Income Tax Increase in May 2006

[Bill Call]

On Thursday, December 15th at 6PM City Council will be meeting to discuss a ballot issue that would put an income tax increase on the ballot in May, 2006.

Some on Council would like to have the ballot issue include language that would require that the proceeds of the increase be spent on infrastructure.

Would you support the income tax increase?

With the controls on how it was spent?

With no controls on how it was spent?

[john crino]

Why doesn't the city go recruit some businesses to move to lakewood instead of increasing the tax burden on residents,small business owners and property owners? I have a low income tenant who just had to pay lakewood $600. tax from his $14000./year dishwashing job he holds in Maple Heights.
Go to NYC or NJ where it costs so much to operate a business and offer them a free building if they move here? Try something radical.

[Kevin Butler]

I'm happy to share similar meeting notices with others who might appreciate an e-mail. Feel free to send your e-mail address to me at kmb@jeromelaw.com and I'll add you to my confidential list.

Kevin Butler
(Ward 1 Councilman)

[Rhonda loje]

Actually,

I think the city needs to fully complete the CitiStat program before it asks for more money from it's residents. Right now I understand that they only have a few departments beginning this program. The residents need to know that all the money the city has in it's care is used efficiently.

Maybe this would encourage the city to implement CitiStat a bit faster.

I would be unwilling to give the city more money for anything until they implement this program fully and disclose openly the results to all it's residents.

Rhonda Loje

[Tim Carroll]

I will assume they are talking about the .25% hike that has been tossed around all through last year's campaign.

Let's add in the proposed water rate hikes to begin in 2006 and continue on in '07 and '08 which are also slated to head towards the infrastructure plan.

I believe the Citizens of Lakewood don't need additional monies taken from their wallets.

I said this all through my campaign, let's work with the budget first before making requests for additional monies.

[Rhonda loje]

Again,

Any increase should not be implemented without the completion of the CitiStat program. That includes the much talked about water and sewer increases. I think we all need to see where out money has and is going. And if CitiStat is implemented in all departments, we may find the money that we need to make or plan for some of these capital improvements.

What we need now is a City Government that if fully behind the CitiStat program and quickly implements it to gain the benefit of the savings it has given other cities.

What are we waiting for?

Rhonda Loje

[Richard Baker]

How do I feel about a City with one of the highest tax rates in the State that wants to raise income tax? Great! All we need is additional taxes to fix an extremely poorly run administration and a feeble council who will throw additional funds into the City’s general fund toilet. Sounds like a City Council and Mayor who’s are in denial that cannot manage and reduce operating costs. If those city dunderheads don’t think higher income tax will not adversely affect property values, then either their chairs in the council chambers are so elevated that the lack oxygen has affected their common sense or they think Lakewood is the Land of Oz.

When the City Council and Mayor of this City can reduce, not hide operating cost by a minimum of ten percent overall, there be no need for increases in taxes. Did it surprise anyone that after a month after the citizens gave power to Council to increase the sewer and water rates [one of the highest in the region] they are discussing raising rates.â€Â￾

Truly, with the exception of a few members that have yet to make a difference, this Council and the Mayor is an embarrassment be exhibiting business as usual mentality. The City didn’t fall into fiscal disrepair overnight; the historical mentality of need for higher taxes has cloned a leadership that will never correct the fiscal problems of the City. If the Council votes to put an income tax increase on the ballot, the citizens of this City need to wholesale replace every Council member who voted for the issue including the Mayor. This City needs a fresh start with a Council that will openly and strongly debate issues in council meetings, a strong mayor with leadership qualities, and new department heads who can actually understand and manage their respective departments by reducing costs and running their respective operations economically.

Incidentally, if the Council and Mayor desires a survey on how the public feels about higher taxes they should be open about it, a novelty for this government that screens issues from the public by using committee meetings, rather then review a newspaper chat deck for public opinions.

[Grace O'Malley]

BTW, appraisers from Russo's office have been in town doing a quick visual on Lakewood properties in preparation for the next appraisal.

Let's see, we just had a property tax increase for the schools, water rates are going up, natural gas is skyrocketing, new appraisals will increase our taxes, and the city wants an income tax increase, too. ouch!!


On the other hand, the city also has to contend with increasing energy and insurance costs the same as private residents.

Don't forget that Federal tax cuts have reduced the amount of monies available to cities and states. Most states and localities are finding it necessary to find some way to enhance revenue. You may have saved some money from the Feds, but you're going to pay somewhere.

I wish I had an answer, but I don't see how we can blame anyone but ourselves, the voters, for the position we're in.

[Richard Baker]

Contrary to public believe the City’s income is not fixed. As property taxes increase, payroll earning increase and other revenue sources so do the amount of taxes the City collects from theses sources that should offset the increases in the cost of doing business. The abuse of expenditures is the problem the City has and until public pressure requires action from the City you may be assured it will not be corrected.

[Rhonda loje]

Grace,

Your right..we only ourselves to blame because we have elected officials who see the only way out of a problem it to tax the residents. Shame on us. We as residents should make it abundantly clear that the way out of this mess that they and other administrations have made is not to increase our taxes but to evaluate how we spend currently and how we can be more efficient.

LakewoodAlive has had two great forums on which to help the city find the path to help cut expenditures. I have seen no action from the city on any of these suggestions from CitiStat or Grow Lakewood.

Again, why should we first increase any tax until the city acts on these rec commendations to make the city more efficient. I think the city needs to show that they are doing their part to reduce expenditures before they even begin to think to tax their residents again.

This is the time for the city to step up and show what kind of city this is going to be in the future. Tax to get out of a problem or address their own in house expenditures first.

As for those council members who are newly elected. A question was asked during the debate about increasing taxes. All of you said you would not increase taxes. It has only be less than 60 days.

Rhonda Loje

[Bryan Schwegler]

Why doesn't the city go recruit some businesses to move to lakewood instead of increasing the tax burden on residents,small business owners and property owners? I have a low income tenant who just had to pay lakewood $600. tax from his $14000./year dishwashing job he holds in Maple Heights.
Go to NYC or NJ where it costs so much to operate a business and offer them a free building if they move here? Try something radical.

He must have owed a whole lot of back taxes then. Income tax for out of city workers should amount to about 1% or in this person's case $140.00.

[Ryan Patrick Demro]

Observers,

Given this week's events at City Hall, I thought a holiday poem would be appropriate.


Twas the Week Before Christmas

‘Twas the week before Christmas and all through City Hall
Not a citizen is stirring, most are at the mall;

The politicians are plotting and scheming with care,
In hopes that constituents will not be aware;

The bureaucrats wrestle with budgets in their heads,
With visions of line-items deep in the red;
And the Mayor in a tizzy, and about to snap,
Insists on a tax hike without a budget map,
When out from City Council rose such a clatter,
Citizens sprang from their homes to see what was the matter,
Away the President of Council flew like a flash,
Deferring the ordinance until after a New Year’s bash.

The scheme was averted because of those in the know
Who have asked for due diligence instead of a snow,
When what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a motion on the floor to approve after the New Year,
With little old Seelie, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be a trick,
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;
“Now Michael! now, Denis! now, Mary and Nickie!
Forget that Fitzgerald, or Demro, or Butler!
A unanimous vote! To delay and stall!
Now dash away, dash away, dash away all!
They left dazed and confused as they asked why,
Why, oh why, should we raise taxes so high?
With the scheme averted off the Mayor flew,
Knowing that the right thing is what he did not do.



For those of you who have lumped me into the "Council" category, please know that City Council is not on the same page. Some support the tax hike, some oppose it, and some didn't even know it existed. Stay tuned and please try to refrain from lumping us into one group. I do not support a tax that is premised on the argument that we simply need more money. Everyone "needs" more money. The heart of the argument is how do we use what we have and what do our citizens want? Those questions have not been asked in any serious matter. On top of it all, our city has no strategic plan. The two individuals responsible for leading the city, Tom George and Bob Seelie, have failed in developing consensus at City Hall to develop a coherent plan to move the city forward. Now we are proceeding to force a tax increase to the ballot before the holidays? Real nice boys, that comes right out of the Uncle Scrooge playbook. Let's do this the right way, fire up the community meetings!

[Thomas J. George]

Ryan,

There you go again, (just like Ronald Reagan used to say about Jimmy Carter)..you say there is no plan at City Hall, but you just approved a Youth Dept. strategic plan at the last Council meeting.

If you were not aware, the Grow Lakewood plan is busily being implemented at City Hall, e.g. housing programs (such CHIP), economic development (such as Main Street) and budget concerns ($1.3 million in personnel reductions since 2004).

Several city directors were surprised by your comments about lack of planning, a primary function of City Council. Your 2005 budget book indicates clearly, "Council initiates, forms consensus around and adapts policy".

In addition, each City Department's strategic plan is included in its annual report... after reading the report if you have any questions be certain to contact the director of that particular department. I'm sure each would like to hear from you if you have questions.

TJG (former Senior Planner-Cuyahoga County Dept. of Employment and Training)

[Suzanne Metelko]

Mr. Mayor - when did the business community learn about the proposed income tax hike and the meeting scheduled last Thursday?

[Thomas J. George]

Suzanne,

The income tax proposal was introduced to Council and widely reported last February, (the Plain Dealer did a significant article). Members of the Administration have had ongoing discussions with the business community and others regarding this issue for the past 10 months.

Anyone who read or attended the Grow Lakewood presentations also should be keenly aware that this issue was being discussed.

After Council voted to place the proposal on first reading and refer to the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 7 and on second reading Feb. 22 City Council asked the Administration to postpone action on this issue until after the fall Council elections were over and bring the issue up when the political campaigns were concluded..which is exactly what we did.

If you check the "other" community forum, you will find widespread discussion regarding this issue last spring...more proof there is no "conspiracy" to slip this issue onto the ballot without citizen awareness.

Thanks for your questions.

TJG