Remember the city originally provided this certification back on Sept 13, 2021. During the subsequent discussion on Sept 27, 2021, the Mayor declared that no member of council was given the information they needed to make that determination.
Mayor Gore: NOBODY UP HERE HAS THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED TO KNOW TO MAKE THAT DECISION. AT THIS TIME, NOBODY HAS THAT INFORMATION. AND IF THEY TELL YOU THEY DO, THEY DON'T. SCOTT, HAVE YOU PROVIDED.
I'LL JUST ASK THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. HAS ANYBODY UP HERE RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION ON DUE DILIGENCE ABOUT WHAT THIS PROPERTY OR THIS ANNEXATION WOULD MEAN FOR CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS? HAS ANYBODY RECEIVED ANYTHING? RICHARD
Councilman Shaw: MAYOR, IF I MAY CHIME IN ON THIS,
Mayor Gore: BUT JUST THIS QUESTION, PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION FIRST.
Councilman Shaw: OH NO.
Mayor Gore: HAS ANYONE ELSE RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION FROM OUR STAFF REGARDING THE IMPLICATIONS OR ANY OF THE DUE DILIGENCE ITEMS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS COUNCIL TO MAKE A RESPONSIBLE DECISION BASED ON WHAT'S BEST FOR THE, THE CITY OF HUBER HIEGHTS?
During the last work session (Feb 22, 2022), City Council told us they were going to vote on if the City was capable of providing services for this new request for annexation. This request includes all the previous property, plus a little bit more in the same area. There was no discussion during the Feb 22, 2022 meeting, nor was there any read ahead material, telling us or council if there will be enough tax revenue generated from these properties to cover the cost of providing police, fire, snow plowing and other city services.
It is important to note that prior to the covid pandemic, the city was projected to deplete the General fund by 2023. Fortunately for the City, the State of Ohio has provided so much covid support that the depletion projection has been pushed out a few years. However, those additional funds from the State are not funds that will be recurring over the long run. Therefore, it is important that the City encourages development that will not add additional burden to the finances of the city.
Admittedly, I can’t do that assessment from the information I have now. Like you, I rely on the City to produce that assessment so we can have confidence these new developments won't be a drag on our finances. Back when I was mayor, a similar exercise was needed to assess the supplements the City was giving to DEC. Council should be demanding a similar type of calculation now. You can imagine there are portions of this city that generally consist of older families with a large portion of retirees and lower income families. Say the city needs $1.00 to pay for all the service it provides. In some of these sections the city only collects 90 cents. When the numbers were done for those areas that got supplements, some estimates were that it cost the city more than what it was collecting, some were neutral. There have never been any calculations provided by staff that show any areas of the city where a residential development provides more revenue to the city than the per capita cost for services.
It may seem like the proposed annex areas would obviously contribute more in revenue than the city spends in costs for services, but if you look at the way the income tax works, its not that obvious. It is true that the people that might move to those areas are probably wealthier. However, if they are retired already, then there would not be any appreciable income tax. If they work in another city with an income tax, they don’t pay income tax to Huber Heights. If they are active-duty military, they don’t pay income tax. So who is expected to buy houses will greatly affect the amount of income tax received. Like I said previously, staff has never provided any analysis showing that any residential area has contributed 100% of the cost of services the city provides on a per resident basis. Even if this new area were to provide 98% when other areas only provide 90%, that area is still a drain on the budget.
It would be irresponsible for council to certify that the City can provide services to the proposed annex area without council first seeing a legitimate analysis that shows that this area is likely to provide at least 100% of the costs associated with providing those services. It would be irresponsible if Council has received a back door briefing showing that analysis for them not to bring that forward in a public meeting.
|NEXT UP IS I AM THREE J WHICH IS A MUNICIPAL SERVICES REQUEST LETTER FOR CARRIAGE TRAILS, PHASE TWO, ANNEXATIONS BRIAN.
City Manger: UH, YES, SIR.
JERRY THE CITY, ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO, WE RECEIVED A COMMUNICATION FROM, UH, DEC, UH, REGARDING, UM, FILING, A REFILING OF THE ANNEXATION PETITION WITH MIAMI COUNTY, UH, THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED BACK IN 2021, WHICH WAS ULTIMATELY DENIED FOR TECHNICAL REASONS.
THOSE REASONS HAVE BEEN, UH, AS IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED, UH, TO MYSELF, THOSE TECHNICAL ERRORS HAVE BEEN CORRECTED AND DEC INTENDS TO SUBMIT THE ANNEXATION PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT, UH, THEY DID SUBMIT, UH, A LETTER OF, EXCUSE ME, A, UM, UM, THE SERVICE LETTER, UM, MUNICIPAL
SERVICES REQUEST LETTER, PARDON ME, THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE.
AND SO WE HAVE INCLUDED THAT IN THE PACKET FOR COUNSEL'S REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION, UH, AND, UH, WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE ON THAT PARTICULAR MATTER.
UH, BUT THIS IS, AS IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME, A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT, UH, TO ADVANCE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, UH, WITH THE, UH, WITH THE COUNTY THAT'S RIGHT.
Mayor Gore: ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.
AND NO OBJECTIONS TO MOVING THIS ON TO MONDAY'S MEETING.