FINDLAY, OH – Findlay City Council ended the year by passing legislation largely opposed by vocal residents. The agenda included Mayor Muryn’s request for $1.5 million to begin design on a city park that could cost up to $40 million. Muryn continued disputing the $40 million cost, suggesting they will not know the cost until they design the park.

According to Muryn, the $1.5 million is a partial payment to Strand and Associates. The total cost for design is estimated at $4 million, which is based on 10% of the estimated total cost to build the park. Muryn has suggested that the cost of the park will be supplemented with grants and the residents will not bear the total cost. Several residents have spoken at recent council meetings, reminding the Findlay administration that grants are also taxpayer money. 

Resident Haydee Sadler spoke before council regarding the downtown park and immigrants in Findlay. Sadler said that since the Mayor plans to use grants that she referred to as a “pot of money,” she wanted to remind council that “we do not live at the end of the rainbow, and these are, in fact, taxpayer dollars.”

Sadler further asked for clarification on the immigrant population in Findlay. Sadler recalled that the Findlay police chief had suggested that some of the immigrants do not have proper paperwork and wanted to know if they are considered illegal. Sadler recollected speaking with a local immigrant family who was sending money to “bosses” and “coyotes.” Neither the administration nor council commented on Sadler’s questions. 

The Findlay Downtown Recreation area has been plagued with delays due to necessary soil testing. The land slated to be the park is made of parcels previously owned by Hancock County. Mayor Muryn insists that the city and county will work together to remediate any soil issues but insists this can be done while also beginning to fund the design plan for the park. Auditor Staschiak and Councilwoman Holly Frische have both cautioned council about moving forward with the park design while the remediation costs are still unknown. According to Frische, planning a park where children will play without knowing the extent of the toxic soil is “putting the cart before the horse.” Some chemicals found in the soil are known to cause cancer.

Findlay resident Robin Welly addressed city council for a second time regarding the need for sanitary sewers in the West Park neighborhood. Welly approached council members and asked for a moratorium on building in the West Park area until all residents are tapped into city sanitary sewers. Welly named several costly city projects, including the Downtown Recreation Area, where funding would be better used to install sewers in her neighborhood. City Engineer Jeremy Kalb told Welly that the city is investigating the infrastructure needed to complete sanitary sewers in West Park. 

Welly told council that she has spoken to councilmen who showed interest in moratorium legislation. Councilman Bauman and Councilman Greeno both commented that they had spoken with Welly but promised no legislation. Bauman is the council representative for the West Park area.

Welly wants the city to recognize the urgency of installing sanitary sewers because Welly has seen raw sewage in catch basins near her home. Muryn responded that the city has checked for sewage and has not witnessed any raw sewage. Welly offered to bring samples. Council President Harrington discouraged her from bringing raw sewage to a council meeting. 

Councilwoman Frische requested the matter be discussed in the Water and Sewer Committee. The request was seconded and scheduled. 

At council’s meeting, a large collection of changes to the Findlay Zoning Code were presented for a third reading. The changes were recommended by the Hancock Regional Planning Commission. The changes include rules about commercial business signage, zoning districts, as well as changes to residential property building requirements. 

Councilwoman Frische questioned HRPC director Matt Cordonnier about the rush to pass these changes. She gave several examples of instances where these changes could hinder small businesses. Cordonnier answered that most of the changes were already in the code but relocated to a different section. Frische cited codes that were, in fact, new. Frische further noted that in the past, “the city zoning code is not Hancock Regional Planning’s baby.” Changes were previously made one item at a time by council. Frische disagreed with pushing the large volume of regulations through without more public discussion. Councilman Grant Russell complimented Cordonnier for all the work done on this “big tweak.”

Also on the agenda were items relating to the city insurance policies. Councilman Russell had extensive questions for Auditor Staschiak regarding the limits on the policies. Conversation continued extensively with Frische making a motion to end discussion and call the question. With no second, the conversation continued. Council President Harrington did not use council’s “filibuster rule” to end the conversation’s nor did it appear that he timed the conversations as had been the case when Frische has had numerous questions about legislation. . 

In old business, Councilwoman Frische asked for an explanation of charges for printing and office space at a local private law firm. Frische had questioned Law Director, Don Rasmussen, about the charges at the city budget hearing. According to budget documents, the assistant city prosecutors use the law firm property and a reimbursement is issued by the city for their use of the office space. Frische asked for a lease agreement since reimbursement is being made directly to Rasmussen. Rasmussen denies any current affiliation with the law firm. Frische requested the auditor’s office provide more information for transparency purposes. 

In new business, Councilwoman Frische requested a legal opinion about the legality of Councilman Bauman’s position on city council since he also works in Congressman Bob Latta’s office. Frische cited the Hatch Act:

“​The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of individuals principally employed by state, District of Columbia, or local executive agencies and who work in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by federal loans or grants. Usually, employment with a state, D.C., or local agency constitutes the principal employment of the employee in question. However, when an employee holds two or more jobs, principal employment is generally deemed to be that job which accounts for the most work time and the most earned income..​​“ (https://osc.gov/Services/Pages/HatchAct-StateLocal.aspx)

Bauman became visibly upset and stated that his position on council was legal as checked by the State ethics department. Frische asked Bauman to provide that information to the law director’s office. Bauman quipped to Frische that he “does not take advice from Ward 1.” The Law Director did not offer an opinion. 

Findlay City Council meets the first and third Tuesday of each month at 6:00pm. Meetings will resume in January 2024.