Public safety or revenue enhancement?
By
Rory Ryan-hcpress@cinci.rr.com
After several weeks of fire safety inspections in Hillsboro, a few local business owners have expressed a degree of displeasure with the process.
From what we’ve heard this week, it seems that the complaints do have merit.
As The Highland County Press reported in February, Hillsboro City Council voted to accept a proposed ordinance from the Hillsboro Fire Department that mandates as of Jan. 1, 2010, there will be an annual fire inspection performed on every commercial business and multiple family dwelling in the city of Hillsboro.
At that time, council voted to waive the fire department’s proposed fees associated with the inspections. However, council did not provide a detailed
account of the fines and/or criminal penalties businesses would face for failure to comply with the ordinance.
Numerous business owners had signed a petition urging council to rescind the ordinance. This past winter many business owners spoke out in opposition to both the fees and the inspections, as well as the city’s failure to fully explain the possible fines and penalties for noncompliance.
Fast forward five months and despite the objections from the business community, the inspections appear to be ongoing.
And in spite of assurances from the city that these inspections are all about public safety and not revenue enhancement, at least one Hillsboro
business owner was informed after his inspection: “Failure to comply within the time specified may result in further legal action and/or penalty as specified under section 3737 of the Ohio Revised Code.”
It does seem that the written word carries a bit more weight than the spoken word.
Moreover, under ORC 3737.51, civil penalty for violations, “Any person who violates any of the posting requirements, as prescribed by division (C)
of section 3737.42 of the Revised Code, shall be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation.”
Thus, a local business with, say a dozen violations may be facing a penalty of $12,000.
For businesses who do their best to pay their bills, this could be a slight inconvenience. For those who opt for bankruptcy court leniency, well,
it’s probably no big deal. What’s one more bill you don’t have to pay?
Last February, we asked city council to provide, in writing, the constitutional authority for the Hillsboro Fire Department to enter a private business and/or residential home and conduct its investigation.
Those of us who are subject to such inspections, fees, penalties, criminal charges, etc., deserve at least that much from city council. After providing, in writing, said constitutional authority, council ought to present, in writing, a detailed description of any and all penalties, fines, criminal charges, etc., for noncompliance to the inspections, as well as for failure to meet the Hillsboro Fire Department’s expectations.
Further, this council ought to provide, in writing, why these inspections are necessary now; when, prior to the relocation of the occupants of the former Hillsboro City Building, such inspections were not deemed necessary. Could it be that they knew full well that their own building might fail to meet the mandated standards?
An assistant fire chief said in a public meeting that those who do not comply with the inspections may have to answer to Hillsboro Municipal Court
Judge David McKenna. So I asked the honorable judge about his possible responses to the nonconformists among us, but he deferred comment. (Probably
a wise move.)
So where does that leave local business?
Jason Brown, the owner of Brown’s Cycle Shop on North West Street, who signed the aforementioned petition to rescind the city ordinance, told The
Highland County Press this week that two firefighters came to his business Wednesday, Aug. 18 for an inspection and he refused to allow the inspection.
“I said they couldn’t come in without a warrant,” Brown said. “They said, ‘Fine, you’ll be hearing from the state.’”
Maybe. Maybe not.
Brown said he had been vocal regarding the fire ordinance when it was first presented to council.
“I think the whole idea of the inspections was nothing more than a money-making scheme,” Brown said, and that if it really was about public service, the fees would not have been proposed to begin with.”
According to Denny McCann of the Ohio State Fire Marshal’s Bureau of Code Enforcement, turning a business owner over to the state office because they have refused a fire inspection is “Not a normal practice.”
Well, that’s nice to know.
As we opined a few months ago, if council wants the city’s decisions to be left to a departmental assistant, then they must accept the consequences.
All we ask is for the entire matter to be put in writing. If this is not about issuing fines, then put that in writing. So far, we’re still waiting.
This week, the assistant fire chief said if a local business is renting its structure, the business owner, not the property owner, is responsible for bringing the building into compliance. That’s all well and good for some businesses, but it certainly may present an economic dilemma for others.
As a side note, at the Highland County Board of Commissioners meeting this week, commissioners Shane Wilkin, Gary Heaton and Tom Horst spoke about economic development with Don Branson, executive director of the Southern Ohio Agricultural & Community Development Foundation.
In the course of the meeting, Mr. Branson said, “At times like these, we need jobs more than anything.”
With Highland County’s true unemployment rate hovering at or above 20 percent, we sure do need jobs.
Isn’t it more than a bit ironic that while the county commission is trying to encourage job creation, the city appears to be placing obstacles in the path of existing local businesses, to say nothing of discouraging future business?
The fact that city council has declined to cite – in writing – federal, state or local statute on these unannounced fire inspections and the potential penalties businesses may encounter remains troubling.
While business owners have verbal assurances that these inspections “are not about citations and fines,” previous city actions, such as the attempt
to impose fees for the inspections, suggest otherwise.
More and more, this determination to inspect looks like revenue enhancement.
That its timing coincides with the new fire station and a department that has long struggled to spend within its means (taxpayers’ means) is not lost on all of us.
Ultimately, we’ll get the government we deserve – or the government we tolerate.
Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.[[In-content Ad]]
From what we’ve heard this week, it seems that the complaints do have merit.
As The Highland County Press reported in February, Hillsboro City Council voted to accept a proposed ordinance from the Hillsboro Fire Department that mandates as of Jan. 1, 2010, there will be an annual fire inspection performed on every commercial business and multiple family dwelling in the city of Hillsboro.
At that time, council voted to waive the fire department’s proposed fees associated with the inspections. However, council did not provide a detailed
account of the fines and/or criminal penalties businesses would face for failure to comply with the ordinance.
Numerous business owners had signed a petition urging council to rescind the ordinance. This past winter many business owners spoke out in opposition to both the fees and the inspections, as well as the city’s failure to fully explain the possible fines and penalties for noncompliance.
Fast forward five months and despite the objections from the business community, the inspections appear to be ongoing.
And in spite of assurances from the city that these inspections are all about public safety and not revenue enhancement, at least one Hillsboro
business owner was informed after his inspection: “Failure to comply within the time specified may result in further legal action and/or penalty as specified under section 3737 of the Ohio Revised Code.”
It does seem that the written word carries a bit more weight than the spoken word.
Moreover, under ORC 3737.51, civil penalty for violations, “Any person who violates any of the posting requirements, as prescribed by division (C)
of section 3737.42 of the Revised Code, shall be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each violation.”
Thus, a local business with, say a dozen violations may be facing a penalty of $12,000.
For businesses who do their best to pay their bills, this could be a slight inconvenience. For those who opt for bankruptcy court leniency, well,
it’s probably no big deal. What’s one more bill you don’t have to pay?
Last February, we asked city council to provide, in writing, the constitutional authority for the Hillsboro Fire Department to enter a private business and/or residential home and conduct its investigation.
Those of us who are subject to such inspections, fees, penalties, criminal charges, etc., deserve at least that much from city council. After providing, in writing, said constitutional authority, council ought to present, in writing, a detailed description of any and all penalties, fines, criminal charges, etc., for noncompliance to the inspections, as well as for failure to meet the Hillsboro Fire Department’s expectations.
Further, this council ought to provide, in writing, why these inspections are necessary now; when, prior to the relocation of the occupants of the former Hillsboro City Building, such inspections were not deemed necessary. Could it be that they knew full well that their own building might fail to meet the mandated standards?
An assistant fire chief said in a public meeting that those who do not comply with the inspections may have to answer to Hillsboro Municipal Court
Judge David McKenna. So I asked the honorable judge about his possible responses to the nonconformists among us, but he deferred comment. (Probably
a wise move.)
So where does that leave local business?
Jason Brown, the owner of Brown’s Cycle Shop on North West Street, who signed the aforementioned petition to rescind the city ordinance, told The
Highland County Press this week that two firefighters came to his business Wednesday, Aug. 18 for an inspection and he refused to allow the inspection.
“I said they couldn’t come in without a warrant,” Brown said. “They said, ‘Fine, you’ll be hearing from the state.’”
Maybe. Maybe not.
Brown said he had been vocal regarding the fire ordinance when it was first presented to council.
“I think the whole idea of the inspections was nothing more than a money-making scheme,” Brown said, and that if it really was about public service, the fees would not have been proposed to begin with.”
According to Denny McCann of the Ohio State Fire Marshal’s Bureau of Code Enforcement, turning a business owner over to the state office because they have refused a fire inspection is “Not a normal practice.”
Well, that’s nice to know.
As we opined a few months ago, if council wants the city’s decisions to be left to a departmental assistant, then they must accept the consequences.
All we ask is for the entire matter to be put in writing. If this is not about issuing fines, then put that in writing. So far, we’re still waiting.
This week, the assistant fire chief said if a local business is renting its structure, the business owner, not the property owner, is responsible for bringing the building into compliance. That’s all well and good for some businesses, but it certainly may present an economic dilemma for others.
As a side note, at the Highland County Board of Commissioners meeting this week, commissioners Shane Wilkin, Gary Heaton and Tom Horst spoke about economic development with Don Branson, executive director of the Southern Ohio Agricultural & Community Development Foundation.
In the course of the meeting, Mr. Branson said, “At times like these, we need jobs more than anything.”
With Highland County’s true unemployment rate hovering at or above 20 percent, we sure do need jobs.
Isn’t it more than a bit ironic that while the county commission is trying to encourage job creation, the city appears to be placing obstacles in the path of existing local businesses, to say nothing of discouraging future business?
The fact that city council has declined to cite – in writing – federal, state or local statute on these unannounced fire inspections and the potential penalties businesses may encounter remains troubling.
While business owners have verbal assurances that these inspections “are not about citations and fines,” previous city actions, such as the attempt
to impose fees for the inspections, suggest otherwise.
More and more, this determination to inspect looks like revenue enhancement.
That its timing coincides with the new fire station and a department that has long struggled to spend within its means (taxpayers’ means) is not lost on all of us.
Ultimately, we’ll get the government we deserve – or the government we tolerate.
Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.[[In-content Ad]]