Written by In a marathon session of committee meetings that stretched late into the evening, Marion’s city leaders grappled with ambitious plans for the future while simultaneously confronting deep-seated frustrations over present-day administrative failures. The Monday night meeting was characterized by some tension, swinging from forward-looking proposals to heated, pointed exchanges that laid bare significant friction between the legislative and administrative branches of city government.
Jobs and Economic Development: A Pitch for Local Control
The evening began with the Jobs and Economic Development Committee hearing a proposal to establish a locally certified commercial building department. The city currently relies on the State of Ohio’s Department of Industrial Compliance for plan reviews and inspections, a process that local developers described as a major bottleneck.
Ken Sheffer, representing a private engineering and architectural firm, presented a model where his company would operate the department on behalf of the city. He argued this would provide faster, more responsive service without costing taxpayers. “The goal is to achieve a net-zero cost building department operation with a modest return,” Sheffer explained, stating that the department would be funded by permit fees competitive with the state’s rates.
The primary benefit, Sheffer argued, would be speed and accountability. While the state legally has up to 30 days for plan reviews and 4 days for inspections, he said those timelines are often exceeded, causing costly delays. A local department, he promised, would be “focused on your community” and could offer services like next-day inspections.
Local developer Luke Henry, who has revitalized numerous downtown properties, gave a powerful testimony in support of the change, detailing his firm’s struggles with the state. “We have had opportunity and direct costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars dealing with the Department of Industrial Compliance,” Henry stated. He cited plan review delays stretching to 100 days and inconsistent inspectors changing requirements mid-project.
Municipal Services: Re-establishing an Economic Director
The theme of improving the city’s economic climate continued in the Municipal Services committee, which debated an ordinance to re-establish the position of an Economic Development Director. The role, with a salary of up to $120,000 per year, would be jointly funded by the city and county.
The mayor explained the move was part of a strategy for greater accountability after dissatisfaction with the previous “Can Do” structure. The proposal drew mixed reactions from the public and council. Resident Terry Cline questioned the high salary, remarking, “Big pieces of cheese attract big rats.”
Councilman Ayers Ratliff, who noted he will be leaving council at the end of the year, also voiced strong opinions on the new role’s requirements. “I personally would like to see some clause that the person that we hire… should be a member of the community,” he stated. “I think living here you have more of a vested interest here and you know more about what you’re trying to sell.”
Finance: Tensions Boil Over Fiscal Missteps
The Finance Committee meeting proved to be the most contentious of the evening, with sharp exchanges over appropriations and city procedures.
The Argument Over an Unapproved Payment
A major conflict arose over an ordinance to amend the ESID (Energy Special Improvement District) fund, which showed a negative appropriation balance of over $58,000. The Deputy Auditor explained that he made the payment in June without the necessary appropriation—the legal authority to spend the money—to avoid costly penalties and interest. “I didn’t want to pay penalties and interest,” he told the committee, framing his decision as a choice between two poor options: “I chose one bad path over another bad path.”
This drew a sharp rebuke from Committee Chairwoman Twila Laing. She pointed out the procedural failure was not with the council, but with the administration, which paid the bill in June but failed to bring the required legislation to the committee for approval until August—a two-month delay. “You can’t say ‘I had to pay it versus wait on you guys’ when you waited two months to get us the piece,” Laing countered. The ordinance was held in committee pending a legal review. This would be the second time Marion Watch has witnessed a meeting where illegal activities were admitted to by the Marion City Auditor’s Office.
Frustration Boils Over During Bank Discussion
The tension escalated during a discussion of an ordinance to designate the city’s official bank depositories, which had been stalled in committee for three months due to numerous errors. An exasperated Councilwoman Laing remarked, “I think that’s absolutely ridiculous that for three months somebody can’t put together a piece of legislation that we can pass through this committee.”
The discussion completely broke down when the committee questioned the City Treasurer about a line item designating 10% of city funds to a bank where the city holds no money. This led to a confusing exchange over basic math that highlighted the committee’s loss of confidence:
Council Member: “What’s 10% of 2 million?” Treasurer: “$100,000.” Council Member (correcting him): “$200,000.”
Following the confused math and lack of clarity, a frustrated Councilwoman Laing declared, “So, I can’t do this anymore. I can’t.” The committee swiftly agreed to keep the ordinance for further review.
Traffic and Other Business
The Traffic Commission addressed a citizen’s plea for action on excessive speeding on Silver Street. Resident Naomi Craig described a recent accident and ongoing safety fears, telling the commission, “I’m actually parking closer to the telephone pole now because I figure it’ll take the telephone pole out before they get my vehicle.” The commission confirmed a radar trailer would be deployed to the area.
The evening concluded with a public comment from a resident questioning the use of city resources for the Mayor’s Men’s Breakfast, an event she described as exclusionary. The mayor clarified that the event was privately sponsored and no public funds were used.
By the end of the lengthy session, a clear picture of the city’s current governance challenges had emerged. While committees successfully advanced proposals on economic development, traffic safety, and routine appropriations, the core of the evening’s tension remained unresolved. With crucial fiscal ordinances tabled indefinitely due to a lack of accurate information and procedural trust, the night concluded not with resolution, but with lingering questions about accountability and the path forward for Marion’s administration.