The Mayor and Council just signed an addendum to the "Contract" with Local Waste Services for you stating that "
The Village has officially announced the shifting of trash collection costs to the residents. There is a postcard that I just received (today is March 26), indicating that the week of April 1 Local Waste Services will be sending us a bill. Happy Easter.
There is a FAQ document on the Village Website: http://www.minervapark.org/recycling/FAQ_1.pdf
Their justification for "requiring" residents to stay with Local Waste:
"Can I decide to go with another company?
At this time we are staying with one company, Local Waste Services, for the following reasons:
a. The Village is still under contract with Local Waste Services and will be through August 2013.
b. The cost per household under that contract is one of the lowest (if not THE lowest) in Central
Ohio for trash pick-up that includes recycling and yard waste collection.
c. The Village has worked very hard during the past years to repave all the Village roads. Trash collection vehicles are quite hard on roads because of the weight of the truck and the constant stopping and starting. Having one company collect trash significantly reduces the wear and tear to the streets and controls noise from trash collection vehicles. For example, Local Waste Services has two different trucks come through the Village on one day to collect all trash. If each homeowner could independently contract for trash pick-up, we could have up to eight trucks (1-3 trucks from 3-4 different companies) coming through the Village Monday through Friday, and trash cans could be sitting in front of homes here throughout the week. Fewer trucks on one day
is better for street maintenance and noise reduction. And, again, the fee per household with Local Waste is one of the lowest in Central Ohio."
Now, the Village is under contract with Local Waste Services. Not the residents. Or so it was.
The Mayor and Council decided to pass an addendum to the contract stating the above:
"Village and Contractor agree that RESIDENTS will pay CONTRACTOR (Local Waste) at the rate of $14.66 per unit, per month, for the 563 houses being serviced for a quarterly payment of $43.98 for the remaining three year term of the contract.
CONTRACTOR will bill the RESIDENTS of Minerva Park directly for its services."
How can this possibly be legal? The "Village" just signed a contract between the trash collection provider and each individual land owner of the 563 houses being serviced.
That also bears the question of: what if you don't have trash collected? What if the house is vacant (as many in Minerva Park currently are...more on that later)?
Regardless of the cost per quarter or being "cheapest in town" I find this repulsive and do not see how there is legal standing for this.
If anyone can please provide me with legal documentation as to how this is legal, I'd really appreciate it.
there are alternatives, but we were never afforded one OR even the notice that this was in question until after it was already passed by council.
Typical ways of doing things in Minerva Park.
They are running out of money; but the Mayor makes $27K/year for a job that was previously done for less than half that.
She now has full benefits.
She also has an assistant, who makes $18/hour doing her job essentially for her.
HOW can the residents sit by and let this happen??? Because they don't KNOW about it, much like the magicians in the community building want it to be.
The assistants Job! Wow paying her $18/hour for a clerical job and why are we running out of money.
ReplyDeleteThis lady has mismanaged the money away and now she wants us to buy a golf course. What da hell is wrong with this picture?
I am not going to pay Local waste for trash service! I will look for some one else. The mayor runs this village like a dictator and it needs to STOP. This lady wants the council to work for free and she will not even think about a pay cut from her part time job and full benefit package.
Just to make it clear concerning the golf course land purchase. It will be the residents (those that are registered votes), who will be making the decision to purchase, or not purchase, half of the land of the golf course. This will be on the May primary election ballot. It will not be Council or the Mayor's decision.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, houses WILL be build on the golf course land, it comes down to will homes be built on all of the land, or just half of it. Currently the Village does NOT own this property and has no input on who it is sold to or what can be built on it. Presently it is part of Blendon Township.
The manner that the item is presented in -- or NOT -- presented in to residents is the heart of this issue.
ReplyDeleteThe Mayor and perhaps council will elect to publicize the issue in their skewed vision of how it should be, defending all the reasons why the residents should elect to buy it (just as you have, Charles) rather than why it would be a huge financial burden or thinking of the overall picture of the park.
There are at least 17 homes in the park already foreclosed on or in pre-foreclosure and listed for sale right now. How many more are nearing pre-foreclosure? How many residents can already barely afford the HUGE tax demands that this village imposes? Our taxes are higher than Westerville, and what do we get for it?
How is building more homes on Minerva Park land going to benefit this community? Houses in the park already can't sell and anybody who is trying to sell is going to likely lose money on the transaction.
Why would anyone want to buy a house in Minerva Park right now with the increases in income tax percentages, the trash collection being paid out of pocket, and the history of misuse of funds in Minerva Park?
I have a previous colleague who recently purchased a home in the village. When I found out he was considering, I told him this: "If it's your dream home, at the right price, and you can fake a smile every time you walk in the community building and don't show any dissension with the Mayor or council, go for it. Otherwise, I'd keep looking."
Besides, the last time that the village talked with a developer about building on the golf course in 2004/2005, Westerville City Schools turned down the potential new enrollment. What happens this time?
Would that part of MP be excluded? Or would all of MP lose Westerville City Schools? Have they spoken to this at all yet?
The misspending already is outrageous, but if you're going to try to defend the village purchasing more land when A. we can't afford it, B. our clerks/administrators/council/mayor don't know how to manage money, and C. our mayor and office employees get paid increasing amounts of money and refuse to consider cutting back in these respects.....what the hell is right.
I ask again, how is building more homes on Minerva Park land going to benefit this community? Sure, it is unfortunate and disheartening to see the golf course that has been in business since 1930 leave our area.
It would be tragic to see homes developed there at all, particularly through the entire course.
But can The Village operate, much less SELL a 9-hole golf course? They can barely operate and clearly don't sell their pool.
I could go on.
Jessica,
DeleteIn no way am I endorsing or not endorsing, at this time, the building of homes on the golf course or the Village operating a nine-hole golf course. I am just stating a fact. Some residents mistakenly believe that if they vote no, it means no homes will be built on the land. Just the opposite is true, more will be built. However, you ask very good questions and you are not alone in asking those questions, including those asked by me.
Fisher Homes, the builder, apparently believes it is a good deal and that the timing is right. I am not as confident, but business history has shown that it is those businesses that take big risks and have the timing that make large sums of money, and apparently Fisher Homes believes in both.
The Village is not involved in the transaction between the golf course land owners and Fisher Homes; however Fisher Homes has made it clear they want the land annexed into Minerva Park. Currently the land is in Blendon Township, which is Columbus Schools. As far as Westerville School allowing enrollment, I know nothing about their position on this issue, but would assume Fisher Homes has visited that issue. It appears no one wants to live in the Columbus School District if you have children.
I disagree in that there are some benefits for having homes built within an annexed section of Minerva Park. Right now the Village is land locked with no land for expansion or additional tax revenues except increasing income or property tax on those who currently live here. The Village would not only receive income tax(and property tax)from potential home owners living in the new homes, but also from all the workers developing the infrastructure (water lines, streets, electric, etc.) and constructing the homes (carpenters, drywall workers, roofer, etc.) as they would also pay income tax to the Village. So there is an advantage to having the houses built on some or all of the land. Homes on all of the land are advantageous to just half the land because it would bring in more income tax, but there would be additional roads to maintain, plus other various issues to consider.
In addition, there is a big difference between purchasing a new home compared to a 40 year old foreclosed home. Given the choice and all other things being equal, I would want the new home. I feel most others would feel the same, but that is not really an issue for us current residents, but a decision to be made by a future resident and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for the Village, but the timing is terrible with the economic state of the Village. You ask good questions and hopefully by the end of the meeting on April 21, all questions will be answered and you and others will be able to make the best decision for the Village on Election Day.
In closing, I would like to offer to sit down with you and anyone else within the Village and go over the Village revenues and expensive. I am trying to make a difference within our Village and provide transparency; it is what the antagonists say they have wanted within the Village. Until you walk a mile in someone’s shoes, it is unfair to spew verbiage as to what is wrong with the way a person walks and why they do what they do. I am looking for solutions, anyone can criticize, but those that can offer good solutions are rare. Let us please create solutions. It’s a win/win for everyone in the Village.
Charles
www.MinervaPark.net
Let me see if I understand this correctly. There is a bond levy on the ballot for the purpose of acquiring a municipal golf course in the principal amount of $1,400,000, and this is to purchase only HALF of the MP golf course??? The market value on the auditor's website for ALL 95 acres is $1,389,400. I think someone in the village being able to sell their property for about twice the market value on the county auditor website would feel that is a very great selling price. Is the golf course property that seriously under valued by the county auditor that paying for a 9 hole golf course is worth about the same as the current 18 hole golf course? Or is the village also paying for the half Fisher Homes will build on, OR are they subsidizing part of their purchase price? Makes me wonder exactly how much Fisher Homes is paying for their half. IF the village is going to purchase some of it, would it make more sense to find a reasonable way to purchase ALL of it and keep it as a golf course.
ReplyDeleteIt is unclear what the part with Westerville schools was about since the county auditor's website also has "School District [2514] WESTERVILLE CSD" for the golf course. That makes it sound like it already is in the Westerville CSD. However, it is not part of the Village of Minerva Park but since someone says that houses WILL be built on it if the village does not buy half, that makes it sound like some type of silent agreement or decision to annex it has already been made regardless???
If the Village is not involved in the transaction between the golf course land owners and Fisher Homes, then why have I heard there have been meetings with both of those parties? More than one time and with that part not open to the public? That makes it sound like there is at least some type of involvement.
IF it is the voters who will be making the decision to purchase, or not purchase, half of the land of the golf course, then maybe to help make the most informed decision it would be best for them to first know whether or not the village intends to annex it if a builder purchases all of it.
IF it comes down to will homes be built on all of the land, or just half of it, and the "just half" is how the vote goes, does that mean ONLY half of it will be developed and the intention is what the village purchases will never be developed? If yes, will it be designed and developed with that in mind because it sounds like there are a lot of questions as to the capability for the current village administration to run the village just as it is in a responsible financial manner.
It is hard to understand how the current administration has been operating in a responsible financial manner. They had a contract that has been in effect for well over a year and was still in effect yet obviously did not plan financially to meet this obligation to the end of the contract much less the end of the year??? And their solution to meet some budgeting requirement is to push all the cost of it directly on the residents??? They are also going to remove the credit for paying local income taxes so that it is always a full 1.0%??? They already passed all of this and basically did so before effectively informing residents??? There was a replacement levy voted on less than 6 months ago and the village administration did not realize before that only a replacement levy of the existing one was not going to be sufficient? I would be curious to know how many residents view this all as being done in a responsible manner. If this is all the better vision the current administration has, then maybe they should close their eyes because it seems doubtful that would be much worse.
This how it looks like the numbers are.
DeleteThe bond levy to purchase half the golf course will cost a property owner with an auditor market value of $100,000 about $87/year, and if $150,000 about $131/year. This levy will generate about $100,000/year.
Trash at $43.98/quarter will cost each homeowner about $176/year, and for 563 homes about $100,000/year.
About $160,000 is what the median seems to be from most sources and appears a more cost effective option for most homeowners if it were be paid by the village via property taxes, and this is likely because that additional tax cost would also be spread across commercial properties.
Too bad the only option on the May ballot is to purchase half a golf course and not an additional option to pay for trash services.
Removing the credit for paying local income taxes so that it is always a full 1.0%.
For an affected income of $50,000 about $250/year, and if $75,000 about $375/year
According to 2010 census median income for a household (not an individual) is just under $70,000 and that would be about $350/year. That is 2.5 times more than a levy to purchase only half the golf course will cost a homeowner at a median market value of $160,000.
It does not seem the village has been informing residents in a timely effective manner of just how some decisions made will potentially affect them, and it seems that would make a voter wonder just how timely or even reliable any information provided during this town meeting would be.
To Those Posting Anonymous Comments:
DeleteI would be happy to reply to the above questions, but it has become my policy not to engage comments on this blog from Anonymous contributers. I put my name on my posts and I expect the same courtesy from others to do the same. You have a right to disagree with me, but that is my position from now on. Respect and transparency works both ways.
Charles Legg
Charles,
DeleteI understand your concern. I wanted to point out that I know of quite a few residents who are fearful of expressing their concerns personally because they are afraid of the repercussions that have historically been the pattern of that action.
All of the sudden Planning and Zoning starts having problems with your property whereas they don't target neighbors with similar -or identical- situations or potential violations.
I understand the validity of your position; and I respect that you have chosen to post with your name continually on this website.
However, I greatly value being able to provide residents with the ability to express their concerns anonymously.
Until the Village representatives start answering concerns across the board without being able to point fingers at any commenter or person who raised concern, the issues of transparency and respect will remain. Residents should have their questions answered, regardless of who they are or what they believe in.
Charles, while it is respectful that you might chose to post with your name, it is unfortunate that it appears some type of feeling exists that Those Posting Anonymous Comments are beneath you or all such comments not worthy in some respect. That seems very similar to how things are ran under the current village administration. Reminds me of a bully type mentality. I agree that some residents have valid reasons to remain anonymous if they so choose. It really seems a comment is worthwhile based on its content and not so much the name applied to it.
DeleteI would like to clear something up that has been said above. So far the Council has approved the letter of intent to purchase the land for a 9 hole golf course. Council has put the issue on the may ballot to see if the residents are willing to pay for the golf course. If the residents approve the bond issue Council will then have to approve the purchase of the land for the golf course. If when voting for the purchase 3 member are for it and 3 members are against the purchase the Mayor will have the tie breaking vote.
ReplyDeleteSo Council does have the final say in whether or not the Village buys the land for a golf course. I would say that 95% of the residents don't understand all of the issues that the Village is facing as well as the members of Council do. Most of the Council members have expressed concerns about doing this when the Village is facing many other issues.
The other thing that really bothers me is when it is said that if the Village doesn't buy the land for the golf course the whole golf course will have homes on it. If that were true why hasn't that already happened?
The reason it hasn't happened is that developers need the Village for something. The golf course is already in the Westerville school district. Considering that communities all around the country are having trouble maintaining a Police dept. they may not be able to use our Police dept. as a selling point for long.
So what does the developer need Minerva Park for? I don't believe that saying you live in Minerva Park means as much as it did at one time. So could it be that the Village is paying most of the cost for the land? The owners of the golf course won't say how much the developers are paying for their half of the course, this is what raised a red flag for me.
The thing that is driving this whole project is that the Mayor has her eyes on the tax money the Village will get. The developer plans to build 15 houses a year for 10 years. Considering the uncertain future of the U.S. economy who knows how many houses they will be able to sell. So we could be stuck with a 9 hole golf course that loses money,and very few new houses to collect more tax dollars from.
The other thing that doesn't get brought up to much is the dam. We have been told that the dam needs a lot of work done to it to bring it up to standard. Moving forward with this project could make the Village have to spend money it doesn't have to repair the dam.
The bond levy is for $1,400,000. $1,000,000 for the land and $400,000 for everything needed to reconfigure the golf course, buy equipment, fix a dam and anything else that they may need to run a golf course. If $400,000 isn't enough where are they going to find the money to make this work?
There are many unanswered questions about this project. I wonder how many answers they will have at the meeting on the 21st. I doubt they will have all the answers, we'll see.
Tony,
DeleteYou raise some very good points. And you are right that Council and the Zoning Commission will have to vote on approvals concerning these issues, so I stand corrected that Council will have the last word on this issue IF the residents pass the bond levy in May. If the residents do not pass the bond levy, then I would expect the issue to be dead as there would be no money to move forward.
There are going to be many questions at the meeting on April 21st, and hopefully good answers as well. Believe me, Council is in the dark on many of the answers to these questions. At this point I am neither for or against the bond issue until I get additional answers.
Charles