Findlay Greenlights Disputed Cory Street Gate; Citizens, Officials Flag Fiscal Strain and Data Center Utility Risks
BY CAREY MORGAN
FINDLAY - Fiscal strain, infrastructure skepticism, and intense citizen pushback dominated Tuesday’s Findlay City Council meeting, exposing growing fault lines between local residents and Mayor Christina Muryn’s administration. Despite vocal warnings from the public regarding the city’s declining financial health, council members ultimately pushed through a controversial capital expenditure bill while punting critical decisions on data center zoning regulations back to committee.
The evening's most contentious legislative action centered on Ordinance 2026-084. The measure authorizes the city to advertise for bids and enter into contracts matching the 2026 capital equipment list. Tucked into the legislation was a highly disputed $42,000 line item to install an electric, controlled-access gate across the 300 block of South Cory Street.
The corridor, situated directly between the Hancock County Sheriff’s Office and the municipal court buildings, has been blocked by temporary barriers since mid-2025. Critics have continuously characterized the move as an administrative overreach that bypassed public transparency.
During floor discussions, Councilman Dan DeLong, cast doubt on the gate's actual security value. DeLong noted that because the street must maintain an open path for bicycle traffic, the multi-thousand-dollar barrier remains intrinsically flawed.
"You're still going to have to have an entrance for bicycles," DeLong argued, emphasizing that motorized bikes and mopeds could easily bypass the checkpoint. "So as far as security, um, I don't think this gate is necessary."
Mayor Muryn quickly downplayed the financial burden of the initiative. She stated that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) had been secured with county officials.
"The county commissioners... are paying for the cost of the gate," Muryn stated. "We are splitting the cost... they are going to reimburse us up to half, which is [$21, 000]."
Muryn also claimed the project was transparently accounted for on page 103 of the city's capital book under a slightly different project description. However, the shifting descriptions and unbudgeted presentation did little to ease transparency concerns. DeLong remained unconvinced, casting the lone dissenting vote in a 9-1 roll call that ultimately adopted the ordinance.
The meeting shifted to public communications, where residents utilized their strictly enforced four-minute speaking slots to levy sharp critiques against administrative priorities.
Findlay resident Dwight Haley targeted the city’s economic framework. He cited a landmark Ohio Supreme Court precedent, Civic vs. City of Warren, to warn council that funding public infrastructure exclusively for the benefit of private corporate subdivisions constitutes a violation of the Ohio Constitution.
Haley questioned why the city is heavily investing in private developments and extending tax breaks while local audits display structural weaknesses. "We're broke. We're on the declining path moneywise," Haley stated bluntly. "We're spending money for the benefit of a private corporation where no one else benefits."
Following Haley, resident James Routson delivered an intricate, highly critical analysis of the city’s joint flood mitigation efforts with FEMA. Routson, a retired chemical laboratory coordinator with a background in local hydrology tracking, accused city engineers of relying on flawed mathematical data. He argued that the current HEC-RAS model uses steady-state assumptions that fail to reflect physical downstream bottlenecks past the city's main railroad bridge.
"The reality of the no-rise certification is a mathematical illusion," Routson said. He claimed that the city is overinvesting in an off-stream storage basin at the expense of native channel capacity. He posited that continuous floodway benching along the Blanchard River would yield five times the hydraulic capacity for a fraction of the cost.
Routson expressed widespread frustration among his constituents. "The people that are in my ward, 250 homeowners, are very concerned. Extremely concerned."
Mayor Muryn defended the multi-million-dollar flood plan. She stated that the administration has paid standard engineering experts to model the system extensively. Muryn brushed off Routson's suggestions for an official change of scope, asserting that rewriting a federal grant is too cumbersome and risks delaying active construction.
Regarding updates on date center zoning, the council grappled with ongoing anxiety surrounding a temporary 12-month moratorium on data centers. Councilwoman Heather Kensinger, presented a Planning and Zoning Committee report recommending approval of revised text to alter the minimum industrial lot intent from 50 acres down to 5 acres.
Councilman Rodney Phillips, urged extreme caution regarding the long-term utility strain of these facilities. Phillips warned that cloud storage, artificial intelligence, and Bitcoin mining setups could destabilize the municipal power grid through massive millisecond spikes.
"Without assigning a megawatt cap to this... that could be problematic down the road," Phillips said. He noted that severe grid stress and extensive water demands could block future heavy industrial developers from entering Findlay. "If we're open to data centers, does that mean we close the door for further heavy industrial development related to power demand and water?"
Councilman Dan DeArment, echoed the necessity for a slow approach. "We do have a 12-month moratorium on this, so it's not a big rush right now to get this thing finalized. We want to make sure it's right."
Ultimately, council voted to refer the data center ordinance back to the City Planning Commission and the Planning and Zoning Committee. The topic is set to reappear on the September council agenda.
