Wednesday, October 5, 2011

My Statement to Council: October 4, 2011

In 2009, I decided to run for Council because I have lived here all my life and wanted to give back to the community that has given me so much. I ran on a platform that I have lived up to with every decision I’ve made on Council. My experience as a business owner brings a different perspective on some of the issues, and as we learned in the November 2010 election, just because I’m on the minority side of a decision on Council does not mean I’m wrong.


My business started when I was 12 years old. I rode my bike around the new neighborhoods in the Powell area for piano and other music lessons students, charging a few dollars a lesson. My first few months were a little rough, but I eventually grew my business to the point that I was teaching 35-40 hours a week in high school. My business continued to grow and morph in to what it is today. One of our many accomplishments is that we are the only Powell area music lessons company that has its teachers as W2 employees rather than 1099 contractors, meaning that my company actually pays taxes on its employees rather than trying to skirt that responsibility. I made the decision when I opened my company in 2006 that even though our competitors had their teachers as contractors, mine would be W2 employees. It’s a competitive disadvantage, but it’s the right thing to do for the employees who really make my company what it is.


I built my home in Golf Village at the age of 22, thanks to the business I had developed that was growing in leaps and bounds. I will be 32 next year. Despite the economy in the last decade, I have remained in the first home that I built. I also fought the merger of the Delaware and Powell Chambers of Commerce to make sure that Powell maintained its own chamber for our businesses, served on the transitional chamber board, and decided to run for Council when I saw that taxes and other policy matters were not going in a direction that I thought would be healthy for this community.


Like any business owner, from time to time there are issues with various governing agencies. That is not unusual. In fact, I am not aware of any business owner who just rolls over when the government comes knocking. The lien that has been filed against my business is regarding a dispute that I have had with the IRS for nearly a year, and in the spring my last conversation with them was that a lien would not be filed because we were working through the situation. When it was filed I was surprised, and my representatives are working with them. In fact, we have a tentative agreement that is being finalized. My business is a private, not public company, and the details of this matter are private.


This situation with my business is not unlike my other experiences in life: when I believe in something, I stand up for it. There are many businesses, buildings and individuals with liens, and once the matter is resolved the lien is released. This is not a political issue, but it’s being made in to one by those who do not know the details of the situation. Mr. Bermingham is asking questions of me tonight, in a forum that most would agree to be inappropriate, and he jumped to conclusions even without the answers to his questions. In fact, none of those who are accusing me of doing something wrong have ever even asked me for the details. While I’m not going to discuss them in a public session, anyone who has actually asked me and had a conversation with me about this situation understands and realizes that this is not a political issue. The important part of it is that I am on top of it and have been on top of it, and am working to make sure that it is resolved properly.


Character is not judged by what happens to us, but by how we respond to the matter. It is clear that the responses of some are for political purposes only, continuing to play a game of politics of personal destruction rather than even considering that maybe, just maybe, they should ask me first to see what is really going on. And of course, the vast majority if not all of those attacking me on this are people who have disagreed with my positions since I entered the political arena, making it even more clear what the real motivations are of people going after me on this.


The great Winston Churchill said, “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” However, I never imagined that I would be the target of attacks like I have been, all because of what I believe in and stand up for or against. In early 2009, before I had officially announced but my running was known, people were posting my then fiance's and my wedding invitation on a blog, and commenting on it in a negative way.  An event in my life that was supposed to be a wonderful one was smeared by those who don’t agree with my husband’s and my views on political issues. We even had to have private security watch our home during the wedding because of a fear of vandalism that was based in comments we had seen online.


After I was elected and sworn in, it was clear that I was going to differ with other members of Council on fiscal issues. That’s where the attacks really started to heat up, and unfortunately, even from other members of this Council. When Councilman Grubbs stated he wasn’t going to run for Council again, it was somehow my fault for making the meetings “painful.” If someone reviews the meetings where Councilman Grubbs and I have disagreed, I am never the one on the offense. What some don’t realize is that most of our votes are actually seven to zero. The vast majority of our votes are non-controversial and are unanimous. There are some votes, though, where I believe that something is not fiscally prudent, is not good for business or is not what the residents of this community want. That’s where I stand up for what I believe in because of what I promised I would do in the election. One Council candidate said in the fall of 2009 that he was not going to support raising the income tax. Once he was on Council, he reversed his position and supported the tax increase. It’s very easy to get on Council and just go along to get along, but I believe that I was elected to stand up for certain principles, and that is what I do. It’s also what I’m attacked for.


In 2010, when I missed a few meetings and sent in comments by email, I was told that was not acceptable by Councilman Grubbs, in one of the public sessions where he went after me. However, when a former member of Council could not attend many of the last meetings of his term, he sent in comments by email, some of which were entered in to the record. When I did it, I was literally lambasted in a public meeting of Council.


I was also asked to bring forward ideas after the tax issue failed last year. When I did, I asked for several things to be studied. Just like the finance committee and this Council had spent several years studying funding capital improvements, I asked for a few ideas to be studied for cost savings. Instead of that happening, Councilman Grubbs again lead a charge against those ideas, and other members of Council who had studied the capital improvement funding idea that had just failed refused to allow one of the ideas I had brought forward to even be studied.  


These are just a few examples, and there are many others.

This process of the politics of personal destruction has to stop. Whether it’s Mr. Bermingham, who has always strongly disagreed with me, or anyone else, this isn’t how we fight our battles like adults. The attitude of being the high school bully, going after the person who you just don’t like, must stop. Whether you agree with me or don’t, it was clear last fall that there was one member of Council who had the real pulse on the community. Despite my saying so all through 2009 and 2010, no one would really listen. It took an election with over 70% of the residents saying “no” in order for the train toward doubling our income tax to stop. Since that defeat, some have taken it personally rather than simply regrouping and working together. I reached out to everyone right after the election so that we could work together to find a solution that the residents would actually accept. Of the two Council members who actually met with me, they both accused me of saying something that I did not say, and I demonstrated this by forwarding the literature to them showing that the lit piece did not say what they thought. Even if it did, so what? We can either take things personally, or let it roll off and maintain an element of professionalism and decorum.


The time has come to end the personal attacks and the underhanded tactics, and work together. Everyone on this Council has a personal or business matter in their life, just like I do. The difference is that I don’t try to make a political issue of what other people are going through in their personal or business lives. We have problems to solve here in Powell, and being part of a group of people who only wish to seek and destroy is not going to get us anywhere. I am willing to work with anyone who is willing to do the same, because I take this position seriously as a position of service to the community.


I hope that we can all stop the politics of personal destruction, restrain the sharp tongue and remember that we are elected to Council to represent and serve. Henry Ford said, “Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.” For the residents of Powell who elected us to get a job done, let’s put our differences aside once and for all, and work together to achieve success for our community.

Monday, February 28, 2011

Presentation on Privatization and Consolidation

View the Privatization & Consolidation slides I presented to Council on February 8, 2011 here.


The Statehouse is encouraging consolidation. Residents and others will be happy to see that services can remain similar or get better by consolidating services. Other cities and counties in Ohio have done this and it has worked well for them. One example I learned about recently is Coshocton (http://www.coshoctoncounty.net/), which is a City, but folded their police force into the county to save money. Municipalities do not have to have their own police force - that is an inaccurate assumption.

Also, a study in 1997 (article: http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/index.aspx?page=268) shows that consolidation has many advantages, including:
  • more effective delivery of police services;
  • eliminating duplication of services;
  • provision of services previously unavailable, such as centralized record keeping, crime laboratories, and other specialized services;
  • better trained personnel;
  • lower personnel turnover rate due to increased opportunities within the larger department;
  • costs for equipment are reduced (purchasing in bulk);
  • hiring can become more efficient;
  • lower insurance costs;
  • opportunity for innovation.
From that article, here is a full list of the cities cited as having consolidated their police and Sheriff:
Cities/Counties that merged /  Internet Information Source
Anaconda - Deer Lodge Co., MT / San Antonio study
Athens - Clarke Co., GA / San Antonio study
Augusta - Richmond Co., GA / San Antonio study
Baton Rouge - East Baton Rouge, LA / San Antonio study
Columbus - Muscogee Co., GA / San Antonio study
Indianapolis - Marion Co., IN / San Antonio study
Jacksonville - Duval Co., FL / San Antonio study
Lexington - Fayette Co., KY / San Antonio study
Nashville - Davidson Co., TN / San Antonio study
Compton - Los Anglese Co., CA / Compton Police website
Las Vegas - Clark Co., NV / Salt Lake Tribune; Cincinatti Enquirer
Hawkinsville - Pulaski Co., GA / GA State Bill HB 197
Bessemer City - Gaston Co., NC / Gaston Gazette
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Co., NC / Gaston Gazette; Cincinatti Enquirer
Draper, Taylorsville, etc. - Salt Lake Co., UT / Salt Lake Tribune
Sunnyvale - Dallas Co., TX / Salt Lake Tribune
Several cities - Westchester Co., NY / Times Herald Record
Several cities - Suffolk Co., NY / Times Herald Record
Several cities - Nassau Co., NY / Times Herald Record
Cities/Counties considering merging
San Antonio - Bexar Co., TX / San Antonio Study
Corpus Christi - Nueces Co., TX / San Antonio study
Tallahassee - Leon Co., FL / San Antonio study
Los Angeles - Los Angeles Co., CA / County POA newsletter, CBS Channel 2000, Pierce College Roundup, etc.
Atlanta - Fulton Co., GA / Research Atlanta, Inc.; Central Atlanta Action Plan
St. Petersburg - Pinellas Co., FL / St. Petersburg Times
Grand Island - Hall Co., NE / The Independent
Gastonia - Gaston Co., NC / Gaston Gazette
Salt Lake City - Salt Lake Co., UT / Salt Lake Tribune
New Orleans - New Orleans Parish, LA / Salt Lake Tribune
Grover Beach - San Luis Obispo Co., CA / The San Luis Obispo Tribune
Buffalo - Erie Co., NY / Buffalo Renaissance Foundation
Louisville - Jefferson Co., KY / Cincinatti Enquirer
Burlington - Boone Co., KY / Cincinatti Enquirer
Durham - Durham Co., NC / The Durham Chronicle
Several cities - Ulster Co., NY / Times Herald Record

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Moving Forward

On November 2, 2010, the voters in Powell overwhelmingly said no to Council's recommendation that we double the income tax in Powell. Please click on Thank you, Powell and Friends of Powell for more information on the campaign to defeat the tax and what we are doing moving forward. If you have any questions, please contact me any time. Thank you!

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Vote NO On the 100% Increase in the City of Powell’s Income Tax!

Over the past few months, I have not only seen the polling but also heard from many residents - Powell citizens do not want an income tax increase. Yet, my other six friends on Council voted to send a measure to the ballot on November 2 that will double our City income taxes. This is not necessary, and there are other solutions.


Please review the myths and facts below, and share this information with your friends by forwarding this text or link (http://saramariebrenner.blogspot.com/2010/09/vote-no-on-100-increase-in-city-of.html) on to your friends. If you have questions, please feel free to email me at Sara@SaraMarieBrenner.com or call me at 740.917.0009. I will be happy to answer your questions or hear your feedback, whether you agree, disagree or just have questions. After this fails, we will all need to work together to go back to the drawing board to get this done promptly in a way that is fair to all residents, and that is temporary, targeted and transparent.

For all of these reasons below, vote NO on the ballot measure to double the City’s income tax! Be sure you vote, and vote absentee starting September 28 if you will not be able to vote on November 2. The City will provide you with information and sell this to you as a must-have tax that is dedicated toward capital improvements and fair to all residents. You can see here, that is not the whole story...

MYTH: This income tax increase is tied to capital improvements.
FACT: This income tax increase is permanent. The only thing that temporarily binds these funds to capital improvements is an ordinance Council passed to do so for only 10 years. This ordinance can be reversed by a vote of Council.

MYTH: This income tax increase will not be used for general operations and is dedicated for capital improvements.
FACT: Even the ballot language refers to “general operations,” and since the ordinance passed by Council is only for years 1-10, from year 11 on it certainly can be used for general operations. Of course, that could happen before or after year 11, depending on what Council does in the meantime. That just adds to the unknowns here. If the Statehouse cuts local government funding next year as the rumor has it, Powell will lose nearly $300,000. Where are they going to make up that difference? From funds from a newly passed income tax increase, perhaps? And, what if other cities abolish their credit system suddenly so that they could maintain their revenue? Powell’s income tax proposal is reliant upon the status quo, and we all know that the $8 billion budget deficit next year will not allow status quo to continue. Proposals like those mentioned here may be implemented, so then what? For those of us who wanted this to be tied to capital improvements, this proposal definitely does not satisfy that requirement.

MYTH: Powell’s budget does not have any "fat" to cut.
FACT: One example is the building department. In 2002 they performed over 8,000 inspections. In 2010 this will perform approximately 1700 inspections by the end of the year. Yet, that department’s budget continues to increase. Why? In addition, staff was given a raise for 2010 when private sector companies were cutting jobs, cutting salaries, forcing their employees to take furlow days and taking other drastic measures. Your City was not doing that. Why not? Jobs have been vacated, and instead of leaving them vacant, they were filled. These were administrative positions, not police. There are more examples like this where money is being wasted every day. Furthermore, other Council members have expressed in open session that they do not support cutting spending within the City because it does not pay for the capital improvements needed. I am not sure that is accurate, first of all, but even if it is, do you continue growing government instead? This is not a sensible rationale. Cut first, then come back and see how much more money is needed and request it from voters in a responsible, accounting, temporary way (which is not what this income tax does).

MYTH: Powell’s employees are not well paid.
FACT: The City Manager is paid a salary well over 6 figures. Other department heads are paid anywhere from $60,000-$90,000 per year. Public employees are now earning 1.5 - 2 times the amount of those who do the same work in the private sector. Powell is no different! The City employees are well paid, plus they receive benefits on top of their salary. Employee’s salaries are public record which you may request from the City.

MYTH: This income tax proposal is the most fair way to pay for capital improvements.
FACT: Of course, this statement first of all assumes that you accept that the income tax increase is for capital improvements, which of course, it is not. Secondly, this tax proposal targets the small business owners in Powell who live and work in Powell. The other six Council members would not actually pay more in taxes. Do you appreciate that six people who would not pay more in taxes are asking some of you to pay more? That certainly isn’t right. This proposal will pin neighbor against neighbor with some paying more than others based on a complicated system of credits and locations. 

MYTH: We studied all the options, and this is the best solution.
FACT: I asked the City to study a proposal that I called “the basket approach.” In this approach, we would group together in “baskets” of proposals similar projects that would impact the entire City, and put them on the ballot. For example, bike paths - have a ballot measure that would fix, improve and further connect bike paths throughout the entire City so that everyone in the City would benefit from it. Or, to alleviate traffic, place several solutions on the ballot as a “basket” ballot measure so that the entire community would benefit if it were to pass. The City refused to study my proposal! My alternate proposal would be temporary, be targeted to specific projects, give residents control over what capital improvement projects the City complete, actually be dedicated to capital improvements, have a sunset and be short term rather than permanent, and not create a situation where some neighbors pay more than others. It should have been studied. Voting against the income tax increase on November 2 will force the City to go back to the drawing board and find a better solution. 

MYTH: Everyone else has a higher income tax - so should we.
FACT: We should be promoting that Powell only have a 0.75% income tax! Why don’t we? Draw business to Powell by using the fact that our taxes are low here. Just because our neighboring cities possibly over tax their residents and have bloated budgets does not mean we should too! 

MYTH: Now is as good a time as any to ask for a tax increase.
FACT: Really? When we now have 1 in 7 living in poverty nation wide, tens of millions of people identifying themselves as being against tax increases, and private sector employees losing their jobs, this is not the right time to be asking for tax increases. Government must learn that, just like our households, there is a budget that must be lived by and the City should live within its means. In addition, Olentangy Schools will be placing a levy on the ballot in May 2011, according to the local newspapers. Should it pass, when you calculate that, the other taxes that many of us will be paying next year due to federal and state income tax increases, and other increases in our financial obligations to the government, this could mean thousands of dollars more per year for a family in Powell. Some calculations show $5,000-$10,000 or more depending on income and home value. When we are still in a recession with vacancies in downtown Powell, families struggling and a City that isn’t cutting spending first, raising taxes is not the solution.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Response to today's "Olentangy Valley News" Article

Today's article in the "Olentangy Valley News" (http://www.columbuslocalnews.com/articles/2010/09/07/multiple_papers/news/allovincom_20100907_0436pm_5.txt) cites claims that the current tax proposal is the most fair and best option. I am not sure how a tax that doubles the tax for 38% of the citizens is a fair tax. Does that sound right to you that 38% of the people will pay for what 100% of the residents (and those who travel through Powell) use? And, especially, do you think it's fair that a tax be created that targets small businesses, like this one?
There is no way that this tax can be called "fair." Reminds me of how this was supposed to be "the summer of recovery" - it's great rhetoric but there is not any substance.

Additionally, you have no ability to say what these funds go toward. They are tied to capital improvements only through an ordinance, which may be undone. Even the ballot language refers to "general operations." The funds may be used for capital improvement projects that you do not deem to be important or necessary. It is wasteful spending.

Also, this is permanent and does not have any accountability. Why not use a target, short-time tax for a specific project or group of projects?

I agree Powell has a need for capital improvements, but not this way. There are other options; specifically, an option I presented earlier this year that has not been studied by the City.

If you have any questions, please call me at 740.917.0009, visit www.SaraMarieBrenner.com or email Sara@SaraMarieBrenner.com.

Sincerely,
Sara Marie Brenner
Powell City Councilman

Thursday, September 2, 2010

In the news!

Be sure to read the article in ThisWeeks News about Prestige Music Studios' expansion!

Share me

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Great Article on the Income Tax Increase Proposal from Olentangy Valley News


Olentangy Valley News 

City leader takes stand against tax increase

Councilwoman, others form group to oppose city income tax increase on Nov. 2 ballot

 

By LAURA ENGLEHART
Published: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 6:13 PM EDT



Powell will ask residents Nov. 2 for an income tax increase -- but a City Council member is leading the charge against it.

At its July 20 meeting, Powell City Council voted 6-1 to request from voters a change in the income tax rate from 0.75 percent to 1.5 percent.

Residents would receive a 1 percent credit for income taxes paid to other municipalities. Revenue generated would go toward capital improvements for 10 years.

"Our current tax structure has gotten us this far and it will only continue to get us to maintain our current operating expenses," said Councilman Don Grubbs. "We don't have enough money for capital improvements -- repairing failing sewers and old roads. Those repairs will be needed."



The income tax hike would bring in an additional $2.2 million a year for capital improvements.

Councilwoman Sara Marie Brenner voted against the ballot measure, as well as the credit to residents who work out of town and earmarking funds for capital improvement projects.

"I do believe the city needs funds, and I'm not trying to prevent funds from coming into the city," Brenner said. "We have things that need fixed and we can't expect the city to last forever on what it has.

"But we cannot create a tax that is permanent with no accountability and that doesn't give the people paying to be able to say what it goes toward," she said.

Sixty-two percent of residents work out of town and would pay no more in income taxes if the issue passes. Fifty percent of revenue generated would come from taxpayers who work in the city but live in other communities, city officials have said.

The 38 percent of residents who live and work in Powell would pay more in income taxes.

Brenner said she considers an income tax increase an attack on small businesses.

"This is a small-business tax, and it unfairly taxes a certain part of the community," Brenner said after last week's meeting.

Though she stands as the only council member against the ballot measure, Brenner said she is not discouraged in her opinion.

"I'm the only small-business owner (on council), and just as (council members) are standing up for what they think is right, so am I," Brenner said.

Brenner opened Prestige Music Studios Inc. in Powell four years ago.

She and other residents have organized Friends of Powell, a campaign against raising the income tax. Its website has swelled to more than 100 members in less than a week.

Grubbs said after last week's meeting that he welcomes any debate on the ballot issue.

"I'm interested to see what (Friends of Powell) has to say, and I'll speak up if I think it's not factual, but in terms of drawing a conclusion, that's up to everyone (as individuals)," he said.

Grubbs was against an income tax increase a few years ago when council members began their research, but switched camps after many conversations were held the topic, he said.

City Council has promised to dedicate any new income tax revenue toward capital improvements for a decade. Some residents who have attended recent council meetings have said the 10-year limit allows the city to use the money in any way it sees fit in the future, without a vote of residents.

That does not worry Grubbs, however.

"It does put the spending in the hands of future councils, but I'm not worried about council members going amuck (with spending), because of the strength of people like (Brenner) and those that come to (council) meetings," Grubbs said.

"They will make sure that council is spending the money wisely. I've always been confident that prior councils have done the right thing."

Meanwhile, Friends of Powell held its first meeting Sunday, July 25. It appointed resident Tom Kipfer as treasurer and made plans to distribute information by mail and by knocking on doors.

For more information on the income tax increase issue, visit Powell's website, cityofpowell.us. For more information on Friends of Powell, visit the website powellcitycouncil.info and register as a member.