Findlay City Council Moves to Absorb Toxic Land, Administrators Ignore Elected Representatives

BY JEFF SKINNER 

FINDLAY - Despite warnings from Findlay city auditor Jim Staschiak on the significant liability in absorbing several county run property parcels, Findlay City Council voted to approve inheriting them at the July 1 regular meeting. The move comes from a meeting in which city administrative contempt for elected representatives was on full display. 

After much debate and discourse, City Council of Findlay voted to take over several pieces of property from the county. Much has been reported, including from the city auditor himself, on the potential liability of the city making this move as well as the potential for some of the properties to be contaminated, making absorption of them a significant risk for the city, should they ever wish to do anything beyond mowing the lawns.

Resolution 2025-068 outlined the absorption of two properties the city would take over from the county that have FEMA restrictions for flood mitigation on development, meaning the absorption posed no benefit to the city and would only lead to the city paying out in maintenance fees over time. Despite this, all council members voted to absorb them and their cost with only council members Holly Frische and Jim Niemeyer voting against it.

City council also voted to approve Resolution 2025-069, to absorb four additional property parcels from the county, which are known to be contaminated and would need significant evaluation and potential cleanup before any development or auction of the properties could be done, all at the cost of the city itself. Frische and Niemeyer were again the only nay votes.

The strongest arguments made for these deals from Mayor Christina Muryn was simply that ‘the city’ just wants to bring the properties under their control, and to control the ‘destiny’ of those properties. However, there is significant question as to how ‘the city’ is defined and who is really controlling the ‘destiny’ therein. 

During the meeting several comments and arguments erupted illustrating a divide between if the residents elected officials are truly governing the city or if the current administration sees itself as something separate. In discussion of Resolution 2025-069, members of council asked if some of the areas or drives could be looked at for various cleanup or uses, which prompted Muryn to reply “Once I own the properties, yes”. 

Additionally during a heated discourse between elected city council member Holly Frische and the Findlay Safety Service Director Rob Martin, Frische readdressed a previous request that Martin, who serves at the pleasure of council as city administration, provide Frische certain ODOT metrics on salt and salt deliveries as the city currently has an expired contract with ODOT. In his response, Martin refused to provide any labor or work to procure the information unless he knew exactly why Frische was requesting the information. The argument illustrated a significant and concerning presence of a near oligarchical attitude the current administration operates with, showing little concern for the will of citizens or their elected representatives that aren’t backing a unified agenda. 

In written communications, a member of the Mayor’s ‘cultivated’ council, Dan DeArment, sang the unrequested praises of a local entrepreneur, Paul Hadde, who submitted a letter stating the park project could represent a new way to attract businesses, as people no longer apparently relocate for work but because “they like the area.” 

“So Paul Hadde is a young entrepreneur in our community. I've met him. I don't know him, but I wanted to paraphrase one of his points I thought was really smart. He talks about the park projects a civic project for a new era,” DeArment said. “In the past, cities have attracted and retained citizens by providing jobs. We're in a new economic reality where the best jobs will be attracted to places with thriving and growing populations. If we want people to stick around and attract new families, we need projects like these that focus on building the best quality of life for our citizenry. I just think that's really well stated. I think that times are changing and we need to change, too.”

DeArment was quick to say he appreciated the sentiment and believes the park project is great as a means to change with the times. Despite the attempted PR spin on the benefit of the $40 million project, statistics show this is not remotely true. According to a recent article in Forbes, businesses surveyed stated overwhelmingly that remote work would be a thing of the past, making the concept of residents moving to Findlay for a nice park an asinine argument. Further, other studies have supported the long held understanding businesses choose their locations largely due to financial reasons such as taxation and cost of overhead.

Additionally, the study concluded the vast majority of Gen Z workers cited work availability as the driving force of their relocation plans. In short, there is no data to support the idea that expending $40 million to construct a park will bring either workers or businesses. Council member Frische was quick to point out that while the letter praised the park project as a potential boon without supporting evidence, there might be better or alternative ways to spend the same amount of money to actually bring in workers and jobs. This was met immediately with other members of council stating that was not the point of the letter, making sure the public did not confuse a potential PR attempt to promote the Mayor’s agenda with any rational inquiry.