Ben Kessler's Council Minutes

The Bexley Alternative Revenue Task Force

2012-01-25T11:54:00.000-08:00

Last night Bexley Council passed a resolution authorizing the creation of the Bexley Alternative Revenue Task Force. This article from ThisWeek News does a good job of synopsizing the rationale behind the creation of the task force:
http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/bexley/news/2012/01/18/madison-to-lead-new-city-task-force.html

Simply put, the intent behind creating this group is to find new, innovative ideas for improving Bexley's revenue equation. If you'd like to become involved with this effort send me an email at bkessler@bexley.org or contact Tim Madison at the contact information provided in the ThisWeek article.

January 17th Public Transparency presentation

2012-01-16T13:29:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the late notice folks - tomorrow night (January 17th) at 6:30 at Bexley City Hall a representative from Granicus will be presenting on Granicus' public transparency / video streaming solution for public meetings. If this is something that interests you, you are welcome to attend and learn about an exciting prospect for increasing the accessibility of Bexley's government process.

More info on this solution at the Granicus website.

Is PILOT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) A Good Idea for Bexley?

2011-11-01T17:45:00.000-07:00

The anti-Issue 24 campaign is in full swing, and with it has come a storm of confusion, misconception, and just plain false information regarding the context, scope, and future of Bexley's financial crisis. However, every cloud has its silver lining, and one of the positive results of any dialogue of this sort in the community is the way that it causes us all to explore new ideas and possibilities.

The main revenue idea being proposed by opponents of Issue 24 is the concept of PILOT - or Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Specifically, they point to the Pittsburgh and Providence models, where colleges and universities are assessed a special fee for each enrolled student. PILOT is essentially a tax on students. In Pittsburgh and Providence, it ranges from around $200 to $300 per year per student. If we implemented it in Bexley at one of the higher rates, it would raise around $800,000. Here are some fairly important points to consider when thinking about PILOT:

When we talk PILOT, due to its scale we are really talking Capital - all of the other schools and religious organizations are small in comparison. Capital University is the city's largest payroll base - they are substantial contributors to our income tax base. So from the city's perspective, they are a contributing, tax-paying entity. Capital is very important to the city as an employer. If we implemented a municipal PILOT concept, we would be the first in Ohio to do so (as far as I can glean), and we would severely compromise our relationship with Capital and our other non-profit entities. CSG, Capital, St Charles - all are very important to the city, and their location in Bexley is part of what helps our community thrive. We need to be incredibly sensitive to how this sort of a concept would negatively impact our cultural/educational wealth.
While PILOT is something to think about and consider, it only makes up for at most 1/3 of the state cuts.
PILOT has been implemented in communities in States where local entities have lower local income tax rates or no local income tax at all - places where universities' tax profiles are quite different than Capital in the context of Bexley. With Capital and our schools, this is not the case. This is why PILOT is not really a common concept in Ohio, except for with school districts where PILOT seems to exist in some specific circumstances in order to offset property tax losses.

I think we should explore PILOT. And if after digging deep into its implications for our community we feel that it's a good idea, we should use income generated by it or other non-traditional revenue options as an opportunity to stabilize our budget beyond the current 5-year projections. The city will be in a tight spot financially even if Issue 24 passes, and any new revenue ideas will need to be seriously considered and implemented as appropriate. Keep in mind the city has already carved $1.7 million in savings from its budget leading up to and as part of the remedy for the state budget cuts ($800k a year prior to the state cuts, plus $930k per year in conjunction with Issue 24) - Issue 24 is not going to replace these cuts - it is simply avoiding the necessity for further cuts. So any revenue able to be raised to help the city begin to recover will be needed and very helpful.

Creative, alternative revenue ideas are constantly being considered and talked about at city hall, and among the many Bexley residents who give so much to the city on a daily basis. It's good to come up with and bounce around new ideas, and it's important that we do so. And while ideas come easily with as diversely talented a resident base as we have, it's much harder to find realistic, sustainable, and sufficient sources of non-traditional revenue for Bexley. We can't afford to not be creative, but we also shouldn't be fooled by those who are in denial of the fact that the city has lost 25% of its income, is already stretched to begin with, and needs budget stability today to a degree that will require substantially more revenue than the sum of any of the non-traditional ideas that are currently being considered.

I believe that Issue 24 is what Bexley needs today. If you're still on the fence, I encourage you to visit the campaign's website at www.bexleyissue24.com, where they've compiled very thorough and accurate information about the city of Bexley's budget situation and the implications of passing - or failing to pass - Issue 24.

Bexley's Issue 25: Retain the Bexley Auditor Position

2011-10-28T12:26:00.000-07:00

With all of the energy being expounded on the passage of Bexley's Issue 24, it's easy to forget that there are four other issues on the ballot specific to Bexley. These issues are all tied to the work of Bexley's Charter Review Commission. The Charter Review Commission is formed about once a decade to review Bexley's city charter and to recommend changes to be placed on the ballot. This group did a great job - they were hard working, meeting something like every Monday for months on end, and they were very thorough in their research and thought process. While I voted for all of their recommendations to be placed on the ballot for consideration by Bexley voters, I do disagree with their recommendation to replace the Auditor position with an appointed Finance Director position. Here's an exposition of my stance, from a letter to the editor I just submitted:

"On November 8th, Bexley residents will be asked to weigh in on the value of having an elected, independent city Auditor. I am writing to express my support for the office of Auditor in the City of Bexley. I believe that the Auditor's office has an important role to play as an independent, third-party participant in Bexley government.

As chair of council's finance committee I have taken comfort in the knowledge that the Auditor is a resource for financial information and advice that I can rely upon to be independent and unmoved by inappropriate outside pressures, whether they be from council, the administration, or elsewhere.

No system is without its downsides, and I understand that the recommendations provided by the hard-working members of the charter review commission (all of whom I appreciate and respect greatly) are intended to solve some legitimate problems in the way that the city conducts its finance function. Nonetheless, as a council member I value and rely upon the independence an Auditor provides, and I appreciate the productive tension that results from a system that is constantly being well-honed by proper checks and balances.

I highly encourage residents to become familiar with this issue, and to uphold the office of Bexley's Auditor on November 8th."

The Question of Historic Preservation in Bexley

2011-10-03T08:43:00.000-07:00

Undoubtedly you have seen the yard signs popping up around the city over the past couple of months - "Say No To Demo". The signs are advocating for the denial of a demolition permit at a home at 2325 Bryden Road. The permit was denied by the Bexley BZA/ARB, successfully appealed to City Council, and now the Council decision has been appealed to Franklin County by a group of residents who have united to advocate against the demolition of the Bryden Road House. The same residents are, I believe, behind a Facebook page which has recently been created in protest of the possible demolition.

I'd like to provide as much insight as I can into the issue, the concerns being raised about the process, and where to go from here. I need to stress that this is one council member's opinion. My views don't necessarily reflect those of other council members or the administration, etc, etc. - you get the idea.

First off, I think it's great that there are residents taking interest in Bexley's laws governing preservation. The laws are important - they dictate how the community will be shaped over the decades and centuries to come. We need to get this stuff right - we can't afford to allow our unique community to lose all of the inherent assets that make it special, just as we can't afford to allow the community to simply stay the same and never change.

However, I think the Facebook page puts out some misleading information, especially about the city's process and the motivation of city leadership. And I don't blame them. Quite frankly, in my opinion, the city has done a poor job of explaining the thought process of council, the administration, and the city attorney in the way they handled the hearing in the first place. I include myself in this blanket statement. As a council member who is usually quick (maybe too quick?) to communicate my thoughts on an issue, I have been fairly silent on this one to date. This issue has presented a unique communication challenge; initially council members were issued a gag order from the city attorney regarding discussing the matter, and since then I've been unsure as to how best communicate, particularly given the rather litigious rhetoric coming from parties on both sides of this issue. I'm still not sure that my sharing my thoughts isn't just going to create more conflict, but I think as an elected representative it's important that I make my position as clear on this as possible. So here goes...

Respecting the BZA
One allegation I've heard from opponents of the council decision is that we acted in a way that disregarded and/or disrespected the BZA decision.

I very much respect all of the members of the BZA. They are incredibly competent, talented, and judicious professionals and members of our community. I have the utmost respect for them as individuals, professionals, and community leaders. While I did not agree with some of them on this issue, I certainly respect them on this issue, and I feel that I understand and value their perspective. There will be disagreements on issues in any community among leadership, and to suggest that disagreement is equivalent to disrespect censors productive conversation and substantive disagreement. Indeed, it would be disingenuous to offer an appeals process if there is never any intent to have city council critically assess an issue. I agree with the vast majority of BZA decisions - and they make many each time they convene as a board. I happen to disagree with this one, but that does not mean that I disrespect, disregard, or otherwise find them in any way lacking. To the contrary, I am supremely thankful for the expertise and insight that they bring to our city process.

Why a de novo hearing?
There has been a lot of talk about the de novo nature of the hearing - suggestions that this was an inappropriate standard of review for us to engage in. I'm not an attorney, but I can speak to my experience of appeal hearings before council, and what I've learned from talking to other council members and to attorneys. In my experience, appeals that have been heard by City Council have all been de novo, although we've never called it that. I asked other council members if they've ever heard an appeal based on an arbitrary/capricious standard of review, and none could recall having done that. So, to the best of my knowledge, de novo has historically been the standard of review for appeals to council. Nonetheless, council members were provided with a package of the BZA minutes and the appelant's supporting documentation. I read through them thoroughly, spoke with many of the BZA members in advance, at length, regarding their perspective, and walked through the house. So while we did not hear this based solely on whether or not the BZA had acted arbitrarily and/or capriciously, we also did not come into this process ignorant of the history and background of what had preceded our hearing. From my perspective, with all that went into this decision on my part, this was not a quick and summary decision that diminished or made light of the process that proceeded it.

2325 Bryden Road

Why did you adjourn into closed deliberations?
As an appellate body, city council was functioning in a quasi-judicial fashion. Our city attorney instructed us that adjournment for deliberation was advisable in this context. As a council member, I rely on the legal advice and instruction of our city attorney. Any questions regarding this element of the process need to be directed to our city attorney. I don't mean to be short with this answer, or evasive - it's just that I'm not an attorney, and I have no basis from which to argue for or against the need for us to proceed the way we did.

Why did you hold this hearing in council chambers, without enough space?
We've had many experiences with contentious issues in my time on council, but none of them have overflowed into the hallway the way this one did. It's my understanding that the BZA hearings, which were also contentious and actively participated in, also did not overflow into the halls. In the days leading up to the hearing, based on the sheer volume of emails and calls we all received from residents on both sides of this issue, it became more apparent that this issue had grown since the BZA hearings and was capturing the attention of residents beyond the initial hearings. We are bound to provide public notice in advance of hearings along with location information (I think the law is 7 days advance notice as to time and location). Public notice had already been provided that this would be heard at council chambers, so switching to an alternate site was not an option. Even with all of the energy around the issue, I was personally very surprised at the turnout. We've had other big issues with similar volumes of correspondence, but without the same turnout. I think the level of participation by proponents and opponents speaks to how truly passionate and engaged residents are on this issue. We have many things to learn from this experience, and one of them is that we need a better solution for instances that result in larger turnout than expected. I can't speak on behalf of the entire city government, but I am personally sorry that our council chambers provided a difficult and uncomfortable environment for the hearing. For our reading of the actual council decision several weeks after the hearing, we had council chambers cleared of the conference table, additional seating brought in, and a speaker added to the hallway in the event of high turnout. It turned out to be much more than was needed, but I think this experience teaches us that having this sort of accommodation as an option is something that we need to do.

The Big Picture: Why Did You Overturn the BZA?
I think the main challenge surrounding this issue is that Bexley doesn't really have a comprehensive preservation law (our zoning code can be downloaded here - the relevant section is Chapter 1223). What we do have is an ordinance that was mostly written to prohibit people from tearing down a house just to expand their lot; this was in response to a wave of this sort of activity throughout the 1990's and early 2000's. However, while it addresses certain aspects of demolition, it does not holistically address preservation. True preservation laws are much more encompassing and specific. The lack of greater specificity in our code is, I believe, one of the reasons this issue has become so contentious.

The concept of neighborhood fabric and neighborhood context has been broached frequently by opponents of the Bryden Road demolition. However, neighborhood fabric and/or context are not benchmarks referred to in our city ordinance. I think more than a dozen demolition permits have been issued since the demolition law was enacted in 2003, and arguably all of those houses also contributed to “neighborhood fabric”. I am not saying that neighborhood fabric isn’t important and good and worthy of preservation – but I am suggesting that our law was not written, nor was it intended, to prohibit demolition on the basis of neighborhood fabric or context. It was not written that way, based on the recollection of those who wrote the law it was not intended that way, and it has not functioned that way in the past. This would be the first time our law was interpreted that way, and it would be inconsistent with past decisions.

Even beyond this question, our law provides substantial accommodation for applicants who wish to demolish their home on the basis of "financial hardship". The property owner had expert witnesses testify to the nature and extent of their financial hardship. While the expert witnesses' numbers are certainly able to be critiqued, there was no alternative evidence to suggest they were wrong. Again - if you believe this standard is unfair, then the law needs to be addressed - not this one application. I was attempting to honestly and openly view this application based upon my best effort at an unbiased interpretation of our law.

All this to say - if we don’t want property owners to have the power they currently do to demolish their homes (within the limits of the ordinance), then we should revisit the law and modify it appropriately. We should explore further the concept of neighborhood fabric, or neighborhood context, or patina, or whatever standard(s) we want to address, and make sure that we have definitions that can be easily understood and universally applied.

Moving Forward
There are many people in Bexley on both sides of this issue that are up in arms. It’s discouraging to see. A positive and productive conversation is due regarding how we handle historical preservation issues in the City of Bexley.

Earlier this year, prior to this issue even coming up for consideration by the BZA, I brought up the idea to the Bexley Historical Society of creating a Bexley registry of historic homes. I was more focused on civic pride aspects of a registry like this, but a registry could also help to establish a community metric for homes that are "worthy of preservation". The fabric and context of our neighborhoods should be protected and preserved. I am 100% in favor of continuing a discussion about our demolition law and how it can be reformed into a more meaningful historic preservation law.

And I believe that we can have this conversation in a productive and positive way, that edifies the community and brings us closer together instead of dividing us. In a recent letter to the editor, I wrote the following:

“It is deeply regretful that the recent hearing regarding the Bryden Road demolition has caused a rift among city leadership. Regretful because all of the members of all of our boards and of city council have one very unifying motivation in common: we are all, at our very core, 100 percent committed to the prosperity of Bexley.
While we do not always agree on the best way to protect, preserve, and enhance the city of Bexley, we are all driven to do just that.I've been thinking a lot about how we can prevent an issue like this from dividing city leadership in the future. The answer is certainly not to seek greater homogeneity among council and board members. And it's naive to think that there won't be divergence in the future as we continue to work for the good of the city. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a close look at the language and intent of our city code in order to ensure that the law is perfectly clear on controversial issues such as this one.
I think we owe it to everyone to make sure that we learn from what happened, and honestly work toward the betterment of the system and, by extension, the betterment of the city and its residents.”

This is true. Let's move forward together, and as a unified community lets work on finding a better balance and common ground from which to approach historic preservation issues.

Postscript: This is a big issue. I will respond in the comments section if you want greater clarification on any of these items, or on something I haven't addressed. I only ask that comments be kept respectful, and that we all approach each others perspectives civilly, and with an open mind. Thank you!

$930,000 in Bexley budget reductions announced

2011-09-27T20:13:00.000-07:00

Tonight the mayor announced $930,000 in budget reductions in order to, in conjunction with the Issue 24 0.5% income tax increase, balance the budget over the projected five year period from 2012 through 2016.

It has been difficult to communicate to residents that, even as we're going to the ballot for this tax increase, we still need to eliminate a substantial chunk of expenditures from our city budget. Plain and simple, this is due to the sheer size and scope of the reductions that have been handed to us by the State of Ohio budget and its reduction of the local government fund and elimination of the estate tax (for more on this entire issue, read this blog entry). The changes passed down by the State budget equate to approximately 25% of our city budget, when you factor in the average funds actually received from the estate tax in years past. The process of identifying possible cuts and working with the administration to help move forward with an actionable plan has been taking up a lot of my time and energy - which explains why this blog has become so focused on this one issue. It is easily the greatest financial challenge faced by any Bexley governmental entity in several decades, if not in the history of our community.

Some of the cuts outlined in the press release are vague. That's a fair criticism, and it's immediately apparent. However, the vagueness of the reductions is due to the fact that some of these line items are sensitive from a negotiation standpoint, as they will require the compliance of collective bargaining units. Other cuts are time-sensitive, and cannot be enacted until just the right time. All of the proposed cuts are planned to be phased in over the next year, with most enacted by the start of the new city budget on January 1, 2012. All of these items represent tangible, realistic numbers, and they have been carefully selected to balance the inevitable need for expense reductions with the need to retain as many city services as possible.

Here's the text from the city's press release:

September 27, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

"City of Bexley Leadership Commits toMore Than $930,000 in Annual Expense Reductions in Order to Balance the CityBudget

TheCity of Bexley is projected to lose approximately 25% of its general fundrevenue as a direct result of the passage of the 2011-2012 State of Ohio budgetand its 50% reduction in the Local Government Fund and elimination of the OhioEstate Tax.

Thecity is seeking to increase the income tax rate to 2.5% via Issue 24, whichwill be put before Bexley voters this November. Issue 24 will help to offset the severe impact of the Ohio budget cutsand policy changes. In public meetingsthroughout the spring and summer of 2011, city leadership acknowledged that theincome tax increase alone would not fill the budget gap, and committed to thevoters that the budget would be balanced in part via carefully targeted expensereductions that would minimally impact the quality and scope of vital cityservices such as police and fire protection, street maintenance and repair, andparks and recreation programs.

Newprojections prepared by Bexley City Auditor Gary Qualmann following theelimination of the Estate Tax indicate that, in addition to new revenue fromIssue 24, annual expense reductions of at least $930,000 will need to beinstituted starting in 2012 in order to balance the City budget over the next5-year period from 2012 through 2016.

Past Efforts at Expense Reductions

BexleyMayor John Brennan and Bexley City Council have made strides in reducingexpenditures in key areas over the past several years. Several director positions have beeneliminated, director salaries have been reduced in many instances, and staffreductions in the Service and Parks and Recreation departments have occurred. Additionally, a steep reduction in consultingfees and the restructuring of the city’s health insurance plan allowed forfurther cost savings. All of thesetogether add up to an estimated $800,000 per year in savings, with anadditional approximately $2,000,000 in grant monies received to help with thecity’s financial situation. However,these savings have been offset by substantial increases in the fire contractwith the City of Columbus, by ongoing employment contracts, and by an increasein debt service due to the construction of the city pool and policestation.

Additional Expense Reductions MovingForward

Inorder to achieve our goal of a balanced budget over the next 5-year period, theCity of Bexley has identified at least $930,000 in additional expensereductions. These targeted expensereductions have begun, and the complete package of reductions will be phased invia the 2012 budget.

TheCity of Bexley has eliminated 3 full-time positions in the service departmentthat will not be replaced.

Additionally,the city will be reducing the transfer from the general fund budget to therecreation fund budget by $60,000 per year. Parks and Recreation will offset this loss in the form of expensereductions and a focus on more self-sufficient programming opportunities.

Furthercuts will be made to multiple departmental budgets. These will include a restructuring of thecity’s landscaping contract and the elimination of several programs and grants,including the elimination of the Main Street and North Cassady façade grantprogram.

Thecity will also be reviewing increasing fees on building permits and othermiscellaneous fees in order to raise additional revenue.

Theremainder of the savings will be made in the form of further staffing cuts and employeebenefit and compensation reductions. Wehave identified additional full-timepositions that will not be filled or will be restructured following employeesretiring in 2011 and 2012. While thecity cannot accurately predict the exact outcome of negotiations with employeebargaining units, every effort will be made to preserve adequate, market-levelbenefits for employees, and to continue to provide a level of compensation thatmakes Bexley a desirable working environment for quality employees.

Theannounced cuts are synopsized in the following table.

2011 Budget Cuts Proposal*

Item:		Total Savings
Landscape contract restructuring		$50,000
Decrease in Recreation expenses		$60,000
3 service worker positions		$200,000
Development program cuts		$20,000
Additional staff cuts and employee benefit reductions		$604,000

Total Savings:		$934,000
* Figures provided represent approximate savings

Itis important to note that this is a starting point for dialogue with City Council. While most of these items have been discussedwith council, further discussion is necessary, and this proposal will besubject to the approval and cooperation of council in some cases, as well assuccessful negotiation of collective bargaining agreements.

Itis our belief that we can institute these budget changes while maintaining a robustlevel of quality city services for our residents. While none of the changes we are goingthrough are easy, extraordinary changes to State funding and State policy,coupled with difficult economic times, demand that we do no less."

Save This City: Why The Bexley Income Tax Issue Really Matters

2011-09-01T06:26:00.000-07:00

There's been a lot of talk around Bexley about the proposed income tax increase from 2.0% to 2.5%. I've heard perspectives on the issue from all across the spectrum, ranging from unquestionable support to unbending rejection. The most common criticism I hear is that the city hasn't cut enough of its expenses - that, just like you or I would, the city should sit down and figure out how to live within its means. I think it's important to understand the history of Bexley's efforts to cut costs over the past several years, as well as just how gravely the city is going to be affected by State of Ohio budget cuts.

Honing the Budget
Over the past four years the city of Bexley has cut out of its payroll the IT Director position, the Building Department director position, one recreation supervisor position, and multiple service positions. We have trimmed material costs. We have done this in order to offset the cost of a badly needed police station facility, and in order to offset the hyper-inflation in our health insurance and fire contracts, among others. Every budget season, a tremendous amount of time is spent scrutinizing every expense and cost engineering departmental budgets. All to say, prior to the State of Ohio budget cuts and policy changes the city has been actively trimming expenses and personnel in order to avoid going to the ballot for additional funding.

The Impact of the State of Ohio Budget Cuts and Policy Changes
In the late spring and early summer of 2011, the Ohio governor released his proposed 2011-2013 biennial budget. The budget contained large cuts to the local government fund. While this was worrisome, it was of far less concern to Bexley than the loss of the estate tax. The estate tax has helped us (and other first-ring suburbs) offset our inability to compete when it comes to payroll tax generation, due to our limited commercial land base. As the state budget debate continued, the elimination of the estate tax was added in as a provision of the budget, and despite Bexley's and other similar communities' combined efforts to fight for a compromise that would allow the city to have a viable means of raising municipal income, the budget passed and was signed into law, cutting 50% from the local government fund and eliminating the estate tax.

There is no less dramatic way to put it -the state budget cuts that were just passed down are going to deal a devastating blow to Bexley's city finances. This isn't a question of how to best spend tax dollars for this or that pet program or possible construction project, or what improvements we want to make over the next 10 or 20 years. This is a question of whether we are going to be able to continue to provide the same basic level of police protection and continue to plow our streets when it snows. I'm not grandstanding or making excuses. I hate the idea of a new tax, but the state just eliminated over 20% of our income capacity. Actually, when you take Bexley's trailing seven year average of the estate tax of $2.24 million and add in the loss of the local government funds, the state budget cuts and policy changes approximate a 25% loss of revenue. That sort of a loss is staggering to a budget like ours - a budget which is fairly trim to begin with, given our lack of lucrative payroll tax. Many years of learning to live within limited means (relative to most other central Ohio suburbs) means that we are entering this budget crisis with very little fat to trim in these lean times.

The income tax issue is only partially filling a gaping hole that presents an immediate threat to basic city services - city services that we rely on and depend on and that keep our community safe and allow it to be the amazing community that we all love and enjoy. And it's important to know that the income tax we're voting on in November isn't filling the entire gap. Since the public meetings this past Spring where council discussed various options with the community, the State of Ohio finalized plans to cut the estate tax, and the hill we need to climb is larger and the challenge more daunting. City leadership is currently working on just how much deeper we'll have to cut to balance the budget over the next 5 years (assuming the income tax increase passes!) - and the immediate task at hand is to preserve as many services as possible given the enormous and reckless cuts to our funding model dealt to us by the State of Ohio. This ballot issue is about barebones, brass tacks provisioning for basic city services that are in jeopardy, and will frankly remain in jeopardy even if the new tax passes unless the city adequately cuts more today.

Most ballot issues have campaigns that come up with catchy acronyms, or hook us with a vision of something big-picture and exciting. But what we are fighting to protect here is simple. If I were asked to come up with a campaign slogan it would be this: save this city. Even if the issue passes, we have a tough road ahead and a lot of hard decisions to make. Save this city. We have been assaulted by a 25% loss in income from the state budget and state policy. Without the support of the voters, this loss will have a dramatic negative impact on city services. Save this city!

Let's provide some stability to Bexley's financial footing, and then let's work together to come up with a unified strategic vision for how to best overcome the remaining financial obstacles that will otherwise stand in our way.

I plan on presenting some more information on this blog regarding the Bexley budget and what has been cut in the past and what each department currently provides. Check back for more information to come...

LEARN MORE:

May 24th Public Budget Meeting (this blog)

"New State Budget a Blow to Bexley" (ThisWeek News Bexley)

A Note Regarding a Recent Dispatch Article

2011-07-28T10:32:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday, the Dispatch printed an article regarding the income tax increase going to the Bexley ballot. I was quoted in the article (briefly), and I just received an email regarding the quote, and I wanted to clarify something.

In the article I'm quoted as saying:

"Since the public meeting, we've received essentially no comments at council," Councilman Ben Kessler said. "I've received a couple emails, maybe, from residents."

I did say this - and it is true. However, it is the only thing I am quoted as saying in the article, and the resident who wrote me felt I was being flippant about the issue. I totally understand her perspective, given the context.

Here's the real context: I gave an approximately 15 minute telephone interview. A lot was said regarding the tax issue. One of the questions I was asked was something like "have you received any comments since the public meeting and the online survey?", and the answer I provided to that question is what was quoted.

The hazards of communication are one of the more frustrating aspects of service on council. It's seemingly impossible to adequately convey one's thought process - hence this blog (which is, arguably, in itself inadequate for several reasons). Regardless, it is what it is. If you're one of the two people who reads this (sarcasm?) and you also read that article and thought the same thing as the resident who emailed me, hopefully this explanation is helpful.

Resolution regarding Ohio Estate Tax Elimination

2011-06-15T08:27:00.000-07:00

The following was passed unanimously last night by Bexley City Council:

RESOLUTION NO. 13 - 11

A Resolution In Opposition to the State of Ohio’s

Proposed Elimination of the Ohio Estate Tax

Without Alternative Funding Solutions

WHEREAS, The draft State of Ohio biennial budget calls for the elimination of the State of Ohio estate tax on January 1, 2013; and

WHEREAS, The City of Bexley receives more than 15% of its annual income from the Ohio Estate Tax; and

WHEREAS, The State of Ohio is concurrently making drastic cuts to local government funds, which, in conjunction with the loss of the Estate Tax would reduce revenue to the City of Bexley by more than 25%, a percentage that vastly exceeds the shortfall being experienced by the State of Ohio; and

WHEREAS, Our community is already struggling to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression; and

WHEREAS, Even prior to these cuts, the City of Bexley operates with one of the lower general fund budgets, per capita, in central Ohio; and

WHEREAS, State of Ohio policy changes that result in a loss of income of this magnitude force the City of Bexley to severely cut back on essential city services and/or raise taxes, and are therefore no different than the State of Ohio instituting a tax increase at the local level; and

WHEREAS, State lawmakers are in the process of instituting these extraordinary cuts without providing localities with any meaningful tools to deal with the shortfalls short of cutting services or instituting a tax increase;

NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEXLEY, OHIO:

Section 1. This Council hereby resolves against the elimination of the Ohio Estate Tax as is currently being proposed, wherein no meaningful alternative tools are being provided to assist municipalities in dealing with the income shortfalls that will result from the loss of this revenue source.

Section 2. This council strongly urges State of Ohio lawmakers to adopt one or more of the following actions:
• Maintain the Ohio Estate Tax as it is currently;
• Adjust the Ohio Estate Tax threshold so as to be less likely to impact smaller estates while still providing benefit to communities who rely in part on this revenue source;
• Provide local municipalities who benefit from the Estate Tax, and who, like Bexley, also have smaller commercial property bases and therefore a lower capacity to fund their budgets via payroll taxes, with alternative tools and/or revenue equalization measures to compensate for the loss of this revenue source.

Passed: _________________, 2011

_____________________________
Jeffrey McClelland, President of Council

Attest: ______________________
Clerk of Council

Approved: ________________, 2011

_____________________________
John M. Brennan, Mayor

Bexley's Finance Situation: Next Steps

2011-06-08T06:36:00.000-07:00

Given anticipated changes to the way the state disburses local funding, as well as multiple years of the city's income being relatively flat despite natural inflationary pressures on expenses, our only option is to either make tangible cuts to services or to seek a new revenue channel. With little exception, residents who have come to us on our finance issue have expressed a desire for the city to continue to provide robust police and safety services, and to continue to provide the quality and caliber of services that help to make Bexley a desirable community.

As chair of the Bexley City Council finance committee it is my unfortunate role to stick my neck out and put a proposal on the table to facilitate discussion as we attempt to solve our projected deficit. Last night I proposed that we go to the ballot with a 0.5% income tax increase, bringing our rate to 2.5%. I also proposed that we cut expenses more aggressively than would be necessary to simply balance the budget, in order to gain some ground on our financial standing in the event that the estate tax funding source is lost in 2013. I threw out a target of $1m in cuts, as opposed to the $400,000 in cuts that would be necessary to simply balance the budget in combination with a 0.5% tax increase. It is my belief that with concerted effort the city could obtain this level of cuts without tangibly reducing city services, but I don't dispute that in order to do so we will need a united and determined city government and we will need our employees to come along with us as partners in the effort; while not impossible, the sort of environment needed to realize these savings will be very difficult to obtain. I also asked council to consider the possibility of making this a four year, temporary tax issue, as the final fate of the estate tax as well as the local government fund is still unknown, and it would be prudent in my opinion to be ready to lower the rate if the state-controlled funding model unexpectedly improves.

I put these thoughts on the table as a starting point to council reaching a final decision on how to best proceed, and I'm very open-minded to alternatives. The auditor, for example, favors a slightly tweaked credit model which would be advantageous to the city in the event that other municipalities where our residents work end up raising their tax rates. Some council members voiced opposition to the concept of a temporary tax issue, and the feasibility of making the higher level of cuts that I am proposing was called into question. I understand all of these concerns, and I believe that we will come to a consensus on how to best move forward over the next couple of council meetings.

As far as next steps - I believe that we will be having a first reading of the income tax issue at our next council meeting. As we discuss the nuances and advantages of the income tax credit levels, etc, the ordinance language may be amended prior to final passage of the ordinance. I would anticipate that we will pass the ordinance by the July 12th council meeting.

I believe that part of what makes Bexley the best place to live, work, and raise a family in Ohio is the quality and consistency of our city services, and I value the impact that these services have on my quality of life as a resident. I also know that a very small percentage of my local tax burden goes to the city in the first place. I believe that the city has cut a lot of costs over the past few years and explored all options, and that even as further efficiencies are found in certain areas, the overall paradigm is the same - despite our best efforts we cannot offset the financial burden that is being handed to us by the state, compounded by generally flat income trends, without tangibly impacting the services being provided to residents. To be perfectly clear, this is a voter decision. We are passing an ordinance that will place this issue on the ballot, and ultimately it will be the voters who decide whether this tax issue is appropriate.

Note: To get up to speed on the budget situation as well as some various options for cutting expenses or increasing revenues, download the budget presentation from the city website. Additionally, residents can chime in with their thoughts via an online survey.

City Finances online survey is now available

2011-05-24T08:44:00.001-07:00

To view a draft of tonight's public meeting presentation and to provide feedback via an online survey, click here. For more info, see my previous post regarding the public meeting and the budget presentation.

May 24th Public Meeting regarding Bexley City Finances

2011-05-13T12:24:00.001-07:00

Bexley City Council will be holding a public meeting regarding Bexley's budget shortfall on May 24th at 7:00 pm at the Bexley Public Library.

During the meeting there will be a presentation on:

- Bexley's financial situation - background & current status

- Changes in state funding and their impact on our budget

- A 5-year financial projection for the city's budget

- Options for balancing the projected budget shortfall

A DRAFT version of the budget presentation can be downloaded from the city website by clicking here.

As finance chair, I've been spending a lot of time reviewing our budget situation and working with council, Mayor Brennan, and Auditor Qualmann to present some solutions to the projected shortfall. There are a lot of ways to balance the budget, but finding a way that balances the needs of the residents for quality city services with the desire to maintain as low a tax rate as possible is difficult (that's an understatement).

At the presentation, we will be showing three options for balancing the budget:

Option 1

No Tax Increase
$2,900,000 (approx 26%) in cuts to city budget

Option 2

Increase to a 2.5% income tax rate, with a credit of 75% for residents who have paid local income tax elsewhere
$1,100,000 (approx. 10%) in cuts to city budget

Option 3

Increase to a 2.5% income tax rate, with a credit of 65% for residents who have paid local income tax elsewhere
$400,000 in cuts to the city budget

With each option, we will discuss the practical impact of cuts to the city budget in terms of how it will effect city services: street maintenance, police protection, fire protection, parks and rec, etc.

How Did We Get To This Point?

The past couple of years, and particularly this year, have been a perfect storm for the city's budget. Not only are we two years into negative trending in our city income as a result of the 2008-2010 recession, but we are faced with the prospect of up to 26% in income loss as a result of the Governor's 2011/2012 state budget. Despite several years of spending cuts, we are in a situation where we must either institute drastic cuts that will tangibly and negatively impact city services, or generate new revenue through a tax increase.

Why Can't We Just Cut Out The Waste?

I'm a limited government kind of guy. I spend a lot of time thinking of ways for the city to streamline operations and do more with less. And we've made a lot of headway in recent years - we restructured our health insurance to save 30% over previous costs, we've cut our total number of employees, and we've eliminated wasteful legal and consulting fees that were occupying a big chunk of the budget in past years.

But no matter how optimistic the assumptions, or how creative the thinking, there are no scenarios in which a $2,900,000 cut to the city's budget does not impact the security of our residents or the quality of infrastructure in the city to an unacceptable degree. Simply put, while I wouldn't certify the city to be 100% without fat to trim, there has been a lot of trimming over recent years, and certainly there is nowhere near $2.9m in excess.

But we haven't taken that for granted. We've combed through each departmental budget, and scrutinized each expenditure. And we've been willing to take on some sacred cows, and discuss what impact cuts to the police budget, for example, would entail. Given the depth and scope of our budget problem, I don't believe that any department should go without scrutiny, and that includes the police department. Having said that, I believe that maintaining our safety is of utmost important to our residents, and is the most critical function of our government. Any reductions that would have a substantive negative impact on police service should only be made as a last resort, and would, in my opinion, only be made in the midst of a dire budgetary situation.

Why You Need to Come to the May 24th Public Meeting

City council and the administration have not come to any conclusions on how to best proceed. As part of our discussion of our options, we want to hear from residents regarding what they think is the best solution to our fiscal situation. The feedback we get on a day-to-day basis is diverse, and I wouldn't expect this public forum to be any different. But it is a good chance for us to present the issues in a logical manner, and get some good ideas and feedback from participants at the meeting.

I'm concerned that the worst of our budgetary problems from the state are yet to come, and that we need to cut into our budget more now today, so that we're better positioned for future impacts. I don't want to see us go for the maximum tax or the minimal cuts today, and tomorrow realize that we've been further impacted by the State of Ohio's gradual shifting of the tax burden to local governments. And I've talked to a lot of residents who feel overtaxed and don't have the stomach for the type of increase that is being discussed (in context - even the highest tax increase that is being discussed is lower than the school's property tax levy from last year). And I don't blame them. At this point I'm favoring the lower tax increase - a hybrid solution that requires substantial cuts, but provides some more income to the city to offset the most drastic cuts. But I'd like to hear from you, and I think it's important that other city leaders do, too.

If you can't make it, let me know your thoughts and I'll make sure they're heard at the May 24th public meeting.

If you can't make the meeting, don't worry. In the coming days an online survey will be posted to www.bexley.org to allow residents to provide feedback online.

Public Meeting Tonight re: Proposed Charter Changes

2011-05-04T05:29:00.000-07:00

Tonight at 6:30 pm at council chambers, we will be discussing recommended changes to Bexley's City Charter. These recommendations have been provided by the Charter Review Commission, and council will be discussing them and how to present them as ballot issues for the November 2011 election.

Tonight we will be focusing on the following recommendations:

а) Proposed language for allowing drive-thru food service on Livingston Avenue

b) Орen Meetings - Based on the Sunshine law, development negotiations can be accomplished in Executive Session by the City Council members by creating а seventh category for Economic Development according to Section 223 by Ordinance and making the term "орen meeting" more clear;

с) Employees not allowed to be Elected Officials and the reverse as well;

d) Mayor being out-of-town - correcting the wording to bring it up to speed with the use of сеll phones and technology during а temporary absence outside of Bexley;

е) Temporary replacement of Council- Allowing ordinance for City Council which can bе used to appoint а temporary replacement for а Council member, if needed;

f) Forfeiture of office - Applies to City Council members or anу elected official who:
1. Commits а felony;
2. Moved from the City of Bexley;
3. Is under indictment for а felony.

g) "Removal" language and Suspension language

h) Appeal process to City Council for Tree and Garden Commission decisions.

The other recommendation of the commission - to dispense of the elected office of Auditor - was discussed at a special meeting in April. However, members of the public who wish to comment on this charter change may do so during time which will be allotted for public comments.

The letter from the charter review commission outlining proposed charter changes can be downloaded from Bexley.org here.

Chickens, Piada, and Budgets

2010-11-09T20:10:00.000-08:00

City council has been very busy over the past weeks and months dealing with a whole slew of interesting issues before us. Here's the highlight reel...

Chickens

After receiving a resident complaint regarding a neighbor who was keeping chickens at their residence, council's zoning committee has met to discuss the legality of keeping chickens. Bexley's code is silent on the issue, and to be fair the concept of the urban chicken is an emerging trend - one that wasn't necessarily anticipated in city code. The chicken debate has generated passionate interest, primarily from residents who keep chickens. We have been to "open coops", visiting residents' back yards and meeting their chickens, and we have found ourselves discussing erstwhile absurd topics, such as the % of excrement a chicken typically produces compared to a medium sized dog (much less, apparently). Bexley has a chicken ordinance on the table that would allow a resident to keep chickens, provided they keep a clean coop, keep the chickens in the rear yard, and provided that the chickens count towards a maximum of 5 total cats, dogs, and chickens.

Piada

Piada, a new concept from Columbus restaurateur Chris Doody (of Bravo, Brio, and Lindey's restaurants), is currently working on bringing a restaurant to Bexley at the southeast corner of

Main and Remington, in the former Huntington Bank building right across from Montrose Elementary.

The proposed redevelopment has been fraught with controversy. Contentious issues have included the developer applying for a liquor license across from the school (the restaurant sells bottled beer and 2/3 size bottles of wine), safety concerns regarding pedestrian/child safety with a restaurant use next to the school, and questions as to whether or not Piada's "pick up window" concept qualifies as a "drive-thru", as drive-thru food service is prohibited by Bexley code (to a point - Section 80 of the city charter prohibits drive-thru food service in which "the major portion" of business is conducted without exiting the vehicle - the city attorney believes - and I'm paraphrasing - that, since ordering is performed off premises, and only pickup is performed at the window, "the major portion" is not being conducted, since it is a pickup window only and doesn't involve ordering at the window).

My take on it? Safety of children walking to and from school is a concern, and it should be carefully considered. However, there is little reason to believe that this use will be any more intense during school pedestrian hours (early morning and 3:00 to 4:00 pm) than the bank use was - in fact, the traffic flow is improved with no egress from the site directly onto Remington, and the restaurant will be closed in the morning, and the 3:00 to 4:00pm time slot is reportedly their slowest hour during the day. Nonetheless, I think the city needs to put more thought into ways that we can configure traffic flow to the adjacent alley to minimize any impact from this site. I believe that the city has little to no control over the liquor licensing issue - this is a state issue (Ohio Liquor Control Commission) and we stand little chance to successfully protest the issuance of the license even if we wanted to. And lastly, I do think there is a definite difference between this proposed pickup window and a traditional drive-thru food service setup, with ordering and take-away at one or two windows, and with the higher volume of vehicular traffic that would inevitably result. This is analogous to a Donato's pickup window, or Applebee's. Within the city itself, it's not dissimilar to a bank drive-thru (like the one that previously was in operation at the site in question), or the CVS drive-thru, although arguably less service is being provided at the window at this proposed use than is being provided at the banks and at CVS (only a portion of the transaction here - not all of it as at the banks and in some instances at CVS). But regardless of what I think, our city attorney has opined that this use as proposed by Piada is not a violation of the charter, and I believe that his reading of the charter is appropriate. All of this to say that we need to study the traffic flow issue further and make any necessary changes, but assuming that the traffic flow issues (if any) are addressed, I am excited about this use coming to Main Street.

Budget - 2011

As finance committee chair, I've been having all sorts of fun (tongue firmly planted in cheek) as council works through the 2011 city budget. Bexley is in the unusual position, as a municipality, of having an inordinate portion of our city income generated by Ohio estate tax revenues. These revenues, however, are variable, and budgeting for them is tricky. For many years, Bexley has operated with projected operating deficits that have, at times, been bailed out (and more) by surplus estate tax funds. However, we are at the point now as a city that we have become better at budgeting for estate tax receipts, and our projected operating deficits have become more sinister. While the city's 2011 budget leaves us with a respectable fund balance at the end of 2011, its projected operating deficit of about $1.8m places us firmly in a trajectory that puts our fund balance at the end of 2012 and beyond in potential peril. The city administration deserves a lot of credit for trimming spending for the past several years now, but the unfortunate reality is that there are no easy or obvious cuts to make in the city budget to help balance it for 2011. So the 2011 budget process is not an easy one, and the verdict is still out as to how we will best work towards a balanced budget. At this point, council is still in an information-gathering stage as we hear presentations from department heads and review the implications that cuts would have in each departmental budget. Over the next several weeks we will start to hone in on options we have for balancing the budget in 2011. It's a tough conversation, but the process has been productive, and I have high hopes that we will find a good solution that will help keep the city in a strong financial position and maintain the high quality of services that our residents expect.

There's a lot more going on at council, but those are the highlights for now. More to come as we continue to work through the budget process...

ThisWeek Article on the Bexley Land Use Strategy

2010-04-01T18:32:00.000-07:00

http://www.thisweeknews.com/live/content/bexley/stories/2010/03/31/0331beland-use-strategy_ln.html?sid=104

Bexley's Decade in Review: 2000-2009

2010-01-02T17:21:00.000-08:00

The past decade saw tremendous change in Bexley. I would argue that it is certainly the most dynamic period of change in Bexley during my lifetime, and in the spirit of the new year and in remembrance of the passing decade I have compiled a retrospective of Bexley's top achievements over the past decade.

A Main Street Renaissance
Bexley's Main Street has always been the retail and cultural focal point of the community, but the past 10 years have seen a dramatic evolution of the corridor. Condominium housing, new retail, and the rise of the Bexley art gallery culture are all new to the past decade. Most of the progress can be attributed to the creation of the Main Street plan, the creation of a CRA on East Main Street, and the work of the Main Street Redevelopment Commission.

Notable new development along Main Street includes the Bexley Gateway development, One Dawson, and the Torat Emet Synagogue, and the decade also saw the addition of several new small shopping centers and the redevelopment of the Bexley CVS. In the past 10 years, Bexley's restaurant culture has exploded, with a greater number and greater selection of restaurants than ever before in the city's history. Looking back, this past decade can be viewed as the decade during which Main Street matured and developed to become more dynamic, walkable, and diverse than at any other point in recent history.

A New Bexley Pool
In the middle of the decade it became apparent that Bexley's aging pool facility was a problem. The pool was leaking and losing water quickly, and the whole facility was in need of significant investment. The city decided to invest in a new pool facility after looking at pool facility's at other communities, and in 2006 city council voted to demolish the existing pool and construct a new facility.

The new pool was completed in time for the 2007 summer season, and has an eight-lane competitive pool, a small diving board, water slides, a zero entry main pool, a water playground, a toddler pool, and a splash pad.

A New Police Station
Prior to the beginning of the decade, it had become apparent that Bexley was in need of a new police station. Bexley's original police station was a converted firehouse. The detectives' offices were in the old firehouse garage, with one wall consisting of the bricked-over former garage door bay. The roof was perennially leaking, and quarters were cramped in a facility that had not been designed for a co-ed officer environment, for modern communications equipment, or for an expanded police force. After nearly 10 years of planning and replanning, the city broke ground on the new police station in 2008.

The project was completed in late 2009, and the Bexley police department actually moved into the station on the last day of the decade - December 31, 2009. The new LEED-certified (certification pending) facility has been designed to meet the needs of the department into perpetuity - flexible office spaces, men's and women's locker rooms, a large meeting room for educational and departmental meetings, a modern firing range, and a flexible communications infrastructure, as well as numerous safety features, all combine to make the new station a functional facility which should serve the city for decades to come.

Changing of the Guards
In 2007, Mayor David H. Madison retired after 32 years of outstanding service to the residents of Bexley, succeeded by Mayor John Brennan, resident of Bexley and former Bexley Parks and Rec Director. Mayor Madison's term saw Bexley thrive through a time when old-ring historic suburbs increasingly had to compete with the newer suburbs lining Columbus' outerbelt.

Bexley flourished during Mayor Madison's term, and his accomplishments continued right up until the day he retired, leaving Bexley more vibrant than ever, and leaving a long lasting legacy that will not be forgotten.

The Bexley Tree Commission
Few residents of Bexley understand the outstanding contribution made by the members and leadership of the Bexley Tree and Public Gardens Commission. The Tree and Public Gardens Commission has spearheaded the movement to define Bexley's gateways with attractive landmarks, to rejuvenate the North Cassady Avenue corridor, and more recently to designate the entire City of Bexley as an arboretum. Since its formation in the late 90's, this commission has worked tirelessly and accomplished an exceptional amount.

The past decade has been a busy one, and there are innumerable events and shifts that I'm sure I've failed to mention. The movement of the Bexley fireworks show to Capital's lawn, the ongoing renovation of Jeffrey Mansion - the list goes on. Anything in particular come to mind? Post below!

Land Use Strategy Commission Update - October 2009

2009-10-23T12:03:00.001-07:00

Following an initial public workshop in August, the Bexley Land Use Strategy Commission has begun to focus on specific study areas, taking into consideration feedback from the public meeting and input from relevant experts who have assisted the commission.

In its October meeting, the Bexley Land Use Strategy commission discussed environmental protections for Alum Creek, and delved into ways to rejuvenate the North Cassady and Delmar commercial corridor.

Kim Williams from Friends of Alum Creek and Tributaries and Kyle Wilson from Franklin Soil and Water Conservation District visited the commission to discuss recommended protections in order to reduce runoff and pollutants from entering the creek, and in order to help preserve and strengthen the creek's banks. At the commission's meeting on November 2nd at City Hall, the Alum Creek recreational and natural corridor will be discussed in depth, and the commission will work towards creating specific strategies for better protection and better access to the creek.

Additionally, commission members John Reagan and Bill Heyer presented concepts to the commission for establishing a form-based code for the corridor, in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood during future development, and in order to bring out and enhance the natural assets of the neighborhood. The commission discussed various methods of encouraging economic development along North Cassady, and heard a report from a community-based group of residents in the North Cassady area who have held public meetings and dialogued regarding their desires and vision for the area.

At its November meeting, the commission will focus on the Alum Creek Study Area. Future meetings will focus on the Main Street commercial corridor, and the Livingston/Ferndale/Mayfield study area.

The Initial Public Workshop for the Bexley Land Use Strategy is Tuesday, August 4th

2009-07-29T12:08:00.000-07:00

The first public workshop for the Bexley Land Use Strategy will be this upcoming Tuesday, August 4th, at 6:30 pm at the new home of Torat Emet Synagogue (“The Main Street Synagogue”), at 2375 East Main Street in Bexley. The workshop is an open, public workshop, and is intended to solicit feedback from residents of Bexley regarding current and desired land uses and land use policy in the city.

The Bexley Land Use Strategy Commission was formed in order to provide a strategic vision for development throughout all of Bexley. By identifying both strategic goals for development in the city as well as ways to achieve those goals, the commission hopes to be able to foster a perpetual culture of proactive planning and appropriate redevelopment in the city. In particular, the commission hopes to address those areas on the “fringes” of Bexley – namely the Livingston Avenue and North Cassady corridors – areas which have received less planning attention and development efforts.

We’ve heard from residents who wish there was a true neighborhood grocery store in the city, or envision a hotel in the area to refer visitors to, or thought it would be nice to have a creekside boardwalk along Alum Creek. In a city like Bexley, with limited available land and often many logistical obstacles in the way of redevelopment, local government needs to be proactive in identifying community needs and desires and identifying ways to help facilitate appropriate redevelopment.

The commission has defined four primary study areas – Livingston Avenue, Main Street, North Cassady Avenue, and the Alum Creek natural corridor (see Bill Heyer's post below for some aerials of these study areas). These four areas are already largely defined by existing businesses and users, and as such a strategy for land use in these areas must consider existing uses and potential future uses.

At the Land Use Strategy Commission’s initial public workshop, residents of the city are going to be asked to identify land uses that they like, critique things that they don’t like, and envision improvements that could be made to the city in terms of land use and land use policy. Land use is a wide-ranging term that encompasses the types of businesses and users that exist, and in doing so also addresses zoning and planning policy, as well as architectural and aesthetic considerations.

The Land Use Strategy Commission will use the public feedback it receives at the August 4th meeting to help inform the creation of a strategic plan. Once the commission has produced a proposed strategy, follow-up public workshops will be held to provide additional feedback.

The Bexley Land Use Strategy initial public workshop will be held on August 4th, 2009, at Torat Emet Synagogue, 2375 East Main Street, Bexley. Doors will open at 6:30 pm and participants will have an opportunity to view the new synagogue facility, followed by the workshop itself, which will commence at 7:00 pm.

Land Use Plan Commission Blog & Facebook Group

2009-05-06T19:41:00.001-07:00

The blog for the Bexley Land Use Commission is now live at:
http://bexleyplan.blogspot.com/

Additionally, I've created a Facebook Group for the commission at:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=78192854307

Over the next year, the Bexley Land Use Commission will be discussing land use challenges facing the city, and ways to address those challenges in the form of an actionable land use plan. The mission of the Bexley Land-use Commission is to develop a strategic planning framework and land-use vision for the City of Bexley that protects and enhances our unique community assets by identifying and addressing short and long term planning options and land-use challenges and recommending opportunities for civic improvement and beautification through land-use policies and initiatives.

Trying to communicate the vision behind a Land Use Plan without making it sound like a bunch of overly verbose gobbledygook is very difficult. This is a very exciting opportunity for the community to have a say on where the City is headed over the next 5, 15, 25 years - to identify areas that need change and to form strategies to enact that change.

In addition to traditional community workshops, the commission will be making a strong effort to utilize social networking in the planning process. Please take a minute to join the Facebook group or subscribe to the blog's RSS feed, and when information and ideas are being put out there please contribute and comment on what is being talked about.

New Bexley.org is live!

2009-04-02T06:27:00.000-07:00

Thanks to the hard work of the dedicated Bexley Technology Commission, the all new bexley.org is up. Content is still being loaded, but this is a huge step forward for the city in terms of making information easily and quickly accessible to residents.

The old site didn't allow searching, and wasn't even visible to Google. That has all changed, and we also now have the oft-discussed city calendar! Between this and the new online booking system for Bexley Parks and Rec, this has been a busy year for the technology commission, and major kudos to them for all of the hard work and dedication they've put into it. You can see the new site at:

http://www.bexley.org

Money Matters

2008-12-02T13:29:00.000-08:00

City council has been engaged in a comprehensive review of Bexley's 2009 budget over the past several months. As economic conditions have declined both locally and nationally, income forecasts for the city have likewise dropped off, and the numbers are seeming to suggest that this year's projected budget deficit will leave the city close to a $0 balance at the end of 2009.

Obviously, this is not good news. Several factors have precipitated the city being in this financial bind. As previously mentioned, there is the economy at large and the resultant decline in income tax revenues. Beyond income tax revenue, the city relies on a mixture of property tax revenues, state funding sources, and estate tax revenues. Property tax revenues are inherently flat and therefore do not meet the needs of naturally inflating costs. State funding for local governments has gradually declined in recent years, and 2009 will certainly be no exception. Estate tax revenues have likewise dissapated as estate planning has become more sophisticated and residency requirements within the State of Ohio have loosened, leading erstwhile Bexley residents to claim residency in other states such as, most prominently, Florida.

Mayor Brennan's administration has been aggressive at trimming the fat out of the budget, resulting in commendable curbs on excess spending. But despite aggressive efforts and a nearly $1 million annual reduction in spending, Bexley still faces annual budget deficits in excess of $1.5 million.

There are two ways to handle this problem - cut spending, or raise revenues. A citizen's advisory panel is currently assessing many of these issues, and advising the city, from a residents' perspective, as to what approach or combination of approaches might be most appropriate.

I am very hesitant to rely on the prospect of increased revenue via a tax increase. I have performed an analysis of Bexley residents' local tax burden when compared to local tax burdens experienced by residents of other comparable local municipalities, and it is my belief that we are already above the average in terms of overall cost to residents. To push this economic disincentive even further threatens the competiveness of our community as an attractive place to live and work.

Instead, I believe that the city needs to acknowledge that we are in need of a paradigm shift - one that focuses on providing necessary services to residents in as efficient a manner as possible, and trimming back or cutting less critical programs and services. This will mean cutting back on some of the more peripheral services that we provide as a city, and it will require some hard decisions to be made at city hall, but I believe that the long term health and viability of the city depends upon it.

Long term, this will also mean being more purposeful in our strategic planning and strategic economic development, and more purposeful in attracting new commercial users to our limited commercial corridors.

What I'm saying is fairly trite, and certainly not revolutionary, but the inertia needed to make these sorts of changes in the context of government cannot be underestimated. It is very easy to talk about cutting spending and making hard decisions, but it is exponentially harder to actually make the necessary changes. Over the next several weeks city council will be wrapping up the 2009 budget, and the result will be very telling. We will either be one step closer to financial stability and moving in the direction of a balanced budget, or we will be continuing our inevitable trajectory towards a negative balance and an environment that is correspondingly tailored towards a tax increase.

Your thoughts are appreciated - what services do you think could be cut - how do you think the city could save money? Do you think that a tax increase is inevitable and/or appropriate? Write me at bkessler@bexley.org with any thoughts or commentary, or comment below.

Tonight's Council Meeting - October 14, 2008

2008-10-14T12:44:00.000-07:00

At tonight's council meeting, council will be considering the additional appropriation of $850,000 to cover the difference between the expected bid amount for the police station and the actual bid amount for the police station. All told, this brings the projected police station price tag to north of $7.4 million.

Additionally, it is my understanding that we will be considering the picketing ordinance, which I covered in depth in some earlier blog posts (I mistakenly suggested that we would be voting on this at the last council meeting, but instead it was postponed until we could hold another safety committee meeting to specifically address the issue). This item will be discussed at the 5:30 safety committee meeting. Following a recommendation from the safety committee, it will be voted on during the 7:00 council meeting.

Safety committee meeting will be at 5:30, followed by the finance committee meeting at 6:00 and the general council meeting at 7:00. The meetings will be held at City Hall's council chambers.

September 23rd, 2008 Council Meeting

2008-09-22T11:06:00.000-07:00

There are two notable ordinances being voted on at tomorrow's council meeting. These include:

- Capital University's request for a variance for a property on Mound Street

- The proposed picketing ordinance, banning picketing at private residences

I've already outlined my stance on the picketing issue in a previous post. I wanted to write briefly re: the Capital University variance request. There has been a lot of confusion from residents who have noticed indescrepancies between the Southwest Bexley Master Plan (SWBMP) and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was drawn up soon after the SWBMP. These indescrepancies have resulted in confusion regarding what Capital's rights are in terms of future expansion and use of property, and why proposed uses and variance requests such as this seem to conflict with the SWBMP.

I am going to do my part to try to summarize the relationship between these two items, although this is not intended to be a legal opinion or a definitive historical account, but rather my honest and best attempt at deciphering the relationship between these two documents.

The SWBMP was formed to define future land use between Capital University, Trinity Seminary, and the city of Bexley. It was a document that was formed using public input and negotiation between all parties. It was not a legally binding document, but rather a master plan that was intended to be the basis for future legally binding documents.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was the legally binding document that served as the follow-up to the Southwest Bexley Master Plan. It was negotiated between the city, Capital University, and Trinity Seminary soon after the acceptance, by city council, of the SWBMP. Notably, the MOU does vary in some ways from the SWBMP, in that it allows for Capital's expansion into several parcels that were not identified in the master plan. One such parcel is the parcel in question - a single family residence just east of the Mound St/Pleasant Ridge intersection that Capital owns and would like to use as an alumni office. This parcel is explicitly identified in the MOU as a parcel which can be used for 'limited institutional usage', but it does still need to receive a zoning variance from council.

For those of you who had this issue on their radar, I hope this provides some clarification as to how the MOU varies slightly from the SWBMP. For further information/reading, see the 2003 ordinance that adopted the MOU (odinance 89-03).

City council will convene at city hall on Tuesday, September 23. The zoning and development committee meeting will be at 5:30, finance committee at 6:00, and the main council meeting will commence at 7:00.

Freedom of Speech

2008-09-11T06:56:00.001-07:00

An ordinance is currently before council to consider banning picketing in front of private residences. The language of the ordinance is substantively as follows:

“... it is unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the private residence or dwelling of any individual in the City of Bexley.”

The language for the ordinance is almost word for word the same as an ordinance from Brookfield, Wisconsin that was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1988. See this article from the New York Times covering the case.

In my mind, there are two issues to consider with this case. Firstly, there is the question of free speech. There are two sides on this case, each arguing that their freedom of speech trumps the other side’s freedom of speech. The picketers feel that they should have priority to freely speak their mind, while those who advocate for the sanctity of the home believe that their freedom to turn to home as a refuge and as a place of privacy is, in effect, its own form of free speech. I know very well how I stand on this question of free speech; I stand on the side of the US Supreme Court. I certainly am no legal scholar, and I definitely do not have the audacity to claim that my judgement on constitutional matters is more insightful than that put forth by the highest and most revered court in our nation. Beyond that, I am also inclined to agree with the fundamental philosophical belief that it is imperative to, in the words of the court, “[preserve] the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value”, and that “there simply is no right to force speech into the home of an unwilling listener”.

The second issue in this debate is more problematic. It is the question of enforcement. While on the face of it this law has been upheld by the courts and deemed constitutional, to the best of our knowledge there is little hope of successful enforcement. Picketers need simply confuse their focus away from one particular residence, and instead focus on several, so as to eliminate the ability for law enforcement officers to satisfactorily prove that their picketing is focused on an individual residence. We are continuing to communicate with communities that have, in the past, attempted to enforce such ordinances. So far we have found absolutely no enforcement that has been successfully upheld in court.

While I agree with the spirit of the law, I believe that it is irresponsible to pass a law when historical precedent shows very plainly that such a law is not able to be enforced. It is also important to note that, while we seemingly could not enforce a law such as this, we have a wealth of other laws that protect the safety of our residents, and that protect them from harrasment, stalking, and undue noise in their residential environment.

We will continue to look for ways to enforce this law, and see if there is not some solution. But until it is shown that the law can be enforced, I am not in favor of the passage of this ordinance.

July 8, 2008 Council Meeting

2008-07-08T10:34:00.000-07:00

Tonight's council meeting will be held at the Bexley High School Cassingham Community Room at 7:00 pm, with safety and finance committee meetings commencing at 5:30 pm. This is a change of venue, so please make note if you're planning on attending.

Some of the items under discussion will include a the discussion of a new proposed ordinance preventing picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual in the City of Bexley, as well as further discussion regarding the proposed sidewalk ordinance in which sidewalk repair responsiblity would revert to a pre-2004 system. Additionally, there are a variety of small and/or standard finance ordinances which are up for a third reading.

Bexley's 4th of July Celebrations

2008-07-03T08:11:00.000-07:00

An itenerary of Bexley's 4th of July events has been making its way around via numerous email forwards - classic homegrown Bexley viral marketing. An interactive iteration of the schedule of events is on the BCA's website at http://www.bexleycelebrations.org/.

Highlights from this year's 4th of July celebrations include:

8:30 am - John Barr 5k race, register at Jeffrey Mansion

9:30 am - The Parade! - kicks off at Maryland and North Roosevelt (map of parade route).

6:00 pm - 9:45pm - Multiple events on the Capital front lawn, including Music in the Meadow, multiple food options/vendors, Urban Transit Band, Big Rockin' Blues Band, Columbus Saints drum line show, etc

9:45 pm - 10:45 pm - Bexley Fireworks

And, of course, there are multiple block parties occuring throughout the city - I plan on biking around and crashing some of them! Hope to see you there...

Tonight's Council Agenda (June 10, 2008)

2008-06-10T07:17:00.000-07:00

Tonight's council and committee agendas are on Bexley.org at:
http://bexley.org/FileShare/ListFiles.asp?cmid=3981&ffid=771

Items most likely being voted on tonight (third readings) include:

- Elimination of the Director of Technology and Director of Building Services positions

- Appropriation of $12,000 for new Rec. Dept. software

- Ammendment of ordinance 282.05 in regards to Rec. Dept. employees

- Ammendment of ordinance 06-04 and Chapter 1022 of the Bexley City Code with regard to public sidewalks; this proposed ordinance would return the responsiblity of sidewalk repair to residents, with the exception of instances in which the city is responsible for damage to the sidewalk. Essentially, this ordinance would revert back to the pre-2004 sidewalk methodology.

- Ammendment of City Code and addition of Chapter 1256.07, providing specific guidelines for the approval of circular driveways at residences

- Ammendement of Section 1490.15, Orders and Enforcement Procedures of the Building and Property Maintenance Code, allowing the city to assess property owners for the remediation of code violations when said code violations are not addressed by the property owner, and when said code violations constitute life or safety issues.

- Ordinance to combine the Planning and Main Street Redevelopment Commission into one body

Sidewalks

The most controversial topic will undoubtedly be in regards to the reversion of sidewalk procedures to pre-2004 policies. A couple of articles which summarize the debate can be found at:

http://216.127.69.92/NC/0/2686.html
http://www.thisweeknews.com/live/contentbe/EPIC_shim.php?story=sites/twn/content/pool/exclusives/2008/april/043008-BEX-News-Sidewalks.html

As I have already stated publicly, it is my opinion that the streets and sidewalks levy was clearly intended to fund a variety of city infrastructure, and that at the time of the levy it was my impression (as a resident) that the sidewalk portion of the levy was publicly presented as being intended for ADA compliant handicap corner ramps. The levy language itself is wide open in what it allows expenditure on, and while it does specify the use of funds towards sidewalks, it crucially does not specify that the funds be applied to ALL sidewalk repairs in the city, just as the street repairs which are partially funded by the levy are also funded by a variety of other sources, including most notably general fund dollars.

To assume that the levy was intended to wholesale fund ALL streets, sidewalks, etc is, I believe, counterintuitive and plainly not how the levy was written - the levy funds were never sufficient to fund all repairs/improvements (they comprise approx. 50% of city expenditure on these items), and the levy is static, whereas infrastructure costs are prone to substantial inflation over time.

Nonetheless, city council did succumb to public pressure in their passage in 2004 of an ordinance that shifted the financial burden for all sidewalks to the city, and I think that public debate on this matter is crucial. If you have any feedback on this matter, please let me know, and I encourage you to come to the city council meeting tonight at 7:00 at city hall.

Jeffrey Mansion Master Plan - My Thoughts

2008-05-13T12:26:00.000-07:00

Tonight City Council will vote on a resolution to support the Jeffrey Mansion Master Plan as proposed by the Jeffrey Mansion Committee. I wanted to post some of my thoughts here, and to explain my rationale for my vote.

Tonight I will vote in favor of the resolution, with strong reservations.

Primarily, I'm concerned as to whether or not this plan adequately benefits residents. I’d like to see more of an emphasis on enhancing the role of the mansion as a community center, and less emphasis on the mansion as a private events facility. The proposed cost of this renovation is truly staggering, and it would be a shame to see these funds applied towards a renovation which largely neglects the core intended users of the facility: residents of the city of Bexley. It seems that a great portion of the projected cost is tied up in the private events side of this venture. I believe that the concept of self-sustainability, in the context of a $10,000,000 investment, is misguided; any imaginable revenue stream from private events will never come close to covering the liability from such an investment. But the commission has appropriately recommended a feasibility study be performed, and I believe that the results of this study will show that the income that could be received will not justify the costs of outfitting the mansion for these events, or the additional annual costs of event staff, maintenance staff, and additional wear and tear to the property.

Additionally, I have concerns regarding the proposed Jeffrey Mansion Board composition and control. I believe that any board that is put together to govern the mansion needs to retain accountability to the city; while I do see value in a certain amount of autonomy, there needs to be a balance between autonomy and accountability, and the plan as it currently stands leans heavily towards autonomy and does not provided for an acceptable level of accountability. Furthermore, I do not think it acceptable, that city residency be so marginalized as a requirement for membership to the proposed board.

As a side note, I was very heartened to see the report from the Dawes Arboretum, which elegantly and appropriately identified the issues associated with the proposed north parking lot. I am in agreement with the many residents who have so passionately objected to the destruction of this portion of the site.

Tonight I will vote in favor of this resolution with the belief that this master plan is more of a point of reference and less of a stringent instruction manual, and I believe that this is consistent with the language of the resolution as ammended. I want the residents who have expressed very legitimate concerns in regards to issues of finance and issues of maintaining the integrity of the mansion and grounds to be assured that I, and I believe the council in general, will be purposeful and diligent in protecting the sanctity of the mansion and park, and in excercising prudence in regards to any financial commitments that are made.

A copy of the proposed master plan is available for viewing at:
http://www.cityofbexley.org/Jeffrey/Jeffrey-Park-Master-Plan-Report.pdf

April 8, 2008 Council Agenda

2008-04-08T12:22:00.000-07:00

The council agenda for April 8 is online at:
http://bexley.org/files/projects/1FC8A690-B6AD-4C10-B7AB-12153AE2008B/files/2008-04-18%20Council%20Agenda.pdf
Ordinances being voted on (third readings) include an $800 payment to OPERS from a March 2004 credit for prior prior service, as well as a consent to hold harmless for a proposed paver sidewalk within the city right of way at 102 Ashbourne Road.

The council meeting will be held at 7:00 pm at the Cassingham Community Room in the High School complex.

Council Agenda for March 18th

2008-03-17T20:26:00.000-07:00

Bexley City Council's March 18th meeting will kick off with the Zoning & Development Committee meeting at 5:3o at the Cassingham Community Room in the High School. The general council meeting will begin at 7:00, with several notable points of discussion, including the Woodsview Condo zoning variance, a presentation on the Delmar Drive site for the police station, and a presentation on the findings of the Jeffrey Mansion Commission. The council agenda is live at bexley.org.

Jeffrey Mansion Master Plan posted to Bexley.org

2008-03-16T10:13:00.000-07:00

Check out the master plan prior to the Jeffrey Mansion Commission's presentation to council at 7:00 pm om this Tuesday, March 18:

Jeffrey Mansion Master Plan on Bexley,org

Proposed Good Neighbor Agreement

2008-03-13T08:34:00.000-07:00

The proposed good neighbor agreement between Capital University and the City of Bexley is now up on the Bexley website: http://bexley.org/newsBoard/NewsDetail.asp?id=6910&cmid=1307&StartPos=1&nhl=1

The intent of the agreement is to allay residents' concerns regarding any adverse impact that could come about via a zoning variance request that Capital has submitted to the city for the Woodsview Condo project on Astor Avenue. The Eastside Messenger recently posted this article regarding the Woodsview variance and the good neighbor agreement:
http://www.columbusmessenger.com/NC/0/2452.html

If you have any thoughts or feedback regarding the draft agreement, please feel free to comment here, or to email either myself or city attorney Lou Chodosh (lchodosh@bexley.org).

Agenda for March 11 Council Meeting

2008-03-10T06:29:00.000-07:00

The agenda for this week's council meeting has been posted to the Bexley website:
http://bexley.org/FileShare/ListFiles.asp?cmid=3981&ffid=771

The meeting will kick off at 5:30 with Safety Committee, with the general council meeting to commence at 7:00. This week's meeting will be held at the Cassingham Community Room, directly to your left after entering the first set of doors of the main entrance to the High School.

Notably, a third and potentially final hearing will be conducted for Capital University's zoning variance request for Woodsview Condos. For those that have not been following the issue, Capital is requesting permission to utilize the currently 55+ condo complex as student housing. The public meeting regarding this request will be held at the 7:00 council meeting, with the potential for a vote to follow.

March Update

2008-03-06T10:03:00.000-08:00

Due in no small part to a kind mention over at Blue Bexley, I feel compelled to update this poor neglected blog with some new information. Part of the reason for my several weeks worth of absence has been my recent efforts to assist with a facelift of the http://www.bexley.org/ city website. We are still working on making the site visible to Google (for some reason the search engine doesn't want to recognize it exists), but in the meantime I've been working with Bill Minckler on tweaking the structure of the site, with the ultimate goal of providing information in a more accessible manner to residents. Ideally, the Bexley website should be such a good source of information that a supplemental blog such as this would really have no purpose - that is a goal, and we'll see how that proceeds.

The hot topics at City Council right now:

- Capital University has requested a zoning variance to allow their purchase of the Woodsview Condominiums. Many residents on Sheridan have expressed their concern based on issues with Capital students. The final public hearing re: this issue will be March 11, 7:00 pm, at the BHS Cassingham Community Room.

- The city is exploring the option of building the Bexley police station on Delmar Drive, at substantially reduced cost to the city. The overwhelming remaining question hinges on how we are going to be able to afford a new station, given the current state of the city's finances. We're still working on that issue in general, through a variety of cost cutting measures and a continued effort towards revenue enhancement.

- The Jeffrey Mansion Commission will soon be presenting their recommendations to city council - I believe their presentation will be on the 18th of March.

Nothing much else to report at the moment, other than a large variety of less immediate issues that continue on in the background. As always, comment or email if you have any questions!

The Chief Makes His Case for a new Police Station

2008-02-14T09:39:00.000-08:00

This Week Bexley recently produced a very fine video featuring a tour of the Bexley police station by police chief Larry Rinehart.

Click here to check out the video - it's definitely worth a watch whether or not you've already been through the existing station...

Delmar Drive a possible alternative location for the Police Station?

2008-02-07T05:32:00.000-08:00

At the upcoming council safety committe meeting at 5:30 pm on the 12th, I will be presenting an alternative development proposal to bring the police station to Delmar Drive. I believe that this plan has several benefits, most notably in the form of:

- reduced cost to the city

- accelerated timeline

- strategic planning - frees up Main Street site for more flexible future development.

Please come if you are able to make it to this meeting and provide feedback. I anticipate that, if this concept gains any traction, there will be a public meeting in the next month or so. I'll keep you posted...

Committee Assignments

2008-01-12T05:59:00.000-08:00

Matt Lampke, council president, has made the following committee assignments:

Zoning and Development Committee
Ben Kessler, Chair
Rick Weber
Robyn Jones

Finance Committee
Robyn Jones, Chair
Jeff McClelland
Mark Masser

Safety Committee
Jed Morison, Chair
Ben Kessler
Mark Masser

Parks, Forestry and Recreation
Jeff McClelland, Chair
Robyn Jones
Ben Kessler

Service Committee
Rick Weber, Chair
Jed Morison
Jeff McClelland

Water, Sewer and Drainage Committee
Mark Masser, Chair
Jed Morison
Rick Weber

Meanwhile, ThisWeek Bexley reported on the new council and the instatements in this article.

January 8th Council Meeting

2008-01-07T14:15:00.001-08:00

January 8th's council meeting will be held at the Cassingham Complex Community Room (just off of the main entrance to the high school, to the left).

Cassingham Complex Community Room
326 S. Cassingham Rd.
Bexley, Ohio 43209

Here's the agenda:

A G E N D A

BEXLEY CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 8, 2008
MEETING HELD AT CASSINGHAM COMPLEX COMMUNITY ROOM

Matthew Lampke, President
Robyn Jones, Ben Kessler, Mark Masser, Jeffrey McClelland, Jed Morison and Richard Weber

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

ROLL CALL:

MINUTES: Minutes of the are before Council for consideration.

CORRESPONDENCE: Letter from Mr. William Harvey regarding the resignation from the Main Street Redevelopment Commission. Letter from Life Care Alliance regarding the funding needs requested by the City of Bexley. Letter from Heritage Day Health Centers regarding the requested funding from the City of Bexley.

REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF LOU CHODOSH AS BEXLEY CITY ATTORNEY: Mayor Brennan is requesting the appointment of Louis Chodosh as the Bexley City Attorney for the year of 2008. Mr. Chodosh would be filling the position previously held by Mr. Jim Gross.

UPDATE FROM LEROY HERD, AFSCME : Regarding supervisors unit objection.

ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS:
Pending:

Ordinance 132-07 to amend the Administration Code by adding a new Chapter 266 setting forth the City’s public records policy in accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio, introduced by Mr. Lampke, third reading.

Ordinance 133-07 to authorize the Mayor and Auditor to execute a contract on behalf of the City with the Franklin County Public Defender Commission for calendar year 2008 with respect to the defense of indigent defendants before the Franklin County Municipal Court and to declare an emergency, introduced by Mr. Lampke, second reading.

Ordinance 134-07 to substitute Chapter 244, of the Codified Ordinance of the City of Bexley to amend building permit and related review fees pertaining to construction of residential and commercial buildings upon approval of the Building Department, introduced by Ms. Jones, second reading..

Ordinance 135-07 to approve, adopt and ratify the memorandum of understanding between the City and Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO and Local 3838 AFSCME, AFL-CIO, amending the existing AFSCME, bargaining unit to include employees occupying positions within the classification of recreation supervisor; to approve, adopt and ratify a collective bargaining agreement between the City and Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO and Local 3838 AFSCME, AFL-CIO covering a bargaining unit of employees occupying positions within certain supervisory classifications to approve, adopt and ratify a collective bargaining agreement between the City and Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO and Local 3838 AFSCME, AFL-CIO covering a bargaining unit of employees occupying certain positions within clerical and technical classifications; and authorizing the Mayor to execute these agreements on behalf of the City; and to declare an emergency, introduced by Mr. Lampke, second reading..

Tabled:

1. Ordinance 107-07 to appropriate $25,000.00 from the unencumbered General Fund for the purpose of trenching and purchasing shade structures for the pool and to reduce the appropriation for the Pool Entrance Way and Awning, Account #01-950-51447 by $25,000.00. (Introduced November 13, 2007)

2. Ordinance 102-07 authorizing the Mayor and Auditor to sign a Consent and Hold Harmless Agreement on behalf of the City of Bexley with the property owner at 2399 Commonwealth Park South (Lot Nos. 5 & 6; Bullitt Park Addition) regarding improvements to be made upon and within the City owned street right-of-way along Commonwealth Park South. (Introduced October 23, 2007)

3. Ordinance 64-07 to appropriate $21,000.00 from the unencumbered General Fund for the purpose of purchasing new lights for Drexel Circle. (Introduced June 26, 2007)

4. Ordinance 58-07 to appropriate $7,345.00 from the unencumbered General Fund for the purpose of hiring Sequent to conduct a Baseline Human Relations Assessment to provide an overview of the City’s current HR strategies, functions and compliance and to make recommendations for an effective HR plan and to authorize the Mayor and Auditor to enter into a contract for the same, introduced by Mr. Lampke, third reading. (Introduced June 26, 2007)

5. Ordinance 49-07 to amend the Administrative Code to add Chapter 266 regarding contact procedures pursuant to Section 59 of the City Charter. (Introduced May 22, 2007)

6. Ordinance 46-07 to transfer $23,500.00 from the unencumbered General Fund to the Capital Improvements Fund and to appropriate $23,500.00 from the unencumbered Capital Improvements Fund for the purpose of maintaining the City’s data network. (Introduced May 8, 2007)

7. Ordinance 30-07 to transfer $126,000.00 from the unencumbered General Fund to the Capital Improvements Fund and to appropriate $126,000.00 from the unencumbered Capital Improvements Fund for the purpose of constructing gateways at the entrances to the City of Bexley. (Introduced March 27, 2007)

8. Ordinance 28-07 to appropriate $4,000.00 from the unencumbered General Fund, to authorize the Mayor and Auditor to enter into a consulting contract with Thomas Burke for the review and revision of the City’s record retention and destruction policies and procedures in response to changes in Ohio law and to declare an emergency. (Introduced March 27, 2007) (Please see Amended Ordinance 28-07)

9. Ordinance 19-07 to enact Section 232.09 of the Administrative Code establishing an Estate Tax Capital Project Fund. (Introduced February 27, 2007)

10. Ordinance 12-07 to create a second Code Enforcement Officer position, to establish the salary for the position and to declare an emergency. (Introduced February 27, 2007)

PROPOSED ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS: None.

COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Zoning and Development
Finance & Judiciary
Parks, Forestry and Recreation
Safety
Service
Water, Sewerage & Drainage

CITY OFFICIALS’ REPORTS:
John M. Brennan, Mayor
Lawrence Rinehart, Chief of Police
Larry Heiser, Auditor
William Harvey, Service Director
David Long, Director of Building Services
Bruce Langner, Development Director

OLD BUSINESS:

NEW BUSINESS:

REMARKS FROM AUDIENCE:

ADJOURN:

NOTICE: Please contact the City of Bexley at 559-4212, at least 48 hours before the scheduled meeting, if you need any accommodation or assistance in order to participate in the meeting.

Instatement!

2008-01-02T13:05:00.000-08:00

It's official - I will be instated on Monday, January 7th, at 7:00 pm in the council chambers at City Hall on Main Street. Feel free to come - it will be very short! Go Buckeyes!

Tuesday, November 27th council meeting

2007-11-26T14:25:00.000-08:00

When: Tuesday, November 27^th, 2007, 5:30 to 8:30ish PM

Where: Library lower level/auditorium, East Main Street

Here are some highlights from the agenda for the upcoming council meeting on Tuesday the 27th of November. Note: the council meeting will be held in the lower level of the library in order to allow disabled access.

Zoning & Development committee, 5:30 pm

- Ordinance authorizing consent and hold harmless agreement for proposed improvements in the city right of way at 2399 Commonwealth Park South

Finance & Judiciary committee, 6:00 pm

- Proposed ordinance re: the adoption and implementation of uniform personnel policies and procedures

- Motion by Dorothy Pritchard for the approval of the payment of a $52,721.64 invoice related to legal assistance with the Ohio EPA storm sewer water order against the City of Bexley and other communities

Council Meeting, 7:00 pm

- Update by code enforcement officer David Hayes

- Proposed ordinance to rename the swim complex as the “David H. Madison Community Pool”

My Thoughts:

It is my understanding that the legal bill related to the EPA storm sewer water order is one that benefits other communities, yet we are paying for it completely for now and expecting reimbursement later? I need to learn more about this.

Upcoming special 2008 budget meeting & misc. happenings

2007-11-16T18:50:00.001-08:00

Special Budget Meeting on Tuesday November 20th

This Tuesday, November 20^th, city council will hold a special 2008 budget meeting to address the development budget and the IT budget. The meeting will be at council chambers (2^nd floor of city hall) at 6:00 pm. There have been several of these special finance committee meetings over the course of the 2008 budget review season, and certainly more will follow. If you’re not aware, our current (as it stands) draft 2008 budget has an approx. $2,500,000 deficit.

The 2008 IT budget as proposed stands at $432,467.12, a 14% decrease from the 2007 estimated expenditures of $503,066, but 9% higher than the 2006 actual of $386,984. Much of the IT budget is taken up by salaries & wages ($145,187.12), with software, telecom, professional contracts, and copier maintenance being other big ticket items.

The 2008 Development budget of $203,874.72 is 30.3% lower than last years’, and approximately 5% higher than the 2006 actual expenditures. Aside from salaries, “contracts”, “main street streetscape plan”, and “development programs” are the large ticket items on the development budget.

I will be unable to attend this meeting due to a prior commitment (Thanksgiving travels), but as always these meetings are open to the public and they’re worth checking out!

Misc Happenings

- Wednesday I spoke before the Civil Service Commission re: trying to add public document uploading to the city website to the job descriptions of appropriate departmental staff. I am very interested in trying to increase the transparency of the government process in Bexley, and I have found that while the IT infrastructure is in place and the training has been provided to accommodate this (so I’m told), there is no system in place to specify when and by whom information is provided to the public. I will continue to work intently towards this goal.

- The Jeffrey Mansion Commission’s public meeting for Jeffrey Mansion and park was Wednesday night, and it was attended by approx. 80 to 100 people (estimate). Of those, I would estimate 50% were in positions of leadership or employ within the city, with 25% being religious city meeting at tenders, and the remainder being comprised of consultants and interested public. I must admit I was a little disappointed at the low turnout given these perceived and subjective ratios. There was a very comprehensive presentation given by the commission and its consultants on the mansion and grounds, comparable facilities and how they function, and proposed ideas for making the mansion and park more viable. We then broke out into small discussion sessions, and it seemed the focus of the event organizers was to gauge public opinion on three main issues:

o Whether or not to allow the serving of alcohol at special events

o Whether or not to create a trust/foundation/endowment to allow private funding

o Whether or not to establish a separate governing body for the mansion and grounds that would be accountable to the city, but that would lease the facility from the city and allow parks & rec to focus on parks & rec rather than mansion facility planning and maintenance.

- There will be a party honoring Mayor Madison at St Charles on Sunday from 3 to 6:00ish. More info here.

Tuesday, November 13th council meeting

2007-11-12T08:54:00.000-08:00

Here are some highlights from the agenda for the upcoming council meeting on Tuesday the 13th of November. Note: the council meeting will be held in the lower level of the library in order to allow disabled access.

Safety Committee meeting, 5:30 pm

- Petition to place stop sign at South Parkview Avenue and Elm Avenue

Finance & Judiciary committee, 5:45 pm

- Bruce Langner will be presenting on the development department's 2008 proposed budget
- There will be several new ordinances introduced, including an ordinance to authorize the 2008 contract for the Columbus and Franklin County prosecution of criminal cases originating in Bexley, an ordinance to reduce appropriations to the Bond Retirement Fund by $247,182, several fund allocation ordinances, and an ordinance to appropriate $12,000 for consulting fees pertaining to studying moving the service department complex.

Council Meeting, 7:00 pm

- Presentation of proposed police station/service department, David King
- Presentation on gas aggregation, Terry Leach, Amp-Ohio
- Third ordinance readings include miscellaneous fee recordings/balance transfers, as well as the authorization of the 2008-2012 fire protection/EMS contract between Bexley and the city of Columbus
- Committee & City officials' reports

My Thoughts:

I will be interested to hear Mr. Langner's proposal for his 2008 budget. His current 2008 budget, as drawn, calls for a 30% reduction over 2007's budget, and a minor increase over the 2006 actual. Most of these cuts are in the form of reduced expenditure on development programs, as well as the 2007 budgeted expense of a $50,000 "Main Street survey". Mr. Langner's proposed budget for 2008 is $203,874, constituting less than 2% of currently projected city expenditures for 2008.

I remain unconvinced re: the need to construct the police station on the Main Street site. I am not alone in this; a large majority of the residents I spoke to when I went door to door in October seemed to share my feelings on the issue. I feel that demolishing the service facility in order to accommodate the proposed police station is wasteful and environmentally negligent, particularly considering the fact that the current service facility is one of the few serviceable and functioning municipal buildings in Bexley. Additionally, I feel that leaving the Main Street buildings as they are and constructing the police facility off site would free up the Main Street site for more flexible future redevelopment. We clearly cannot afford to both construct the police facility and construct a new service facility given our current financial situation, so spending more consulting dollars on studying the relocation of the service facility is, in my mind, irresponsible. As such, I think that the proposed ordinance authorizing this consultation is preemptive; before we authorize consultants regarding a proposed service facility, we need to lay to rest the very potent lingering doubts regarding the current plan to construct the police facility on Main Street.

Jeffrey Mansion public meeting this Wednesday

2007-11-12T07:30:00.000-08:00

Just a reminder to all of you that a public meeting of the Jeffrey Mansion Commission will be held this Wednesday at 7:00 pm at the mansion in order to receive input from residents of Bexley concerning future use of the facility and grounds. This meeting is very important, as it will help set the agenda for the mansion in the years to come. Some of the more heavily publicized issues that will be raised will include the question of whether or not to allow the serving of alcohol at private functions in order to increase private function revenues, establishing a trust or endowment in order to allow private donations to fund needed interior renovations, and prioritizing the types and scope of recreational use of the property, among others.

I personally support allowing the mansion to be more self-sustaining by allowing alcohol at special events, and I also think the concept of private funding is key in the context of the city’s current and projected budget shortfalls. Please come and let your voice be heard on the issues being discussed.

For more information, visit http://bexley.org/Custom/custom.asp?id=987&cmid=4477.