Drug labs and tax hikes -- Mike Rasor's notes from the 6/10/2013 meetings

My notes from last night’s committee meetings are posted below:

NEW FIREFIGHTERS – The fire chief is requesting that he be able to replace two of the four firefighters who have left the force this year. A motion to that effect passed Committee of the Whole unanimously.

BOARD OF CONTROL – Board of Control is, again, proposing legislation that would allow the board to approve/decline moral claims between $1,000 and $2,000. Board of Control presently has authority for claims up to $1,000. Let me back up a couple steps: Board of Control consists of five members of the administration, law department and finance department. They approve day-to-day expenditures not exceeding $15,000. A moral claim is a demand for payment due to injury by someone — often because of a pothole or damaged mailbox, etc. Thus, Board of Control wants more authority — taking that authority from City Council. Because these moral claims involve so much discretion, I oppose this. The same proposal was made last March, and it failed council unanimously.

DRUG LAB LEGISLATION – I think we finally got the Clandestine Drug Lab legislation hammered out. The legislation, crafted by the law department, requires the cleanup of homes where drug labs were operated.

I proposed two substantive changes to the legislation.

1) Before assuming (or guessing) that a drug lab is present, there must be a verification by a law enforcement agency that is trained to identify drug labs. Without my amendment, the building department could, on a whim, force you out of your house for a month while a HAZMAT team cleans up a non-existent chemical issue. I know it’s far-fetched, but legislators should be on the look-out for any place where authority may be abused.

2) The $200 meth lab identification fee will be waived for any landlord who notifies law enforcement about the drug lab, and that information leads to a conviction. The reason for this amendment is twofold — we want to encourage tips to our police, and we don’t want to punish innocent landlords.

TAX HIKE — As you know, the mayor wants to raise your income taxes “for police funding.” There is a glaring loophole in that proposal, however. While the new tax revenue ($1.5 million) would be guaranteed to be for police use, the current police funding ($5.2 million) could be reduced. In November, the people may think they’re putting more money into the police department. In reality, they could be buying a new clubhouse at Fox Den.

My proposal, unlike the mayor’s, would close the loophole. It’s a pretty simple proposal: The $5.2 million in funding is locked into place. It cannot be diverted to the general fund. If my proposal passes, the people can be assured that additional tax money is going to the police, and not to the mayor’s slush fund. If my proposal does not pass, then I will not support the tax levy in any way.

The mayor opposes the amendment. She wants “flexibility” for the money. I understand that. I will also ensure that the voters understand that.

NEXT MEETINGS – City council will meet at 5:30 p.m. for a continuation of the Committee of the Whole meeting, Finance Committee and then the normal council meeting at 7 p.m.