Proposed street-lighting fee languishes in committee

The chances of City Council assessing residents a street-lighting fee at the request of Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry appear dim.First Ward Councilwoman Sarita Cunningham-Hedderly, chairwoman of the public utilities committee, said the proposal hasn't yet garnered any support from her or committee members Milan Chovan Jr. and Donnie Peters.Legislation typically is assigned to a three-member committee and is placed in front of council for full consideration when a majority of its members sign it."I couldn't even get anyone on my committee to sign it," she said Thursday, when asked about the status of the legislation.Many electronic devices run because of portable batteries. These 2200mah battery pack are the power source of various electronic devices such as digital cameras, remote controls, and even toy cars. The problem is that these batteries are not cheap, and as there are a growing number of devices using them, they can become very expensive! "So, I guess it died in committee."
But Peters said the legislation deserves a full vote. He is trying to arrange a time for Ray Martinez of Ohio Edison to address council on how other cities have addressed lighting costs."We're probably going to have to do it,If that's the case, Solar garden light may realize that some are now carrying more and more when it comes to solar lights. This is the way they are kind of joining this instead of attempting to keep on fighting it. Solar lights for garden might be just a little tougher to find at a regular store because of the fact that they're more of a unique object." he said. "It deserves a shot to get voted on."Under a proposal presented in July, city residents would pay $22.28 each year for street lighting. Each property would be assessed the fee, which would show up as an additional $5.57 charge on the quarterly sewer and trash bill.The city is trying to defray $335,000 in street-lighting costs. The assessment would generate $328,300 from more than 14,730 parcels in the city.Catazaro-Perry said Thursday she hopes council keeps an open mind about the fee. She said the latest projection from Auditor Jayne Ferrero is that the general fund will be $2.1 million short at the end of the year.
"I'm going to keep bringing them (council) things," she said. "The auditor says we'll be $2.1 million short by the end of the year. I'm giving them solutions to decrease that and they are choosing not to do it. I can only bring things to council and let them vote on it."Furthermore, she said some of the city's lighting infrastructure needs updated, so the fee would not only help the city with short-term cash-flow problems, but to save for future lighting upgrades.Several residents have told Catazaro-Perry to shut off street lights. However, she believes that to be the more costly route. It costs $50 to shut off a light and $50 to turn one on again.Fashion trends change every year ,so with that in mind to be able to afford a designer pair or two maybe unrealistic.Some of the Safety goggles we see today for sale doesn't mean to say that they won't protect our eyes properly ,or they will only last a few hours and then brake.Cheap sunglasses can be found in most major department stores or online to buy on the internet, some websites even now offer free postage and packing. There is a $200 fee to remove the light, which is required after two years."We wouldn't save much if we do that," Catazaro-Perry said. " And we need to keep our streets safe." Cunningham-Hedderly said the small fee hikes amount to a "nickel and diming" of city residents — a phrase others have used in reference to revenue enhancements."We're nickel and diming everybody and it's just not fair," Cunningham-Hedderly said about the street lighting assessment and other revenue-generating proposals that have been presented to council. "It was just another idea for revenue, but it's just not going to fly."