Last Monday Council passed another supplement for the developer of Carriage Trails. There are two points that could be made if I decided not to sign that legislation. The first is that I’m still looking for staff to provide more information about the economic input this development provides for the City. The second would be to address some deceptive information people keep bringing up whenever they want to say the mayor is wrong.
I asked this question two years ago, “why are we providing $22,000 a lot in supplements to build Carriage Trails?” A year ago the supplements became $15,000 and in the 18th amendment they are $9,000 a lot. This is progress and one of the reasons I decided not to veto the legislation that provides the supplements. The other reason is because staff has provided some figures showing that developing these lots brings in more revenue to the city than it takes to pay off the debt for these supplements. However, the basic question of whether the city is better off having these lots developed at a slower pace where the City collects all the revenue (because there is no debt to pay off) or better off with the faster paced development has barely been addressed. In order to address this question, some form of estimate on how much the development would slow would need to be made. I personally think houses would sell at a good rate even without the supplement. Also, in order to do this analysis right, staff needs to provide an economic evaluation on what business will be attracted because of these new houses and the cost of city services that will need to be provided because we have additional people.
The second objective that could be achieved by not signing the legislation would be to help educate residents about 1) our city government and 2) my options and performance as mayor. In respect to my ambition to become a member of the US Congress, it was convenient that whenever the old council would be losing an argument, they would run to the newspaper and say the mayor was mean. This was especially true when the rest of the information that the paper didn’t publish was easily available for people to find. Now when an article is published, the papers put in references to the old articles and someone new to following the stories will have a much harder time getting the other information.
In order to make my point that relying on old newspaper coverage can be misleading, I’ve been considering writing about two of the many incidents the papers references. I think about writing about one incident because I consider it to be a significant win for me and the city.
This is when I stopped council from creating a 70% to the city / 30% the school district TIF on the Park Towne Apartments and instead forced them into a 100% to the schools TIF (these are the percentages of school money going to the school, not the total amount of TIF money). The important point to remember about the erroneous information I was censured for is that even though staff made the change I was advocating for on Thursday, staff didn’t inform council (nor did they technically have the authority to make the change). What is important in this debate is that the information I put in the flier was the official council position when I handed out the fliers over the weekend. Council didn’t approve the change until the next committee meeting.
Recent Quotes from HH Courier |
“McMasters has been a controversial figure since he was elected in 2013. In 2014, he was censured by the city council by a 7-1 vote for refusing to retract erroneous information he distributed that accused the council of redirecting money away from Bethel Schools. ……. McMasters has also refused to sign legislation approved by city council” |
The other incident I consider writing about is the one that says the Mayor refused to sign legislation. The City Charter tells us exactly what happens if the Mayor doesn’t sign legislation. For those cases when 6 or more of the 9 council members vote for the legislation, it goes into effect immediately. For those cases where 5 of the 9 members of council vote for the legislation it goes into effect 10 days after the legislation was passed. This 10 day period is when the mayor could veto the legislation.
There are two reasons I considered not signing the Carriage Trails ordinances. I’d like to see staff prepare the right kind of analysis to show it is in the best interest of the city to continue these supplements, perhaps lower future supplements or maybe provide no future supplement at all. Also, not signing the legislation may have provided an opportunity to educate the residents about our city government and my performance as mayor the last couple of years. Thanks for reading.
City Charter:
SECTION 5.12 MAYOR'S VETO .
Every ordinance or resolution of Council shall, before it goes into effect, be presented to the Mayor for approval except (i) those ordinances or resolutions enacted as a result of the Mayor's casting the deciding vote, and (ii) those enacted by a vote of at least two-thirds (2/3) majority of Council. The Mayor, if he approves such ordinance or resolution, shall sign and return it forthwith to the Clerk of Council. If the Mayor does not approve the ordinance or resolution, he shall within ten days after its passage or adoption return it, with his objections, to the Council, or, if it is not in session, to the next regular meeting of the Council. The Mayor's objections shall be entered upon the journal of the Council. The Mayor may approve or disapprove the whole or any item of an ordinance or resolution appropriating money. If he does not return such ordinance or resolution within the time limited in this Section, it shall take effect in the same manner as if he had signed it, unless the Council, by adjournment, prevents its return. When the Mayor disapproves an ordinance or resolution, or any part thereof, and returns it with his objections, the Council may, after ten (10) days, reconsider it, and if such ordinance or resolution upon such reconsideration is approved by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members of Council then holding office, it shall take effect as if signed by the Mayor.
For a deeper review of the Park Towne TIF information Council Censored me about, read the article; Mayor Campaigns for School Board - and Wins
Edited
Comments
Micheal
"You basically said you wanted to veto something" If that is how you read it then why we see things differently is obvious. What I said was that I would allow it to go into effect without my signature and that the city charter tells us that after 10 days there is no difference whether I signed it or not. The point I was making was, when the newspaper writes "McMasters has also refused to sign legislation approved by city council" the response should be "so what". The irony of this article is that one of the reasons I considered not signing the legislation this week was because it would prove that your response should be "so what".
Next you write "Yes, the city is responsible for the debt. But DEC is paying for it now. So, the city would have to resume paying for it if DEC leaves. That is a negative thing" If this logic works for you then the city should be paying everyone that pays taxes, otherwise they might leave and not pay their taxes that would be a negative thing. On the other hand, DEC bought the land knowing or should have known what the taxes and special assessments were on the property. If they can't or won't fulfill their obligations as land owners, one of the options is for the city to continue to supplement their development. That is not the only option. On the other hand, it has not been established that DEC can't or won't fulfill their obligations as a land owner, so I'm not sure why so many people present it as a fact that they wouldn't.
"Am I reading that wrong? Slower pace = slow down development right? " So this is a logical conclusion, however it should have been tempered by my assertion that I don't believe this developer will have trouble selling lots if the cost were $9000 more. So if it turns out they sell 90 lots instead of 100 that is slower but it saves the city $750,000 plus interest.
You write ""why should the city get to sit back and provide nothing, but reap all the benefits?" at a time where council is deciding whether or not to spend $2.4 million dollars to put in water pumping stations by asking all city residents to pay higher water rates. The new water tower was how many millions of dollars that this TIF money could be used to pay? But we're not using TIF money to pay for that tower. We're using money from a fund that could have been used to provide city wide water softening. Did you know it costs over $120,000 to put in a stop light? Will the city eventually pay to connect the thoroughfare between Carriage Trails, Park Towne and Shull Road? Yes, and how will that be paid for if not the TIF money collected from the Carriage Trails TIF? It will be paid for using a fund with money in it that could be used to improve the roads in other parts of the city.
If DEC still has to continue paying the city debt even if they stop developing, I think you need to make that point clearer. Because a lot of people believe they can walk away without any burden.
As for your claim about saving 750k + taxes… that is true for any up front costs… but that debt is ultimately paid by the owners and the special assessment we are paying correct?
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with your last point. Whether the city should be spending money on north Huber Heights or south Huber Heights is just another debate to be had. I will only say though, again, that these TIF funds are ultimately paid back by the owners (who purchase in CT).
There are things I don't know, so I won't get into that. Is there a TIF limit? Are you saying that we are using it all for CT and leaving nothing for other areas? If that is true, that is another point to be made by you.
If DEC were to stop paying their taxes it would work just like if any other property owner stopped paying their taxes. Eventually, DEC would lose their property (300 acres?) either in a Sheriffs' sale or to through the City's redevelopment program.
I'm confident the points I've made in the other sentences are easily understood and will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just getting punchy because of a long day and not purposely misdirecting the conversation because otherwise you'd have to concede.
"why should the city get to sit back and provide nothing, but reap all the benefits?"
– What needs clarified? You are suggesting that the city get pure profit by not contributing any financing are you not? Yes, that would be the optimal situation. But to a lot of us, it looks like greed because the city is already benefiting from the arrangement. You are risking killing a good thing.
"As for your suggestion to slow down development"
– You said "basic question of whether the city is better off having these lots developed at a slower pace" … Am I reading that wrong? Slower pace = slow down development right? Higher sale prices certainly will make them sell slower.
"If DEC pulled out, the city would have to start paying that debt again?" (The City is responsible for the debt. The land owner is responsible for paying their taxes and special assessments.)
– Yes, the city is responsible for the debt. But DEC is paying for it now. So, the city would have to resume paying for it if DEC leaves. That is a negative thing.
Sorry, but your second objective certainly does look like revenge to me. You basically said you wanted to veto something to prove that you have the power to do it and educate the residents. You're bringing up random newspaper articles that are 2 years old. I think you need to let it go. There were some people who were out to get you. That is politics. You won. They failed to even get their recall on the ballot. You have nothing to prove to the residents. They already have your support as proven by that failure. You can't please everyone. It is hard enough to please 50%.
Micheal
You can try to clarify these statements so they make sense:
"why should the city get to sit back and provide nothing, but reap all the benefits?"
"As for your suggestion to slow down development" - (where do you find this suggestion?)
"this has already been going on for how many years now and still has many more to go. How long exactly do you want this to last?" (???)
"Have you considered what happens if the city stops contributing and the developer pulls out?" (yes - and guess what, the world doesn't stop revolving)
"The developer is currently paying millions in debt on behalf of the city are they not?" (depends how you spin this. The developer is currently paying the taxes and special assessments it assumed when it bought the property. This is just like Meijer and TJ Chumps are doing in regards to the Executive Blvd special assessments)
"If DEC pulled out, the city would have to start paying that debt again?" (The City is responsible for the debt. The land owner is responsible for paying their taxes and special assessments.)
"Your second objective is basically just to prove a point that you have power or to get some revenge on what some council members told the news in the past? Tell me I didn't just read that?" (you didn't read anything about revenge. It is important that residents know the scope of each position's authority and what each action means or doesn't mean. I was also making the point that the newspapers should not be the end all of where people get their information)
As for your suggestion to slow down development…. this has already been going on for how many years now and still has many more to go. How long exactly do you want this to last?
Have you considered what happens if the city stops contributing and the developer pulls out? The developer is currently paying millions in debt on behalf of the city are they not? If DEC pulled out…. the city would have to start paying that debt again? Or find a third developer at that point to take all the risk because the city doesn't want to help.
Your second objective is basically just to prove a point that you have power or to get some revenge on what some council members told the news in the past? Tell me I didn't just read that. You should be less concerned about what some PAC is doing and more concerned about the city. That is just politics. That PAC failed to even get enough signatures to support their movement 2 years ago.