|
CITY OF WEIRTON
PUBLIC HEARING
DECEMBER 10, 2007 6:00 P. M.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO HOME RULE
A public hearing for the City of Weirton, Hancock and Brooke Counties, West Virginia was held on December 10, 2007 at 6:00 P. M. in the Rose Dining Room of the Millsop Community Center to discuss the City of Weirton’s participation in the Home Rule Pilot Program with the State of West Virginia.
Those present included many citizens, business owners and employees, residents and nonresidents of the City of Weirton of both Hancock and Brooke Counties and also the Honorable Mayor Mark Harris, Councilman Ronnie Jones, Councilman Harold Miller, Councilman Fred Marsh, Councilman George Ash, Councilman George Kondik, Councilman David Dalrymple, Councilman Max Fijewski, City Attorney Vincent Gurrera, City Clerk Thomas J. Maher, Jr., UDO Administrator Jim McHenry and other City Department Heads and Officials.
Mr. Maher opened the session for Public Comments.
Mr. Jim McHenry, UDO Administrator presented an introduction about the Home Rule program and commented, “City Council can make changes, recommendations, amendments or can even delete any of the items. They can accept, change or modify based on the state recommendations. Or, they can even say no we’re not going to do that. To give you a brief history, September 10th, the City Council made the resolution to elect a committee to create a plan. It’s this plan that we’re going to be looking at tonight. The members of this committee included three Council members, a member of the local clergy, members of local businesses, a past mayor, and residential members of the community. We met once a week for seven weeks. We’ve used proposed ideas concerning areas of residential, business service and operational as well as personnel. Topics were received from citizens, other Home Rule committees outside West Virginia, Department Heads of the City, local businesses and other sources. In review of these items, the Committee sought information in regards to revenue amounts that would be generated, impact on citizens, and the demographics of the community. For example, 65% of this community’s on fixed incomes and pensions. The impacts on economic growth, impact on residential growth as well as feedback from others in the community. Approximately 70 plus items came up. Out of those 70 plus, the Committee felt that the 14 issues that have been published had benefit to the City and would be acceptable to the Home Rule Board Approval of the state. That is draft document that you have been looking at for the past 30 days. The Mayor and Council wishes to hear your comments and concerns, understanding that this is an opportunity for Weirton to step away from state and county control and the future of Weirton.”
Mrs. Alan McCullaugh 2511 Hudson Hill Road Big Al’s Bar & Grill Home Rule effects on small business
Mrs. McCullaugh commented, “Thank you very much. The first thing that as a business owner and we have LVLs also a bar and a restaurant, and we feel that at the same time we understand you’re trying to bring businesses into Weirton, we feel that a couple of issues on the Home Rule are going to hurt many businesses that are already here. There are approximately eighty LVL locations inside the city limits of Weirton. To close those locations at said time in the issue you would be taking 10.5 hours per LVL a week away from man hours. When you multiply that by the number of establishments, if each one only has one employee, you’re taking away 3,360 man hours monthly from the city, and if you’re only paying them six dollars an hour you’re talking $20,160.00 of employee wages taken out of the community. These aren’t people that are going to take their money somewhere else. They shop here. They live here and quite frankly, they don’t make a lot of money, you know, and that doesn’t sound like a lot of money to some people, but that is a lot of money. You’re also losing the revenue. Our businesses are losing revenue. We want to do our part to help the city and to get done what the city of Weirton wants to get done. But, we don’t fee that the sole burden of that should fall on LVLs and bar owners, $250.00 a machine, that’s $1,250.00. That’s $100.00 a month, another hundred dollars a month. My business personally pays $800.00 a year for Police and Fire protection. I do understand there’s a problem downtown from people coming from Steubenville as do all the other bar owners, and we don’t want that either. It’s a, it’s largely a drug problem which has nothing to do with alcohol or LVL establishments. That’s just where those people choose to go do what they’re going to do. Weirton law enforcement’s done a great job at trying to stop it. More needs to be done, but I don’t think closing us a two o’clock in the morning is going to fix that problem. Another problem that we as business owners have with the Home Rule is of the fourteen issues, seven, which is half of those issues, have a vague, vague, vague base. Time is subject to change and review by the City Council. Fee is subject to change as established by City Council. Amount is subject to change by the City…so basically if the state says OK, we feel like OK, this is what you say you want to happen, but it leaves, that’s not cost as determined by the City Council of Weirton. We have faith in you. We elected you. It just doesn’t seem like there’s enough black and white in here. It seems like there’s way too much leeway in here for what you’re trying to accomplish today. It’s just too big.”
Mayor Harris commented, “What business are you from?”
Mrs. McCullaugh commented, “Big Al’s Bar & Grill on Pennsylvania Avenue. I’m here representing five other bars that are not listed to speak because we didn’t figure you wanted to hear the same thing over again.”
Mayor Harris commented, “Thank you.”
Mrs. McCullaugh commented, “Thank you.”
Mr. John Larch 113 Sharon Drive, Weirton, WV
Mr. Larch commented, “Hello. Good evening. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. I’ve been a lifetime resident of Weirton and I’m a partner and financial advisor with First Financial Partners in Weirton. Our firm is a West Virginia based and Weirton based company. I am not here tonight frankly to be confrontational or debate this issue. I have to tell you I first learned about this recently reading about it in the paper. And, my timeline with respect to this as I understand it is this was passed in July. In August this same Council supported a resolution to apply for an application. Four to seven meetings have taken place, and five months later you’re having your first public hearing. I guess my first question is, was there ever an opportunity or could there be an opportunity for you to try to communicate this plan and gain support among your constituents. The deadline’s December 31st. With all due respect to the process, it seems to me like this thing is essentially a done deal. I hope I’m wrong about that, but that’s the impression I get. Secondly, with one important exception I have no criticism of the components of it. My concern is more that going forward, if the state were to grant the City of Weirton this Home Rule Pilot Program power, I think going forward there’s a probability that those powers could be expanded specifically related to taxes. I just want to briefly share with you a few quotes that I found on the Internet this past weekend. Some of you may know Charleston Mayor Danny Jones personally. The Mayor said, “We don’t any (unintelligible). We won’t do any tax increases now. We know that if we put forth any changes in taxes, we would kill this, so we’re not looking for any radical changes in taxes today. But, if we do this pilot program for five years, tax increases might come down the road.” Huntington Administrator Brandy Jacob Jones said, “Currently we are not able to oppose and occupation tax on individual’s income. This Home Rule will create the opportunity for us to tax,” and I want you to (unintelligible) through this, “This will create the opportunity to tax at whatever percentage we decide. Well, whatever we do will be the best interest of Huntington.” And, lastly, Huntington Councilman Kal Kent, “In an ideal situation, if we went with the payroll tax, maybe we could get rid of the obnoxious two-dollar a week user fee and rid ourselves of the B & O tax which is driving businesses out of the City of Huntington.” In closing my comment is that I don’t know enough about this to talk about the specific application. I’m opposed generally to providing the expansion of powers to the city officials, not just in Weirton, but statewide. James Madison, our fourth president and the father of the Constitution stated and I quote, “If you want to limit power, don’t give it in the first place.” That’s my position. I appreciate your time.”
Mayor Harris commented, “Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Mr. J. J. Bernabei 4009 Palisades Drive, Weirton, WV
Mr. Bernabei commented, “First of all I want to say that I admire everyone here, not envy, but admire the job the job that’s ahead of you. I’m here on behalf of my family. I’m a lifelong resident of Weirton. I’m also speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. We represent over 400 businesses and one of the, one of our concerns is that we want to work with the city to accomplish what you need to accomplish to generate revenue and to accomplish certain tasks that are in front of you. At the same time we don’t want to be, we don’t want to be negative and say all fees and all taxes are bad. What we do want to say is that if you’re going to impose a fee, for example the $250.00 LVL fee, the 1% transfer of a property fee, I think you have an obligation to the business community and also to the residents to define what you’re going to use that money for, when you are going to spend that money for those issues, how much money it’s going to create. I mean, then we will get behind you as citizens and as the Chamber and we will help you accomplish that. But, to establish a tax which I think it’s deceiving to say that you’re not addressing taxes here. The way I understand it fees are for a particular thing. You have to define that. When you just say we’re going to have a particular fee, but we don’t really know how it’s, a portion of it is going to be used for that. What we have the, whether we reserve the right to change that. That absolutely is a tax. And, if you’re going to pass a tax on this community I think together we all have an obligation to define what that is. And, if you can’t, we can’t support that. Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Ms. Jenny K. Slates 127 Eva Street , Weirton, WV
Ms. Slates commented, “I own a bar on Weirton Heights too, Mustang Sally’s on Pennsylvania Avenue, and I just want to say that I agree with everything that Mrs. McCullaugh said and Mr. Bernabei. I mean I understand that we need to generate more money, but the $250.00 for every machine that everybody owns, why is that coming out of just the people, just us that have the LVL license. It’s not every business you’re asking for that money for. And, on top of that you want us to close early and we’re going to lose the revenue from our food sales, liquor sales and to play the machines, and you want to add this extra fee or tax or whatever you want to call it on top it. We’re struggling already. I mean just because of the economy around here and, you know, no mill anymore. It just doesn’t make sense to me or any of the other bar owners. The 1%, I mean I understand that too, but where is the money going? They say the General Fund. What is the General Fund? What is the General Fund? Where does the money go? We don’t understand. We all pay our license fees every month, and I pay the same as she does for Police and Fire and we just, like I said, we’re all struggling. We want to know what, you’re going to do all this, what, how’s it going to help us. It seems like it’s hurting us, not helping us, and we’re already, we’re barely hanging on as it is. It just, we want to know what you’re going to do with all this money. Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Ms. Emily Horvat 3015 West Street, Weirton, WV
Ms. Horvat commented, “I don’t have too much to say as the others said it very nicely. I have one question. Are you going to vote on these issues separately or all together? That’s my question. My other question is, if this passes is the state going to vote on all the cities at one time or are they going to vote on these cities separately?”
Mr. DuFour commented, “Since you did ask that question, to be clear about it, for Council’s part in terms of what they’re looking at, Council may approve, they may modify, they may reject in total. If the package in some form is approved by Council, it does go to the state review board in Charleston. The City of Weirton is looked at separately and the state may pick any issues they wish to approve and they may deny them as well. So, the state does get a final say and if there are issues that are submitted and are approved, that will return back here to Council and they must pass final legislation to adopt any of those changes the state may allow the City to do.”
Ms. Horvat commented, “OK. I have one other question. We’re already paying $2.00 a week municipal fee and that was earmarked for the roads. What is this other fee that you plan on passing that not for driving on our city streets?”
Mr. DuFour commented, “There is no fee of that type. There were two fees that had been discussed here by other speakers. I don’t want to take up speaker’s time. One was a 1% transfer fee on real estate. That is designated to go to recreation. The other was a $250.00 per machine licensing for LVL establishments. You’ve heard a couple comments on that. That goes to the General Fund for Council to allocate. But, again, the other is clearly designated to recreation. Does that help? I hope it does.”
Mr. Mike Swartzmiller New Cumberland, WV Hancock County Commissioner
Mr. Swartzmiller commented, “Mayor, Honorable Council. I can introduce myself as Commissioner Mike Swartzmiller, but I’m not here representing the Commission. We haven’t taken any legal action on this or even discussed it at all amongst us. Commissioner Greathouse is here. But, I would just like to say I’m speaking on behalf as an individual and not the County Commission. I’m really not sure of my position. I haven’t done a lot of research on it. Of what I read in the paper, I did a little Googling, so I really don’t have, I’m not going to go one way or the other. I am in favor of reducing government and putting it back into local control. I’m in favor of the people in front of me making decisions for Weirton, not the people in Washington, not the people in Charleston, but the people in front of me and the people behind me in controlling Weirton government. For this fact alone, I think I’m in favor of Home Rule. Hypothetically an example would be putting, and I’m saying hypothetically because I don’t want to mention LVLs or (unintelligible). I don’t want to get anything started. If you wanted to put speed bumps on Penco, that’s a Weirton call. And, who should be better than Weirton people to make that decision. Unfortunately I think I’m against some of your Home Rule items because the same reason I’m for it. It reaches outside the parameters of Weirton, and that’s why I’m here. Specifically Issues 1 and 10 is what I’d like to talk about just for a few moments here. Issue 1 has to do with the TIF, and if you do Google TIF, and I suggest you do, there are thousands of articles and a lot of horror stories on TIFs. It doesn’t work in a lot of situations. And, I could talk for a long time, but I’ll just keep it short. Who hurts in a TIF situation, because they’re talking about property taxes, who hurts in a TIF situation is the School Board, school children, education. Please look it up. Because, again, back to my original concerns, if you TIF an area, again, you are sneaking out of the parameters of Weirton, and you’re reaching far into the county, far into the school system. So, I strongly suggest you take a look at Issue 1. My suggestion would simply be, and it says in there, ‘county administration will be no longer be required.’ I suggest you look at that and possibly change that, not to just input the County Commission, but what about the Assessor, what about the School Board, what about the Superintendent of Schools. Issue 10 has to do with annexations. Again for the same reason I’m in favor of it, the same reason I’m against it. Weirton officials know their city better than anyone. But, it you start annexing properties, again you are sneaking outside the City of Weirton. And, this is directly in conflict somewhat with the County, because now we’re talking revenues and we’re talking taxes. So, in a nutshell I’m in favor of it. I’m against it for the same reason. As long as it’s in the City of Weirton, I’m in favor of it, but once you sneak out, I think you should have other people involved. And, that is Issue 1 and Issue 10. Thank you very much.”
APPLAUSE
Mr. Roger Kirkpatrick 245 Heights Street, Weirton, WV Weirton Elks
Mr. Kirkpatrick commented, “Hi. I’m speaking specifically on the $250.00 LVL fee. If you look in the paper, many LVL establishments take their proceeds and make donations to the community to the city. We have seven machines. That would be $1,750.00 that we just would not be able to give back to the city if we are forced to make these fees. I know there are a lot of other groups and establishments that do a great deal with their funds that they make and, you know, I just feel that if you have this fee, that if, you know, if you’re going to end up having to, to come up with these funds for things like we sponsor the Easter Egg Hunt, you know, scholarships, you know we do at the Elks. Like I said, all these, all these LVL groups all make donations to the, to the everything that comes around, people coming around asking for donations. This fee I just feel will not, not in any help the City of Weirton because you’re just going to have to come up with even more money to help bring back those funds. That’s all I wanted to say. Thank you very much.”
Mayor Harris commented, “Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Mr. John Frankovitch 1151 Lyons Road, Weirton WV Assure America
Mr. Frankovitch commented, “Thank you for the opportunity. I’ll be really brief because I sent everyone a letter. We just want to make sure that we are on the record to clarify our concerns. I’m John Frankovitch. I’m the Chief Operating Officer and Principal of Assure America. I’m here to speak on I think its Issue 14 which deals with creating a bonding requirement for insurance companies doing business in the city. We went to our four largest property casualties and of course asked them to basically vet this issue and tell us what their interpretation of it was. And, what comments we got back from them was that, that the law as we understand it in West Virginia was modified in 2006, Section 3317, 9, b, Requiring insurance companies to withhold re-removal funds until there’s a certain (unintelligible). So, for any policies that have that coverage, that’s already in place under the law and it would seem that this particular issue would probably complicate it. There are some policies that are excess and surplus lines market that may not have that. And, what we, the other we got back from the legal council of these insurance companies that they weren’t real sure how the city would go about enforcing it because the contract is technically between the property owner and between the insurance company. So, long story short is we were just going to suggest based on the info we got from them that the city consider either taking this out in light of the fact that 3317, 9, b addresses the majority of it, or at a minimum reducing it, and only two policies that don’t qualify under that section. So, you’ll create an onerous for every insurance policy in the City of Weirton unnecessarily. It’s a well intentioned, it’s well intentioned certainly in here, but it would quite be a little bit problematic. Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Ms. Deene Yenchochic 354 Bell Boulevard, Weirton, WV Margaret Ann Realty
Ms. Yenchochic, “That was actually a very excellent attempt at my name. My name is Deene Yenchochic.”
Thomas Maher commented, “Thank you.”
Ms. Yenchochic, “Very good. I’m a lifetime resident, and my family has been in the real estate business for over thirty years now in real estate and in property construction. I’m here tonight representing myself as someone who is the age group that really is the future of Weirton, and also representing Margaret Ann Realty and the clients that we represent every day. Specifically against the 1% tax on property transfer. It, you’ve been living under a rock if you don’t know there are difficulties in mortgages and real estate now, and another tax on that only adds to the difficulties that someone has when they’re trying to buy a home. So, specifically just for people trying to buy homes, that adds another percentage on top of the tax stamps that they pay and the other fees that they pay. Specifically though for business transfer of property, it’s disheartening to me that we would be making it more difficult for someone to say to invest in a building in downtown Weirton. We have the Tariol Building listed, for example. If someone were to buy that building and have to do a lot of work to try to improve that and put a business into downtown Weirton, they would also have this additional 1%. To some people the 1% might not be a lot, but as someone who’s in business and in the age group where I will be doing more businesses in one or two years in this town, 1% is a lot. That means that that might be some other improvement that I can make on the property. So, I’m specifically here just against that that 1%. Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Ms. Jeanette Duvall 229 Scenery Drive, Weirton WV
Ms. Duvall commented, “I’d like to thank the Council, the Mayor and all the member of the Committee for their service to this, but I do have several questions. The first of which is how are the public comments being presented here tonight being recorded and will they be considered and possibly incorporated in the Home Rule issues that are actually presented to the state. The second being who are the actual members of the Committee. We’ve heard that there are nine members, but today I have not yet been able to find out their names. Third, under Senate Bill 747815d2 a, b, and c there shall be a written plan stating the exact laws that prevent the municipalities from carrying out the duties, the problems created by these laws and the proposed solutions, including all changes to ordinances, act, resolutions and rules. As of this time I have not been able to find that written plan anywhere available to the public. The issues as presented have been vague and include many uses of the terms, ‘subject to change’ and ‘review by Council.’” I’d also like to point to City Manager DuFour that under Issue 5, the 1% transfer fee ‘may’ go to green spaces. However that’s indicated ‘a portion of the funds’ is designated, not specifically stating what portion of that fund. Also, at least in my opinion, Issue 9 appears to be repetitive. My question would be is there a West Virginia Code which actually prohibits the police from entering an ABCC establishment without a ABCC personnel. Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Councilman Max Fijewski commented, “Excuse me. Is it inappropriate, can we, do we have the names of the members of that committee that we could share with the group?”
City Attorney Vince Gurrera commented, “To answer the question, it’s not inappropriate to release those names.”
Councilman Max Fijewski commented, “Max Fijewski commented, “Yes. So, if everybody’s in agreement…”
Mr. McHenry commented, “OK. The members of that Committee included Eric Frankovitch, Joe Evano, Reverend Jim Foglio, John Martich. The three Councilmen selected, George Kondik to my left, Mr. Miller and George Ash, and the ex-Mayor was Dean Harris. That was the complete committee. I was the facilitator.”
Mr. W. Boyd Culley 693 North Fork E & G Electric
Mr. Culley commented, “This will only take a few minutes. I’m not good at this and I don’t really know any of you people except Freddy Marsh. And, the reason, I don’t live in the city, so if you want to throw me out, you can. But, I was born and raised on Marland Heights and I love Weirton. Weirton’s a good place. I’m 71 years old and as you get older you realize more about the government, you get involved in the Constitution and stuff which I believe in. And, I went and read all of this stuff over at the library. And, one of the things that was on the application, there were four boxes to check, tax, regulation, administration and personnel. And, whoever, I think it was Mr. McHenry that turned that in, and he didn’t check tax. And, most of these issues actually are tax increases. You can call it a fee or whatever you want, but they’re tax increases. So, I think you should the application to those people that need approve it because it’s not indicative of tax increases. The second thing was that I don’t understand why this could even be happening because I think the whole thing is unconstitutional. He said that none of this stuff would violate the Constitution, but I think almost all of it does. And, like the 4th Amendment says you can’t go in someone’s bar without a warrant, either you or the ABC. And, the 5th Amendment says that you can’t deprive anybody of life or property without due process of law. So, when you regulate the use of someone’s private property this is considered a taking and you have to pay the people for the value that you’ve taken away from them. The 7th Amendment says if the value’s over $20.00 they have a right to a jury trial. The 10th Amendment says that the power’s not delegated to the United States are delegated to the states or to the people. It doesn’t say anything about cities, and there were cities in those days when that was made. And, I think one of the reasons they call it ordinances is because they can’t call it laws because a law is something where you can fine someone and put them in jail. I’m almost done. And, the 14th Amendment says you cannot deny any person due process of law. So, I think this whole thing is wrong and shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Mr. Tom Tompos North 20th Street, Weirton, WV Deputy
Mr. Tompos commented, “The power to tax is the power to destroy. The newspapers I’ve been reading in the last few days have said that the city board is not intending to tax as a result at this point. Well, fees by Webster’s Dictionary are payments for professional work. So, I don’t understand how that would go into most of what is included here. Taxes are revenues based on governmental need. The best government is that which governs least. And, the Weirton I knew as a kid is no longer here. And, when I, Weirton today is like downtown Bagdad. My brother and I own an professional building in Weirton, and we only have, of the 14 units, we have 4 rented. It’s almost impossible to get the people coming into downtown. The point I would like to make is this. Can the city rescind its efforts to be a part of this program at this point? Can the City Council say, ‘no we’ve changed our mind? Public opinion is very much against this, and we want out. We want to opt out.’ Is that possible?”
Mayor Harris commented, “Yes that is.”
APPLAUSE
Mr. Ray Tompos 98 Ferguson, Weirton WV
Mr. Tompos commented, “I hold up this edition of the Intelligencer that says, ‘Possible Cash Cow Home Rule,’ or, ‘from Home Rule.’” I suggest that the City of Weirton is the cow. Now, where is the cash going to come from? Apparently, the city, I realize. I’ve talked to one of the councilmen here, and I realize the city needs some help. But, to do it in this manner, to use Home Rule as a way to raise funds to do whatever you need to do to make everything balance, I believe is not good. And, I think most of the people here, even if they don’t speak tonight, they’re 100% behind me whether it be one rule or a whole bunch of rules that you have. There might be 2 or 3 rules in this bunch which I expect, you know, I spoke with Mr. Fijewski and I said some of them are valid. Some of them are good. But, I feel that the majority of these is just like and end run around to pick up money for the city. And, I don’t think it’s the right way to do it. I think there’s a better approach to it. I don’t know what it exactly is, but I’m willing to sit down and work with anybody, my brother and I both. But, I think that there’s a lot of people in this city that have held back all through these years, well since Mittal has been here and everybody’s trying to scratch and dig for more money. Well, that’s fine. Let’s all do it together. But, let’s not tax certain individuals, and I’m going to use the word tax because a fee to me is the same thing as a tax. You can make it read any way you want to. It’s not to denigrate any one of you. I know most of you very well. The thing is I think that the people here in Weirton deserve better than this approach. If there’s a better approach, let’s all get together with it and do it. That’s all I’m asking for.”
APPLAUSE
Mr. Ed Zagula 244 Beacon Drive, Weirton, WV Retired
Mr. Zagula, “Distinguished professionals of Weirton, I want to thank you for giving the people here an opportunity to speak to the issue you are now facing. First of all I want to congratulate some of the laymen that made some damn good legal arguments I didn’t even think of. And, after 41 years as a practicing lawyer, now retired, I appreciate people who make a good (unintelligible) and common sense argument that I think should be listened to very carefully by all of you gentlemen. You know, it seems to me that there’s a rush to judgment, not just for you, but this statute was just passed, became effective on July 1 of 2007, just in last July. Now, you’ve got to have something in to the state by January 2008 if you want to participate in this pilot program, and may be selected. Because no one has addressed this issue, there’s no guarantee that they would select you apparently as a member of this pilot program. They could, but they don’t have to. And, the big thing I just shudder to think, I look at the draft of the Proposed Home Rule Pilot Program Issues, dated November 10, 2007; I don’t know who drafted this. I assume it came from the City Council, perhaps from the City Attorney. Somebody drafted it. Maybe you could enlighten me as to who actually drafted this. Does anybody know?”
Mr. McHenry commented, “That was drafted by the Home Pilot Team, the Commission that was ordered, it having nine members.”
Mr. Zagula, “You had mentioned their names before.”
Mr. McHenry commented, “Yes, that’s correct.”
Mr. Zagula, “At any rate, I noticed that the application, the last page is the West Virginia Municipal Home Rule Pilot Program Application. The City of Weirton. Then there are four categories of issues to be addressed. The first category is taxing. The next is organization. The next is administration, and the next one’s personnel. All of them are marked with an X except taxing, and that’s inaccurate. Because, indeed we do have taxing included in this draft in the nature of that 1% realty tax, call it what you want, but it’s a tax, and the $250.00 LVL tax. So, number one, somebody hasn’t thought this thing through clearly enough. That’s number one. Number two, what is the rush to judgment here? If they actually pass this in these, accept any of these drafts of proposed Home Rule Pilot Issues, there are seven people that are going to make a decision for us. We elected you to represent us. We didn’t elect the governor to represent us, the City of Weirton, or the Executive Director of the West Virginia Development Office, or the Chairman of the State Committee on Government Organization, or the House of Delegates Committee on Governmental Organization, or a member of business and industry in the state, whoever that might be, and one member from the largest labor organization in the state. These seven people are going to be making decisions for all of us. We elected you to make decisions for us, and I suggest that you resoundingly defeat this thing and get it over and done with. That’s all I have to say.”
APPLAUSE
Mr. Don Donell Starvaggi Farms, Weirton, WV Starvaggi Industries, Inc.
Mr. Donell commented, “Mr. Mayor, City Manager, members of Council, I had submitted to each of you a copy of the position of Starvaggi Industries item by item. I wish I could say that since you have it I’m not going to talk. But, those of you who know me know that I am going to talk. I would simply like to, first of all I think everybody recognizes we do have a problem, first of all. Second of all I want to make it public that while we may have had some differences of opinion with some of the agencies, with the UDO, we have always been able to iron them out, and so I don’t have a complaint in that regard. And, I want to make that public. I maybe haven’t agreed with everything, but we have ironed them out. One thing, if I can believe what Professor Robert Baserous (sp), who is the West Virginia University Constitutional Law Professor, if he is being quoted correctly, the Municipal Home Rule Pilot Program will enable those municipalities accepted into the program can between the date of the acceptance and July the 1st of 2013, enact a city income tax, a city sales tax, a consumption tax, a property registration tax, and many, many more as he indicates, including driving on city streets. The state’s Municipal Home Rule Board which is in Charleston, West Virginia, will have the final say on whether a tax is approved, so that Charleston will once again make those decisions. Can the Board, my question to them is, does the Board have the authority to say in our application, and I say in ours because it’s ours, it’s the City of Weirton. Can they say in our application, we think you ought to amend it and we think you ought to put in a city income tax. And, if that’s what they say, does this Council intend to say wait a minute, fine, if that’s what we’re going to do, or whatever tax they say you can do, will you then take a look at what if you pass the fees which of course many of us say are taxes, will you then tax those fees, eliminate those fees from the equation that you have. I don’t know. I don’t want to, people can be quoted incorrectly, and Gary, I don’t mean to but you’re quoted saying the city has the, wants the right to tax its residents for property transactions and for owning vacant properties. You very well may have said fee. They quoted it as being a tax. I would like to call to your attention first of all, that if you put that 1% tax on transfer, which is really, which would be applied applicable to residences to industry to industrial, you know, it’s going to be higher than what the taxes that will be recouped on the two dollars and twenty cents on the sale, on the sale of a $50,000 home, the city would be getting $500.00 and other would be what, $400.00. It wouldn’t even be that. Take .00044 and you can arrive at that. If it’s a $150,000.00 transaction, what will you be getting? You’ll be getting 1% of that transaction or be getting what? $15,000.00, and that is not what the state’s going to be getting. You can do the mathematics on that. The same thing, I have a question when you talk about, and I think the best thing for me to do is go down the Home Rule Issues as I’ve given to you, and at least it’s an orderly approach to it. If I understand Home Rule Issue 1, the proposed draft would simply eliminate the County Commission of both Brooke and Hancock Counties as well as any State Development Departments in the creation and regulation of a District and Boundary. And, if this is correct, what other sections of 11B of the West Virginia Code would no longer apply to Weirton? Under Home Rule Issue 2, I think please define what the City considers and defines as Approved Financial and Banking Regulations, and why the City does not agree with West Virginia Code et seq. 7-11-B (5). Under Home Rule Issue 3 I believe is completely totally replete with legal issues and requires definitions for each of the following words: commercial property, industrial property, unused properties, vacant based properties, written plan submitted and implemented within one (1) year. Am I to assume that the requirement to submit a written plan stating the intended use of said “unused or vacant properties” in accordance with City ordinances refers to all ordinances including the City UDO? If so, does this require the property owner involved to decide and implement within one (1) year the choice of the permitted land use? If the property or properties are industrial or commercial, must the intended use be for industrial or commercial use only or may it look to the permitted uses under the UDO? While definitions are a must, what time period, if any, will be invoked before a commercial or industrial property will be considered unused or vacant? The Issue 3 as written indicates a one (1) year period after the Home Rule Ordinance is adopted. What rules, regulations, hearings will be adopted to determine unused or vacant based commercial or industrial properties? The “fee” schedule as proposed to be assessed for “unused or vacant based” properties needs a great deal of clarification. Is the fee schedule a bracketed or graduated scale whereby the fee, I prefer to call it a tax, on the first $50,000 would be at 1%, the second 50,001 to 150,000 would be at 2%, and the third 150,000 and over would be at 3%, or is it a blanket fee whereby the property fee or property will be charged at whatever that gross figure is? If its 50,000 then it’s 1%. If it’s 150,000 or more and over it’ll be 3%. There’ll be no graduated and say well it’s up to this point it’ll be this much after this point. Does the City propose to separate real estate value assessed from any personal property included in the County tax statements? Has the City identified any commercial and/or industrial properties on which it proposes to levy the “fee” at this time if Home Rule is permitted? Has the City projected any revenues it anticipates receiving under this issue? And, while the required written plan under this issue must be submitted to the Redevelopment Authority, must it also be submitted to the Planning commission or other City agency or department which I presume it must? If an affected industrial or commercial property owner is to receive approval for an intended use from the city as well as from a State, Federal departments which may be required, approval can take years in most cases, so does the preparation of and the subsequent submittal of plans to all required governmental entities and agencies constitutes implemented within on year and therefore preclude the assessment schedule set forth in this issue. I have no comment on Home Rule Issue 4, but I agree with it. On Home Rule Issue 5, while the statement for the levying of a 1% transfer fee on any conveyance of commercial, industrial or residential properties within the City refers to green space, park or recreational purposes, has the City performed a study as to the amount of revenue it would expect to raise and where it will specifically spend the same? What service does the City perform which merits the imposition of a 1% fee on the transfer of any commercial, industrial or residential properties within the City limits of Weirton? And, as I indicated earlier if a person sells his or her property for $50,000.00, the City will receive $500.00, yet the State Transfer Tax of 4.4 will receive $220.00. If the sale is $75,000.00, the City would get $750.00 and the State would get $330.00. If the sale is $100,000, the City would get $1,000.00 and the State would get $440.00. This fee I assume will be on the gross selling price without regard to any outstanding judgments, deeds of trust or liens that may be upon them. I have no comment on Home Rule Issue 6. I think that Home Rule Issue 7 is commendable, and I trust it will qualify for funds under the West Virginia Code 30-29-3.”
Mayor Harris commented, “Mr. Donell?”
Mr. Donell commented, “Yes.”
Mayor Harris commented, “We have a copy of all of this here, and we’re never going to get through the meeting with the other individuals that want to speak. I mean, if you want to give each individual out there a copy of that, you can. But, we have it right here. But, we would like to give everybody a fair chance to speak, and there’s no way we can do that at this time.”
Mr. Donell commented, “I don’t want to cavil with you and I will sit down. And, I only trust that everybody will read it, and I would appreciate an opportunity if there are any questions to discuss it and I don’t want to deter or prevent anybody else. But, we really should have set more than a half an hour aside for this very important thing.”
Mayor Harris commented, “Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Ms. Barbara Blackwell President, Weirton Area Board of Realtors
Ms. Blackwell commented, “Yes, thank you. I’m the President of the Weirton Area Board of Realtors, and our concern is for the people who are trying to buy and sell property in the city limits of Weirton, of course, referring to the 1% transfer fee that you’re asking for. Are you expecting the buyer or the seller to pay this fee? I’m assuming that it is the seller that you are wanting this fee from.”
Mr. McHenry commented, “It was the buyer that the Committee was looking at.”
Ms. Blackwell commented, “It would be the buyer. I think that the problem that we’re running into more and more is people that are trying to buy a home here are scraping together every penny they possibly can get now that we have this mortgage mess. It’s tightened the mortgage industry up. And, more and more we’re having a difficult time to get them to even be able to get 1% in earnest money. Then they make an offer on the property, and for them to be asked to give you the 1% on the transfer of that property I feel is very unfair. And, I just wonder, you know, it’s, we’re trying to encourage people to come into the City of Weirton, all of us. And, we would strongly hope that you would reconsider on charging them a transfer fee and punishing them for coming to live in Weirton. Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Mr. John S. Barone 1400 Barone Drive, Weirton, WV Real Estate – Law
Mr. Barone commented, “(Unintelligible) Mayor and Councilman (unintelligible) and (unintelligible) personnel and citizens (unintelligible). And, I speak softly, so (unintelligible). I want to speak personally to, firstly, or general almost a new concept to me and the matter of a real estate tax as I’ve already encountered, tax being (unintelligible). What I’m speaking to generally is Home Rule in general and Issue Number 3. Now, I have to clarify that I have not steeped, I am not steeped in municipal law with that extent. I would have thought that there was already (unintelligible) in some (unintelligible). And, when I see that Congressman in Huntington have not gone for Home Rule, this must be a mute concept, and I would think that it would have been in the City Charter and it would have been voted on and there would be a referendum on this. And, when the city was incorporated in 1948 or 47 that this would have been voted on. And I think that really if you’re going to have these matters, this idea you should put it up for a vote with all the people whether or not they want Home Rule. It apparently gives unlimited power to the City or cities, and I can’t help thinking that as Mr. Gurrera probably knows and like 2,500 lawyers in this state and 1,500 or 1,700 of them are in Kanawha County and that somebody’s going to question the legality of the plan. I speak generally, specifically and generally, more for the real estate aspect. I wish this many people had showed up when you all passed the UDO. I wasn’t here. I wasn’t in town at the time. I want to point out that there were many misrepresentations about the UDO at the time. As I saw there were various, there were various articles in the papers about there being no changes in the zoning laws since their enactment in 1964, and this is the 1988 edition legal notice of the Weirton Times when many changes were made to the zoning laws. And, I spoke at that time. There were hardly anybody there about the number of, amount of parking which now has been steadily reduced. And, I feel I wasn’t heard at that time, and I questioned whether I would ever voice my opinion again. Now we find the UDO which is supposed to be the first change since enacting the zoning laws and that is a falsehood. And, this, if this wasn’t to make a change in the zoning laws, I don’t know what was. And, now we have the UDO, and now we’re going to have the Home Rule. And, to me the people in this room can’t turn sideways without bumping into something. I want to point out that we’ve been criticized, my brother and I and the family, for owning a little bit of land besides the fact that my father started in the real estate business in 1923. So, I was, I found it very interesting in reading the biography of our second President, John Adams. I (unintelligible) McCollough, which (unintelligible) two or three years ago, and I was going to quote from it, but I had to (unintelligible). And I’m going to quote from it. It had long been an article of faith of (unintelligible) Adams that land was the only sound investment, and once purchased was never to be sold. Only once in Deacon John, only once is Deacon John, I mean, that was the father of John Adams, (unintelligible) learned to obey an exception to the rule, and he said (unintelligible) the son John Colliers, what little bit we own, I don’t think anybody should be worked up about it. Now, when you put, I’m quoting from something I’ve read. Let me quote from the Wall Street Journal, issue of Wednesday, October 17th, 2007. It concerned Houston, depressed, and as Mr. DuFour and I have briefly exchanged comments. Houston does not have any zoning. (Unintelligible).”
END OF TAPE
Mr. Ralph Barone 1045 Barone Drive, Weirton, WV Law and Real Estate
Mr. Barone commented, “How do we eliminate red tape? First, this UDO, this new Home Rule is nothing but more red tape and I think that, I think we have enough red tape, UDO, the ordinances, the, now we’re talking Home Rule. And, of course the newspaper article that appeared in the Weirton Times, of course, you’ve stated that there’re not going to be any tax issues. Well, if you believe that maybe you’ll believe ice will melt in hell. But, anyway, besides that, if it walks like a…President Reagan’s famous saying, if it looks like a duck, speaks like a duck, it’s a duck. Well, they’re taxes. When we go into the issues and one statement was made here tonight that 65% of the population of Weirton is I guess we call Geritol or whatever you want to call it. We’re old. Now, of course, I Googled what I wanted to talk about is Issue 3 and vacant. First of all, I think this is a big invitation for a lawsuit, because no bureaucrat’s going to tell me if I have a vacant building then I can’t leave it vacant if I want it for tax purposes. Of course, none of us want a vacant building, but they’re vacant even on Weirton Heights, let alone the downtown area. We have vacancy. The town is not growing, but it’s certainly not going to grow with the present administration trying to tax and change everything and make more HOOPS FOR A BUSINESS A JUMP THROUGH THAT’S COMING INTO TOWN!”
APPLAUSE
Mr. Barone commented, “Number, Issue number 5, the transfer tax, first of all I, I had to go along with the County Commissioners. I think we’re stepping, I think the City’s stepping out of bound imposing a transfer fee. You know what, they, the City’s looking for, the City’s looking for revenue. Why don’t they look to cut expenses so they don’t have to keep increasing and looking for revenue?!
APPLAUSE
Mr. Barone commented, “I haven’t seen anybody leave! We were going to have a new administration that’s going to cut people! Has anybody been cut from the payrolls?! Not only that, we have most businesses in town make their employees pay part of their hospitalization! Does any Weirton City employee pay hospitalization?! ASK HIM! ASK HIM! So, Issue number 8, on the LVLs, I think of course that’s, that’s going to be another, open a can of worms for legal work issues because of the fact that they, under Code Section, we have West Virginia Code Section that definitely under the Lottery that’s going to, Chapter 29, Article 22, Section 25 the preemption of state laws or local regulation that, and state’s in short, the provisions of this article preempt all regulations, rules and ordinances, many laws in any county or municipality in conflict herewith provided that it shall not invalidate any zoning laws. Well, zoning does not do fees. So, we, and of course also Sunday closing laws. If I, as far as vacancy’s concerned, let’s just even get down to residents. The last time I checked for realtors there was 151 homes for sale in Weirton, which way exceeds (unintelligible) selling 80 years ago or 2 years ago. Am I right realtors? OK. And, also of that 151, the last time I checked 26 of them were vacant, in other words, foreclosed. We are handling foreclosures left and right. AND, HEAR ME AGAIN! I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE’RE GOING TO GIVE, TAX THE PEOPLE AND GIVE BUSINESS MEN OF WEIRTON HELL! That’s just what it amounts to. As far as I’m concerned we, the Home Rule is not worth the paper it’s written on. It should be done away with AND I THINK THE CITY ADMINISTRATION SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON REAL ISSUES that are needed in this town, REAL PROBLEMS we have in this town, NOT CAUSE MORE WHICH THEY CAN’T EVEN HANDLE WHAT THEY HAVE NOW! So, I appreciate this Council and the administration just canning the Home Rule Ordinance. Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Mr. Lester McHenry 233 Miller Avenue, Weirton, WV
Mr. McHenry commented, “My name’s Lester McHenry. I’ve lived here all my life, and I can go along with some of the Home Rule suggestions, but I still wonder why Parkersburg, Morgantown, Clarksburg, Fairmont, Beckley, Martinsburg which were some of the major backers of Home Rule and six of the top ten cities in the state has not seemed to come forward to endorse or apply for Home Rule status. Is there grounds for the constitutional problems, state code and charter problems with this trial period? And, what is the financial cost if we get it instituted and then have to revert back to the original form of government? I can see both good and bad in Home Rule, but before we can undertake such a major change, should we not create a better safeguard where the power really is in the hands of the citizens and not the state, county or city government? Maybe a change in city charter should call for and election every two years for council and mayor since we have a city manager / mayor form of government, and this would give ourselves, the citizens, the ability to change Home Rule by the ballot box in a timely fashion. Think of it this way.”
APPLAUSE
Mr. McHenry commented, “The city manager and mayor is the president, and the appointees by the mayor are the cabinet, and they’re Ok’d by council. And, then there’s the different boards, and we have several in this city, and the mayor has a senate. And, finally the councilmen as the House of Representatives. Now, this might give us a real Home Rule with results for active representation. There is no check on revenue sharing strategies other than an election every four years. A lot can be changed in four years with no accountability to the citizens. To make Home Rule more of a citizen run government, maybe we should try this as part of Home Rule. State government already gives a certain amount of Home Rule power to the cities in West Virginia. The trial is just warm us up to dictate city Home Rule and not the city’s citizens. I don’t think taxes, I don’t like taxes. I don’t think taxes either. And, I’m sure no one does. But, in the end, if Weirton is going to survive, we have to reinvent our city to be friendly to the citizens and businesses where people want to live. Taxes only slow the progress of reinventing the city. Too many things have been forced on the city by the state and county governments. But, I believe the citizens should have the final say, not council, boards or special interests. Council is elected to represent the people and their wards, because one can see there may be a need to increase Council to up to eleven with several at large to give a better representation to the citizens. In general, I can go along with Council some of the time, but not all of the time in their representation of us. But, I have concerns in what’s to make Weirton better for everyone, not just a few interests, special interest groups and factions throughout the city. Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Dr. J. K. Luthra 260 S. Circle Drive, Weirton, WV
Dr. Luthra commented, “Good evening. When I read the newspaper yesterday, that was the first time I learned about the Home Rule. And, when I came to this meeting this evening, I thought that the City of Weirton belonged to the city and you are the representatives of the citizens. But, the way the meeting started, that was sort of hurtful to me that sitting there I’ve been told that if you be professional. I think we’ve all been very professional, and the threat of being thrown out was sort of taken me back. The second thing I want to say to you is that we have suffered too as a medical community. Several years ago the 2% privilege tax was placed on us selectively. And, as a result the city and the state lost a lot of revenue by the physician and other health care facilities moving their businesses out of state into Pennsylvania. It’s no news to you. You can see that on old 22, that medical complex there purely because there is an extra tax by the State of West Virginia on physicians and physicians’ offices. A lot business moved into Ohio, Trinity, and places like that, and that’s not due to you. The point I’m making is that if you add additional tax of 1% on transfer on the property, I think it will be a disincentive for people to move in. It’s very hard on us to sell the property as it is. We have a office on Pennsylvania Avenue. It has been on sale for 14 years, and there has not been a buyer. I have (unintelligible) saying, let’s treat it like at Priceline.com. Just come and make an offer, and we have not had even a $50,000.00 offer on our building. And, we have to maintain it and how do I maintain it? Luckily we have one tenant. There are two spaces just lying vacant, and we are supporting it. We are maintaining the building, and the grass grows (unintelligible) we get a call from the city that you need to maintain your property better. Now, we have doing it, but how do we do it. And, then on top of that, this threat of 1% tax. It will be another disincentive for me to be able to sell this building to anybody. So, I will urge you. Make sure if you are not very familiar with all the Home Rules. But, this one particular one I’d like to point out that it would be a problem for us to get rid of the current building that we have, and it will be a very difficult problem for somebody to move in. And, I would like to just, to say it again, that it’s not too long ago prior to the election for these who are here that this new administration will be business friendly and in this one, in certain articles of the Home Rule, I don’t see it being as business friendly. Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Allison Courtney 1325 Overlook Drive, Weirton, WV
Ms. Courtney commented, “Mayor, Council and public, I’ll keep my comments short and sweet. I truly was going to of course address Article 14 or Section 14, and I also approached Nationwide with that issue, and I do work for the Nationwide Insurance Company in the city. And, John Frankovitch so eloquently approached that and answered that for me. It’s pretty much kind of a redundant issue because a lot of that is already, that’s already taken care of. And, I wanted to make sure the best interests of my policy holders and future policy holders, what would be in their best interests. Another thing I’d like to mention though, if you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got. We’ve always heard that, and where are we now? I think there are points that are very worth looking at on the Home Rule that really could make a difference in the change of the city. There are some things that we do need to do to reinvent ourselves here, and I’m sure that there is money that needs to be used to do that as well. Also, Issue 9, we know drugs are a problem in this city. That’s a scary, scary thought of what’s going on. And, to have to have ABCC present to go into a building and wait for that, if, you know, the Weirton PD needs to get in somewhere to take care of something and has to wait for ABCC to come along, what happens in that situation. I just, there are pros and cons in it. Emily asked the question I was going to ask. Does the whole, do all 14 issues have to be presented as passed, or can we tailor it and pick and choose. So, I see good and I see bad, or same question see pros and cons. But, we all are looking forward to the future of Weirton and reinventing the city, and I hope we can all come to a resolution to do that together. Thank you.”
APPLAUSE
Mr. Maher commented, “That concludes the comments on the Home Rule Issue."
|