What Happened at Thursday's City Council Meeting (April 26, 2012)
It was sort of a quiet week for legislation on Stow City Council. My notes from this week are posted below...
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.
paz
7:37 am on Saturday, April 28, 2012
Typical government, we can't do what the community originally intended, At least Mr. Lowdermilk is willing to do what is right. Why should the taxpayers insure people who build or buy in a FLOOD PLAIN? That is why bamks require FLOOD insurance in these areas.
Brian Lowdermilk
8:08 pm on Saturday, April 28, 2012
T
Brian Lowdermilk
8:12 pm on Saturday, April 28, 2012
I would just like to clarify what was in the storm water amendment that was proposed and voted down 6-1.
First, it could be used for any storm water issue not just new projects, as long as the main purpose was for storm water.
Second, it made sure the money was used for its intended purpose and not siphoned off for road projects and other uses as has happened in the past and could happen with the original proposal.
Third, the amendment would have insured that we could address any storm water issue not just those in a flood plain or on public land. After all, every household pays for this fund not just those where flooding is a constant issue.
I would encourage any resident to read the meeting minutes from 2004 and look at all the items this money has been spent on in the last 8 years and decide for yourself if it was used wisely and as intended.
In my opinion, the current proposal allows the administration to hide the true cost of operating the city making it more difficult to address budget issues.
We as council members representing the residents need to make sure this does not become just another tax with little control over where it goes!
Jack Kelly
10:39 am on Sunday, April 29, 2012
Speaking of storm water, does anyone know the current status of the county looking to propose a storm water fee on sewer bills (like NEORSD did for their users) -- although we've been paying a fee specifically for that for years?
I can't remember if the city has taken a stance on that or not.
Amanda Harnocz
11:56 am on Sunday, April 29, 2012
Thank you Brian for adding your comments to this blog post. If you (OR ANYWAY) is also interested in blogging, click here: http://stow.patch.com/blog/apply