold said legislation thru the courts when necessary, we can see a difference within our city without raising taxes and breaking the bank.

In other words, the fines should pay for the costs of collecting them and the additional staff to do so.

It’s only money folks and our Council President Gahan assured me recently that there is plenty of it here in New Albany. Sounds to me like we just aren’t collecting it.