What Happened During the July 23, 2012 City Council Meeting
The committees of city council met last night. My notes are below:
Oil well -- The Public Improvements Committee held a public hearing on the city's potential lease of mineral rights beneath Ritchie Road. The oil well is already drilled, on property owned by The Church of New Hope. A great deal of the people who spoke against the city selling its mineral rights were residents of other cities who travel to whatever city is having this debate.
Stow-Kent Shopping Center -- The Planning Committee learned about the zoning changes proposed for the Stow-Kent Shopping Center. The only significant change is this: Multi-family housing will be permitted. To clarify another misconception: There is currently no proposal to re-develop the property. In fact, there is not even a hint of one. Any new construction is "very much up in the air," according to one of the owners. I'm not optimistic.
Tax revenue update -- The Finance Committee received a mid-year update on tax revenue receipts. Before I get into that, here is some background: 65 percent of the city's revenue comes from income tax. There are four components of the income tax (listed from most significant to least): 1) Employer withholding of income earned in Stow. 2) An individual who works in a city with a lower municipal tax rate than Stow. 3) Tax on corporate net profits. 4) Taxes on utility companies.
Overall, our income tax receipts are up 2.68 percent from June 30, 2011 to June 30, 2012. As for the individual components, withholding tax receipts have increased 6.43 percent (from $4,418,000 to $4,702,000). Individual tax receipts increased 7.9 percent (from $1.4MM to $1.5MM). Corporate profit tax receipts fell 14 percent (decrease equal to $130,000). Utility tax receipts fell from $24,000 to $7,000. The bottom line is, we are right where our tax department projected us to be, and that's good news.
Before Stow sets its 2013 budget, we will be presented with a five-year forecast of expenditures. I have been pushing for this since I arrived on council. This will allow us to plan to balance the budget and restore funding to our roads program over the long term.
City council will meet at 6:30 p.m. for an executive session, and the regular council meeting will start at 7.
Elyse
9:43 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
There were several Stow residents that opposed the drilling as well. Some residents were OK with it. One Stow woman provided council with a list of other residents who couldn't be in attendance that signed a petition saying they were against the drilling.
Council was unable to talk about PEP's prior record. They were uncertain what the contract was going to look like and it would take 3-4 days to draw up. Council failed to tell residents when they were going to vote on the issue.
The church is for it (obviously). They see this as a means of generating funds. The city seeks to gain $5,000 for selling their mineral rights on 3/10ths of an acre and 1/8 of the royalty. The city land that is being leased falls under the roads.
One other resident was for the drilling and doesn't see a problem with it. The other two pro-drilling persons were representatives of PEP who assured council they have never had any contamination problems (though ODNR reports mention several permit violations and pollution/contamination violations).
People who spoke against were concerned with contamination, property values, air pollution, not wanting to see a well from the road and the health and well-being of other residents. People living near the well were either concerned or totally opposed to it (residents of Richie Rd.).
It's also important to mention council wasn't going to hold a public hearing until residents made them aware that they had to in order to lease city land.
I.M. Wright
10:27 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
"A great deal of the people who spoke against the city selling its mineral rights were residents of other cities who travel to whatever city is having this debate."
And those people should be rightfully ignored. What they think has absolutely ZERO relevance. They're just like partisan hacks; they travel from city to city and spew the same unfounded stuff (which they've already been quoted as saying -- using words like "believe", meaning it's not based in fact(s)).
I live in the development behind the church and I don't have an issue with this (I had a bigger issue when they were proposing putting an "emergency" road into our development, which they did not do).
As far as Stow-Kent Cement Center goes, I'm with Mr. Rasor; I'm not optimistic either. The owner is just offering lip-service because the issue of the center has been revived recently (on here). Just like they did with State Rd. Shopping Center. Until Mayor Robart took action against that dump.
Elyse
12:12 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I don't think neighboring city voices should be ignored. What happens in Stow can travel to our neighboring cities. And whatever one person chooses to do on their property may greatly affect their neighbor's property. Our neighboring cities have said "no"- Hudson, Kent, Shallersville. One woman who had a Kent mailing address paid Stow taxes, so she has every right to be heard. Though I understand why residents feel as you do towards out-of-town guests speaking against something such as drilling: it seems as if it shouldn't be of concern to them.
I am a Stow resident, I did address council. I have been researching fracking for over a year now and things just don't add up. The Stow well is a conventional well (i.e. not as controversial as drilling such as horizontal hydraulic slick-water fracturing). However, once those mineral rights are leased to the company they are permitted to access them by whatever means necessary. And once the lease is complete the city really has no say what the driller does: then it's up to the state. That's one of my bigger issues with it: the loss of local control.
I go to neighboring meetings and share information I have found, utilizing a lot of peer-reviewed scientific research. There are people who come out who want to share their experience with neighboring communities because they don't want the same things to happen to them. This is not a partisan issue: it's an economic, environmental, and human rights issue.
I.M. Wright
12:45 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Elyse,
I did not say "neighboring" cities. I simply addressed THE FACT that people do drive from all over to spew the same lines they do everywhere else. So, if you can't respond w/o putting words in people's mouths, then, to quote the great philosopher Archie Bunker: "stifle it!"
That's great that YOU addressed council based on research YOU did. But it's fact that these groups simply throw whatever they can up against the wall to see what sticks that is NOT based in fact.
Elyse
8:49 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I.M. Wright,
My intentions were not to put words in your mouth. I was merely commenting on your quote of Mr. Rasor and including myself as one of those people who travel city-to-city: this just happens to be the city in which I reside. People don't travel and say things because we don't have better things to do, it's because other organizing residents need support and some people have experienced drilling first hand and wouldn't wish it on their worst enemies.
It's not like you can put a bubble around any of these cities or states. Our air moves, it travels. The amount of water drilling utilizes is of great concern. Isn't informing other citizens part of our historical democratic practice? At the end of the day we all call the same state and same country home. And I've worked with a lot of these groups and their stance is based on facts and experience.
rob west
10:41 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
...and i thought Jesus turned WATER into wine. not profit from brine. they better pray real hard that fracking stay away!