Property owners’ questions about city of Toledo’s policy multiply.

By IGNAZIO MESSINA BLADE STAFF WRITER

Three years ago, Rod Stanton was meticulous about checking the history of a potential new investment rental property in West Toledo.

The modest home on Brame Place, a small dead-end street, all checked out. That is, until just two months ago when a mysterious $250 was subtracted from his mortgage escrow account to cover a lien from an unpaid water bill racked up by the house’s previous owner.

“The whole thing stinks because it was such a long time period,” Mr. Stanton said of the bill.

“The city could have filed a lien against [the previous owner] but never did. It never got filed until this March,” he said. “The city knew they didn’t have a case so they agreed to credit the money back, but before that, they said, ‘We know it doesn’t sound fair but it is legal.’•”

James T. Easter, Sr., who bought a house at 1810 North Detroit Ave., said the city wants more than $1,000 owed by a previous owner and he hasn’t decided if he’ll fight city hall and the water department or just pay.

“I talked to a man at the water department and they put me on a payment plan, but I am not going to make payments until I find out what’s going on,” Mr. Easter said. “I think [the lien] is a scare tactic because they didn’t turn the water off, the water is still on, but they are saying I have to make payments.”

Toledo property owners – some still with outstanding bills from former owners and others who have paid those kinds of bills – have questioned the city’s policy with more frequency this year. The Bell administration has stepped up collections of the $13.3 million in delinquent water, sewer, storm water, and garbage bills it is owed.

Additionally, after an influx of telephone calls complaining about such liens, Lucas County Auditor Anita Lopez recently stopped processing property water liens from the city of Toledo until the Bell administration addresses the issue.

After Mr. Bell said the practice had been ongoing since 1986, the administration’s official response to the auditor came from Tom Crothers, director of the Department of Public Utilities for the city.

“We have a duty to collect these,” Mr. Crothers said. “We have no choice.”

Toledo City Councilman D. Michael Collins, who is an independent, plans to change that if Mr. Bell doesn’t.

“One administration is blaming another administration but the curious thing is it’s the same people working in the city and it’s just another leader,” Mr. Collins said. “I think it’s a cavalier approach, and I think it’s wrong when they go to closing and they are told there are no outstanding costs for utilities and then for the buyer to find out two years later there is [an] outstanding obligation.”

Mr. Collins plans to submit legislation for council to change the city law that the Bell administration said requires it to charge the current property owner for any outstanding utility bills.

Collecting money the city is owed is a modest component of the plan that Mr. Bell enacted to address a $48 million general fund deficit – although water bills are funneled into a separate fund.

Jen Sorgenfrei, Mr. Bell’s spokesman, acknowledged a huge backlog of uncollected bills.

“Clearly in the past, they have done a poor job of collections which has snowballed into a greater outstanding debt for the utilities department,” Ms. Sorgenfrei said. “That does affect the bottom line of what other ratepayers are charged going forward and we are working on finding practical solutions to collecting those debts.”

Sometimes the city has “forgiven” homeowners for the debt incurred by a former owner.

That was the case for a Toledoan who declined to be identified. He was slapped with a lien on his home for delinquent water bill of $7,149 from the former owner.

Mr. Crothers admitted that kind of bill is “patently ridiculous,” and promised the city soon would have a new policy.

But he said that doesn’t mean all residents hit with these bills from the former owners of their properties will be off the hook.

Valerie Denney, who bought a foreclosed home on North McCord Road in 2003, lived there for seven years without a problem.

“I just sold it in March and there was a $78 water bill from the previous owner and that would have put a lien on the house,” Ms. Denney said. “They ended up taking the money out of my part of the sale.”

Like others, Ms. Denney said the city should have pursued the former home-
owner – the true scofflaw in her case – to get its money, not her.

Guy Cameron of Maumee, who owns a rental property at Walbridge Avenue, said the city tried to get about $600 that was unpaid by the property’s former owner.

“I fought it and got it reversed,” Mr. Cameron said after hearing that other people were facing similar bills. “Most of the time they just feed you a bunch of lines and want you to pay the bill.”

Ms. Lopez said she has ordered her staff to investigate all the liens the city filed in 2009, totaling about 1,500.

Although the city said it must file for liens in these cases, Ms. Lopez said her office’s attorneys have interpreted the city’s law to say the administration cannot place a lien on a property if the delinquent bills are from a former owner.

The issue is not unique to Toledo.

Annette Carulli of Perrysburg Township said the same thing happened to her in Wood County.

“I too bought a foreclosed house and I have a $189 water bill that took two years to show up,” Ms. Carulli said. “I had to pay the bill because it was on my taxes and if I had not, I would have had to pay late fees and fines.”

Contact Ignazio Messina at:
imessina@theblade.com
or 419-724-6171.