What happened at Thursday's City Council meeting

Last night, we did something unusual. We held both our committee meetings and our council meeting on the same night. My notes from those meetings are below:

SMOKE DETECTOR LEGISLATION — I was surprised to see the amount of residents who came to the meeting to oppose the legislation that requires residences to have operational smoke detectors. Up until last year, this was the law. When we improved our building code, we accidentally removed the ordinance. Last night, we sought to replace it.

Folks were concerned that the city would be entering homes and inspecting for smoke detectors. Nothing in the legislation stated that. Nevertheless, I drafted an amendment that makes it clear: “Nothing contained in this Section 1509.09 will give the city the right to enter a premises.” I also added an amendment to reduce the penalty from a first-degree misdemeanor (far too harsh) to a minor misdemeanor.

I want to clarify something, as well…. I got several calls from people asking why I proposed the legislation. I didn’t. The legislation came from the Roads & Safety Committee. I serve as chairman of that committee. On the top of the legislation, therefore, it states “INTRODUCED BY RASOR.” In the future, please note: the person who “introduces” the legislation is not usually the person who proposed it, drafted it, sponsored it, or supports it. It only denotes the chairman of the committee from which the legislation arose.

The legislation was voted out of committee, but I asked for it to be only given a reading. I plan to bring it for a vote on May 23.

SERVICE DEPARTMENT SHAKE-UP — Nick Wren is now our service director, and his department is going through a necessary shake-up in order to reduce management and increase the number of boots on the ground. The new organizational chart will not include an Assistant Service Director. Rather, both Marc Anderson and Don Brooker will be Deputy Service Directors. The savings will allow us to hire another laborer.

When I joined council in 2010, the city’s operations were far too top-heavy (i.e., more management than what’s necessary). In the past few years, we have made great strides to rectify much of that.

INCOME TAX HIKE — The mayor’s income tax hike came before Committee of the Whole, and it stirred some good debate. City council will need to approve the measure before it can be placed on the ballot.

I view city council’s role in this way: We are the guardians to make sure the ballot language is clear and fair. We also must protect against loopholes.

And this proposal has a giant, gaping loophole that threatens to completely undermine the voters’ intent.

This is somewhat complicated, so I will explain it as clearly as I am able…

The city will spend about $5.7 million on its police department in 2013. The income tax levy proposes to raise about an additional $1.7 million. That $1.7 million, by law, will be required to be spent on police.

So you’re probably thinking: If the levy passes, then the police department will have about $7.4 million in 2015. Not quite.

Unlike the tax levy revenue, which is legally tied to police, there is no legal requirement that the city has to continue providing the initial $5.7 million in funding. It would be perfectly legal for Mayor Drew to cut that down to $4.0 million (or, really, anywhere under $5.7 million). And then the 2015 police spending could be far less than the projected $7.4 million.

That could give the mayor an additional $1.7 million to use elsewhere in the city — not necessarily on the police.

We have seen no budget for how the $1.7 million will be spent. We do know, however, that it costs only $675,000 to hire nine police officers, and yet the tax will raise $1 million in excess of that. You can see why I’m on guard — that $1 million has to go somewhere!

I will only vote to put this on the ballot if this loophole is closed. On the whole, I am OK with allowing the voters to decide whether they want to pay more money for more police. As I have been saying since 2009, we could DEFINITELY use more police.

(Another thing should be made clear to voters: There is no guarantee that a single police officer will be stationed in an elementary school. This is a police levy, not a school safety levy.)

ROADS TOUR — I scheduled the first meeting in three years that will take place outside of city council chambers. In fact, it won’t take place indoors at all.

The Roads and Safety Committee will meet on a bus at 6:15 p.m. on May 20. The bus tour will visit the worst-maintained streets in Stow.

Why am I doing this? Because I want my fellow councilmembers to see, first-hand, the deplorable conditions of some of our neighborhood roads. We need to repair them, and fast. If you delay (and Stow has), the repairs only become more and more costly.

I’m also inviting the public to join the bus tour. There are about 20 open seats. Please e-mail Helen Preebe (hpreebe@stow.oh.us) to reserve a spot. It will be first-come, first-served. Our clerk will keep minutes from the meeting, and you’re welcome to follow the bus in your own vehicle. The meeting will be called to order inside of city council chambers, and then leave from there.

The other committees will meet that night, beginning at 5:30 p.m.