– Matt Riehl started the meeting with a solemn moment of silence for Lt. David Rylander, a Stow resident who was killed in Afghanistan nine days ago. I offer my prayer and deepest condolences to David’s friends and family. It was August 2, 2006 when I lost a close friend in Iraq. The rollercoaster of grief and pride in what both Lt. Rylander and my friend Joe Tomci did for our nation is hard to comprehend. The calling hours for Lt. Rylander are tonight at Redmon Funeral Home from 6 to 9. The funeral procession will begin from the funeral home at 10:15 a.m. Saturday, heading south on Darrow, west on Kent, and south on Route 8 to The Chapel on Fir Hill.

– It was about 15 months ago that Stow lost another man in the line of duty: Jonathan Bastock. Next week, they will be adding Bastock’s name to the National Police Memorial Wall in Washington, D.C. Chief Lou Dirker will be there, along with others. Councilman Riehl and I will be in Washington next week, and we plan to visit the wall.

– I was pleased to make a motion last night to authorize the hiring of two new police officers. This will bring our staffing up to 38 officers, which is still down significantly from our peak of 44. The two new officers will be sworn in sometime this summer. They will help secure two of our three shifts. More are needed, but this is a good start.

– Council voted on the storm-water policy that I have discussed on this Web site for the past few weeks. I made an amendment to strike out the following language:

SECTION 12. The City of Stow may decline to address off street drainage issues that have been created and/or aggravated by either the construction or placement of a structure or the alteration of natural water flow, especially any drainage issues that are located in designated floodplains or floodways.

My amendment passed unanimously. The legislation, as a whole, passed 6-1, with Brian Lowdermilk voting no. Council unanimously passed all other legislation that I mentioned on my Web site after Monday’s meetings, as well.

– As I said above, I will be in Washington, D.C. next weekend with the primary purpose of networking with other elected officials, sharing best practices, and so on. This trip is not funded with taxpayer dollars whatsoever.

– City council’s committees will meet next on Monday, May 21, with what appears to be a busy night of legislation.

– The mayor requested a few personnel changes. 1) We are going to appoint a new planning director, Rob Kurtz, as his predecessor Ken Trenner will retire. 2) We have an employee in the Service Department who has served in her role for more than four years — from a temp agency. It’s only fair that we make her permanent, giving her benefits but keeping the same hourly pay. 3) We will also promote a new chief building inspector, a job we need to be filled in order to apply for certain grants. 4) We will also hire a new employee for the Service Department, which is badly undermanned. … With all of these changes, there is minimal new spending. I truly admire how the mayor has managed her staff and strategically filled openings, only where critical, and with very good employees.

– To steal a line from John Pribonic, we “talked trash” tonight. In other words, we discussed our contract with Kimble (formerly J&J) to have a non-exclusive right to collect from Stow residents. The three-year contract will soon expire, but there is a two-year renewal option. Kimble is cutting its rates by 50 cents per month for residents, if the city will accept the renewal. There is a significant amount of risk involved with going back out to bid on this — for both the city and for Kimble. The administration’s position is a good one — minimize the risk and give the residents some savings in the process. The only other viable option is an exclusive contract, but I don’t like the idea of telling residents which service provider they will use. Trash collection is a service-related business. If the service is bad, the city’s hands are somewhat tied and the resident can’t just take her business elsewhere.

– I was honored to chair the Roads and Safety Committee meeting where we approved the hiring of two new police officers. When the officers are sworn in this summer, we will have 38 officers. At our peak, we had 44. This city still needs more police, but tonight was a big step.

– The Finance Committee discussed several purchases of equipment, including a new leaf collector ($31,815), a snow plow ($126,981), a water department truck ($138,634), and four new police cruisers ($108,751 combined). Each of these purchases is necessary. For a few years, the administration ignored capital spending. As revenue comes back, we have a lot of making up to do.

– City council will meet to discuss these ordinances on Thursday at 7 p.m.

It’s spring cleaning time at city hall. Of course, it’s never that simple when the government is involved. We were required to pass an ordinance to allow the city to throw away useless equipment that had no value — not even worth enough to consider donating. So if a stapler is broken, we can now toss it in the trash. Yep, apparently it takes legislation to authorize that.

Some good news on the financial front: Moody’s affirmed our AA2 long-term bond rating. As historical background, the rating improved to AA3 in 2004 and improved again to AA2 in 2010. There are only two higher ratings (AA1 and AAA). Because of this news and some shuffling in our bonds and notes, we will save about $22,000 in interest costs this year.

We discussed the storm water policy that the administration wants council to approve. I have been working with the service director on amending the proposed policy in a way to protect the homes in flood plains. I think we will achieve that. Brian Lowdermilk proposed a different amendment last night. Essentially, he wants the money to ONLY be used for new projects — as the community originally intended. I respect his principled position, but the truth is, that’s going to be impossible. For years, we have used that money for storm water-related purposes (albeit not strictly new projects), and we cannot shift course immediately without a serious budgetary problem. Lowdermilk’s proposed amendment failed 6-1.

As Mayor Drew mentioned last night, Fishcreek Elementary is holding a fundraiser 5K race on Sunday morning. I plan to run. It should be fun.

No, I can’t end on a rhyme…. City council’s committees will meet next on May 7.

Oil well

Before the council meeting began, we held a Committee-of-the-Whole meeting to discuss the oil and gas well at the Church of New Hope. This is a vertical well that has already been drilled. The Service Department estimated there are about 36 wells currently in the city, many of which are in the northern part of town.

The driller needs the city’s permission — only because part of the drilling radius includes Ritchie Road (which the city owns). All of the surrounding property owners have already signed and agreed to it. The drilling will likely result in free heating for the Church of New Hope.

With that said, the mayor has completely washed her hands of this. She refuses to take a position. Last night, the Service Director said that the mayor will sign the oil lease if council wants her to. In my opinion, that position is an abdication of the mayor’s duty to advise counsel on contracts. It also allows her to take the easy way out on a contentious political question, rather than taking a position on an issue that worries many residents.

Because the mayor has no interest in this matter (one way or the other), the drilling company was left with no option but to work through council. City council, of course, consists of seven people, and often, seven different attitudes and perspectives. Regardless of how you feel about gas wells, it’s bad practice to negotiate with the city being potentially divided at the negotiating table.

So last night, I proposed that council instruct the mayor to nominate one person to negotiate the best deal possible with the drilling company — and then council will have the chance to vote on that proposal. That motion passed 5-1 (with John Pribonic being the sole “no” vote). It might be a few weeks before that proposal is on the table. I intend to work with the administration to see that the city is compensated justly — or else we won’t lease the mineral rights at all.

Highland Chase property

I learned on Thursday afternoon that advertising for bids to sell the small piece of city-owned land in Highland Chase does not require legislation, so I made a motion, which was unanimously approved, to do that. The property will be advertised for five weeks. At that point, we will have a clearer picture as to whether a sale will occur. All bids will require the buyer to comply with the Highland Chase Homeowners’ Association regulations and deed restrictions.

Moral claims

Generally, the city is immune from lawsuits over injury to person or property. Despite that rule, there is a mechanism by which the city leaders can approve compensation for such injuries. It’s called a “moral claim.” As the name indicates, the city has no legal obligation to pay. The obligation is solely moral, if at all.

We had two moral claims presented to council this week. The mayor and her board of control denied both. Council can overrule those decisions. As you’ll read below, council did.

One moral claim was about $1,200 for a woman who fell when stepping in a pothole on a city street. Unfortunately, she broke her wrist. My opinion is that the city cannot be the insurer for all such injuries. Nobody fights harder to fix our crumbling roads than me, but Stow simply can’t pay every time someone trips and falls. The city has a policy that potholes must be fixed within 24 hours of the city receiving knowledge of them. In this case, the city was not notified. Where there is no notice, there is no opportunity to fix, and where there is no opportunity to fix, you can’t argue that the city could have done anything to prevent the injury (except, of course, have a fully functioning road-repair program — but don’t get me started on that). Council approved the moral claim by a 4-2 vote, with Jim Costello joining me in voting “no.”

The other moral claim was for a defective city water meter, which the residents claimed caused them $2,100 in flooding damage to their basement. The residents had homeowners’ insurance, but they chose not to make a claim against the policy (likely because of the $1,000 deductible and possible increase in premiums). The law director told us that the deductible is the maximum we could give them. I made a motion to amend the legislation to give the residents $1,000, which would have been their out-of-pocket loss if they chose to make an insurance claim. That motion passed 6-0 and the payment of the $1,000 passed 6-0.

Zuravel rezoning

Paul Zuravel’s bid to rezone his property, and his neighbors’ properties, from R-1 to R-2 failed by a 0-6 vote.

We heard about 12 residents speak out against this change to the character of their neighborhood. I had concerns about the increased housing density would do to the Leewood/Graham Road intersection.

I think people have an interest in keeping their property zoned as it currently is, unless the city has an overriding concern. Here, the only concern was Zuravel wanting to build five houses on his three parcels, instead of four. That doesn’t do it for me. Certainly, no property owner has a right to have their property rezoned. Mr. Zuravel was correct when he said his parcels more naturally fit an R-2 designation, but conformity alone is not a compelling interest to me.

…

City council will meet next on April 23 with a Finance Committee meeting and Roads and Safety Committee meeting.

Additionally, we held a public hearing on the rezoning requested by Paul Zuravel on Graham Road. Numerous residents stood up to speak out against the proposal. Their concerns were traffic problems, changing the character of the neighborhood, storm water runoff and property values. If Zuravel receives the rezoning, he can build five houses on his three parcels; if not, he can build four. Zuravel is also asking council to rezone his neighbors’ parcels. Council will give this a final vote on Thursday evening.

We also heard from residents who were concerned about two other rezoning matters. First was a proposed church on Kent Road, near the airport. Second was changing a parcel from “residential” to “residential-business” near the intersection of 91 and Graham Road. These matters will likely receive three council readings and a full public hearing, so that we can get everyone’s perspective before deciding.

I held a Roads & Safety Committee meeting to discuss the parcel of land owned by the city in the Highland Chase development. It was the homeowners’ association that alerted the city to the city’s ownership of the land. Now, neighbors that abut Marsh Road are seeking to possibly purchase the city’s small slice of land so they can develop it, along with their contiguous parcel. By state law, we cannot just give the land to the homeowners’ association. My decision is to seek bids and then have the full council decide whether it is in the city’s best interest (and those neighbors’ best interest) to sell. We will not vote on legislation regarding this until April 26 at the earliest, and a sale wouldn’t occur until June at the earliest, if at all.

City council will meet at 7 p.m. Thursday.

Why I voted “no”:

I don’t intend to be on city council forever. I do plan to live in Stow that long.

If the city continues on this rate of spending, we will be out of money by 2016.

This budget has a deficit of $693,097 (i.e. expenditures exceed expected revenue by that amount). At the beginning of 2012, our carry-over balance (i.e., savings account) was $3,174,785. At the beginning of 2013, we plan to have a carry-over balance of $2,481,688. As you can see, we can only do that three more times, maximum, before having to make some tough decisions.

Also consider, the state funding cuts to local government become more aggressive in 2012 and 2013, when the estate tax is phased out, and stage two of the local government fund cuts go into effect.

Let’s be frank with one another: If Stow couldn’t balance it’s budget in 2012, how can we be optimistic that any of the following years will be different?

There is one way, of course. That’s if Stow enjoys an increase in income tax revenue increases based on a resurrection of the economy.

We cannot count on that.

As stewards of these streets, your safety and your tax dollars, we cannot depend on matters outside our control — namely, the national and state economy.

I’m not going to be dramatic about this, but this should concern every Stow resident. I won’t guarantee that we’re headed for trouble, but I will say this with confidence: Tonight, we risked our future to obtain another year of short-team comfort.

I will continue to fight for fiscal responsibility. With every budget that proposes a deficit, the stakes get higher, and I will be even more determined to direct this city onto the right course.

Matt Riehl and I will hold our office hours on Tuesday, April 3 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall second floor conference room. We would love for you to drop by and introduce yourself or ask questions. City council’s committees will meet next on Monday, April 9 at 5:30 p.m.

– During the meeting, we honored Connor McMahon, the Stow High senior who took second place in the state wrestling tournament this month. That is an incredible accomplishment. Wrestlers, almost more than any other sport, have success based upon how hard they work for it. I was a freshman on the wrestling team the last time we had a state champ.

– We voted on legislation that would allow the Board of Control to decide moral claims up to $2,000. Currently, the Board of Control can only approve up to $1,000, and city council approves anything higher. I spoke in opposition to the legislation, because I believe city council should be the decision maker on these larger matters. This is particularly true on moral claims, which are claims against the city for damage or injury caused by the city or its actors. Inherently, there is a lot of discretion involved. It should be city council’s purview. After I spoke on the matter, council voted the legislation down by a 0-to-5 count.

– City Council will meet at an unusual time and day — 6:45 p.m. on Friday, March 30 — to pass the annual budget. As I’ve mentioned, this budget spends about $700,000 more than it anticipates in revenue. I won’t stand for a budget deficit that large. We can, and should, do better.

– We will literally run out of money if we do that for the next four years. If don’t adjust now, the only option in five years will be to raise taxes. The idea is to attack the spending problem now. I have asked the Finance Department to create a five-year contingency plan of large-scale budget cuts that we can follow in case revenue does not begin to increase. We will receive that plan in the coming months, I have been told.

– We had planned to vote on the budget tonight, but two council members were absent. I expect the budget will pass next Friday. Some budget MUST pass by March 31, or else state law prohibits the city from spending money. No member of council, nor the mayor, will allow it to reach that point.

This was my first Roads meeting that I’ve had as chairman. We discussed an issue regarding some land that the city owns in the Highland Chase development. The issue is two-pronged: First, can the city give the land to the homeowners’ association without taking public bids? Second, should the city sell the land to a neighbor who is more than willing to buy it (and use the frontage for future development)?

I also asked Service Director Mike Miller to address specific allocations of funds within the 2012 roads program. On Thursday, I will post a spreadsheet showing the roads that will receive attention in 2012. For now, take a look below at the current ratings for asphalt streets in the city.

Street Index – Current Asphalt Ratings

I want to use the Roads Committee to provide council an louder voice in road repair. In the past, councilmembers have been limited to telling residents that their poor road will not be repaired because, well, there’s just no money in the mayor’s budget. I want to give the ward councilmembers, in particular, an opportunity to introduce legislation into the Roads Committee to pave a road that is rated as “very poor” and yet is not scheduled to be repaired in the present year. It is within council’s authority, but it has never been exercised.

During the Finance Committee meeting, Judge Kim Hoover spoke about the Stow Municipal Court budget. The court has done a great job in limiting its costs and finding creative ways to make revenue, and that has lessened the burden that it has on Stow’s budget. Judge Hoover and Judge Coates should be commended for that.

We had originally planned to vote on this budget this Thursday at 7 p.m., but absences from councilmembers will force us to reschedule to next Friday, March 30.

– In 2011, Stow used $980,000 from the roads budget to pay for operational costs. In 2012, the city plans to use $800,000 for that purpose. Roads only get more and more expensive to fix as time passes without traditional maintenance. This budget is better than Karen Fritschel’s budgets with respect to infrastructure, but it’s still unacceptable.

– We will lose $667,000 in property taxes in 2012 because of property value reassessments. We are also losing $427,000 in state funding. Next year, we will have a similar decline (even when compared to 2012 revenue) because the state is phasing out the estate tax and Stow will lose another large chunk of Local Government Fund revenue. However, we did have some offsets to our 2011 losses. Healthcare costs came in much lower than expected, and income tax increased by 10 percent. In 2012, we are projecting a return to the prior healthcare costs and a 1 percent income tax increase from 2011 numbers.

– In case you’re interested, Stow’s unemployment rate is 6.2 percent. The county’s is 7.3 percent. Ohio’s is 8.6 percent. Stow’s recent high in unemployment was 9.9 percent in January 2010.

– This budget fills four employee vacancies (2 police officers, 1 service worker, 1 engineer). I agree with each of these hires — the police officers, in particular.

– Here is the most important part of the budget — does it spend more than it takes in? The answer is: “Yes. A lot more.” We currently have a carryover balance of $4.174 million. At the end of this year, we will have a balance of $3.481 million. That’s a projected budget deficit of $693,000. At that pace, we will have blown through our savings account in five years. This is a big, big problem, especially considering the additional cuts to state revenue on the horizon and the fact our roads repairs have been underfunded by about $3 million since 2009.

– In 2011, Fox Den lost $85,000 operationally. When you add in the $371,000 mortgage payment, the city spent $456,000 to own a golf course in 2011. Meanwhile, our roads are crumbling and police force was undermanned. When will the time come when we finally cut our losses or admit we need a professional management team to take over? Revenue has fallen 25% since the government took over. Some Fox Den apologists ask why I’m so adamant on this issue. This is why. A large chunk of our budget goes to subsidize the golf course every year.

– I have asked the Finance Department to put together a five-year “Doomsday Plan” that provides options for fundamental budgetary alterations that we can implement if tax revenue does not return to its prior levels within the next five years. Having a contingency plan is the responsible thing to do.

– The budget received its second reading on the floor of council on Thursday. It is projected to receive a vote on March 22. Finance Committee will meet on March 19 for discussion on the topic.