43
Youngstown council targets waivers of fees
The city loses about $30,000 to $250,000 annually by waiving building fees.
YOUNGSTOWN — With the city facing a projected deficit of more than $3 million, council members say nothing is off limits when it comes to its financial bottom line.
Council President Charles Sammarone suggested Wednesday that the city re-examine its standard policy of waiving building permit fees for companies opening or expanding businesses here.
“It doesn’t make sense to give this away with the financial situation we’re in,” he said. “... Is it worth it to go further in the red to waive these fees?”
The city forgoes about $30,000 to $250,000 a year in building fees, depending on the sizes and number of projects, said Finance Director David Bozanich.
While agreeing with Sammarone that city should take a closer look at waiving the fees, Bozanich said that policy gives the city an advantage over surrounding communities that charge the fees.
If a project only comes with a small number of new jobs, the waiver probably isn’t worth giving, Bozanich said.
But if a project includes adding 100 or so jobs, the waiver is worthwhile because the city will recoup that money through its 2.75-percent income tax, he said.
The discussion was initiated because council on Wednesday gave a building permit waiver to Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co. Inc. on Poland Avenue. The company is planning a $5.3 million expansion that would add 16 jobs.
The waiver saves the company a few hundred dollars, said T. Sharon Woodberry, the city’s economic development director.
These fees can be as much as $30,000 for large-scale projects, or a few hundred dollars for smaller ones.
The city’s general fund is expected to end this year with a projected deficit of more than $3 million if cuts aren’t made.
The city administration is proposing the elimination of at least 60 jobs to save about $4 million annually, beginning in 2009.
The administration is asking union officials and department heads to find other cuts — including reductions in salaries and employee benefits — to save as many jobs as possible.
Williams and city administrators met in private for two hours Tuesday with employee union officials. He asked that they find ways to significantly cut spending by May 1 to avoid or reduce layoffs.
Most of the union officials understood the issues facing the city and a handful didn’t, he said.
“Concessions are going to have to be made,” Williams said. “If we can’t reduce that number [of proposed layoffs] it will be because of the failure of employees to do so.”
Council also Wednesday approved adjusting the salary of the vacant park and recreation director. The job paid $70,794 annually when Joseph McRae held it. He abruptly retired last year, and is facing a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a park and recreation employee.
The new annual salary is a range of $55,000 to $61,000 based on experience.
Williams urged council to ask the park and recreation commission to wait on filling the position. That department will take the first hit with layoffs because seasonal and part-time workers, who make up a majority of its employees, are the first to go when jobs are cut, he said.
“To hire a director with no staff may not be wise,” Williams said.
Council also approved about $180,000 worth of expenses Wednesday for the waste treatment and health departments.
Because of the city’s budget problems, council postponed approval on the routine purchases at its March 19 meeting.
The items don’t include money from the city’s general fund budget so council opted to give its approval Wednesday. But some members said they’ll continue to closely monitor purchases.
skolnick@vindy.com