December 21, 2006

By Diane Chiddister

Chad Runyon, Jerry Sutton and Kathryn Van der Heiden have applied to Village Council to be considered for filling the vacant seat of former Council President Jocelyn Hardman; Council has until its Jan. 2 meeting to make the appointment.

Council members will provide an opportunity for public comment at the Jan. 2 meeting, then meet in executive session to deliberate on the appointment, which will be announced publically following that session.

The News asked the three applicants to respond to questions about issues in Yellow Springs. Each question had a 100-word limit.

1. Please give a short biographical summary — your work, family, time in Yellow Springs, education, etc. Also, what has been your community involvement so far?

2.

Why are you applying for this seat? What qualities and skills will you bring to Council that the village needs at this time?

3. What do you see as the three most important challenges the village faces at this time? How would you address these challenges?

4. Issue 21 passed by only one vote. Do you believe the close vote indicates a division in the village around values and priorities, and if so, how would you address that division?

5. The Fogg farm annexation petition will be on Council’s agenda in January. What do you see as important issues regarding the farm’s possible annexation? How do you feel about annexation in general for Yellow Springs?

6. What kind of growth. either economic or residential or both, do you believe is in Yellow Springs’ best interest?

Chad Runyon

Chad Runyon

1. My wife, Jennifer Rosengarten, my 7-year-old son, Jack, and I moved to Yellow Springs nearly six years ago. I currently teach science at Kettering Fairmont High School and love interacting with young people. Prior to teaching, the majority of my employment was as an officer in the U.S. Navy, and I continue to serve in the reserves as a Lieutenant Commander. I have a bachelor’s in engineering from Purdue and a master’s in teaching from Wright State University. I have served on the Yellow Springs Environmental Commission for just under a year and have been actively involved with many of its projects.

2. The vast majority of my life has been spent in public service where I gained effective leadership skills well suited to serving on Council. Additionally, I feel I bring to Council the perspectives of young modest-income families, many of which came here or are choosing to stay here for what makes Yellow Springs unique. As we confront challenging issues, I would encourage the village to look at them in terms of long-term sustainability, environmental impact, and affordability. I feel my experience in science and environmental issues would be an asset when addressing these concerns.

3. I think the three most important challenges are revenue, development and village consensus. I feel revenue is best addressed by economic growth versus residential development. We need to increase the percentage of people that both live and work in Yellow Springs. This is better for the village economically and is environmentally sound. Building houses without creating jobs increases the already large number of commuters and creates additional infrastructure burden. Development concerns would be eased if progress is made towards establishing the greenbelt (a 2006 top Council goal.) Consensus building, however difficult, is worth the effort, even if it means making concessions.

4. I believe there is a split; however, I feel the village is closer on issues than it seems and shares common values. I know many of the reasons that people voted against the levy and shared many of these views. In the end, I voted for the levy; however, I wanted Council to present a levy that prioritized things a bit differently. I feel divisions are addressed by listening to the various viewpoints and then crafting proposals that address most concerns. This means that not everyone will be fully satisfied, but hopefully we can do better than a virtual split.

5. I do not believe annexation, or growing laterally, is presently best for the village. We have residential growth going on right now. We need to consider that approximately 70 residences are fully approved with a concept plan approved for 30 more units. The costs associated with increasing the village’s boundary are greater than if we were to increase the village’s “density.” As we expand laterally, our walkability and non-vehicular assess to downtown suffer, while the area covered by our infrastructure (and therefore expenses) increase.

6. I strongly believe that economic growth is the type of growth that would be best for Yellow Springs. One of Council’s top goals for 2006 was to determine its role in economic development. I feel that Council should do everything it can to encourage businesses to grow, stimulate entrepreneurship within Yellow Springs, and entice responsible businesses to locate here. This would increase our revenue from income tax providing far more “bang for the buck” than property tax revenue generated by residential growth. One insightful study shows the vast difference in cost benefit of leaving farmland as farmland versus developing it residentially.

Jerry Sutton

Jerry Sutton

1. Work: 33 years with the Air Force as engineer, manager and executive; 6 years as the senior civilian at Aeronautical Systems Center. Family: married to Sandy McHugh, who has two beautiful, young-professional daughters. Time in Yellow Springs: moved to Yellow Springs in 2003 to realize a long-standing aspiration, lived in Fairborn from ’66 through ’89 and frequently cycled through the village while coveting its tranquil environs. Education: BS-EE SDSU; MS engineering WSU; JD NKU; & MS MIT. Community involvement: Currently, chair, Yellow Springs Community Council; member, Men’s Group; assistant manager, Community Information Project (CIP); treasurer, GCDP; modest mediation and arbitration practice.

2. I believe everyone has an obligation to help maintain their community. Moreover, as Sandy (who served eight years on the Fairborn City Council) has said — “everyone should take their turn.” My career involved managing large projects and resolving complex issues in collaboration with diverse, strong personalities. I was on the Fairborn planning board during formulation of the planned unit development across from Wright State University. During 10 years in a Kettering condominium, I was either president or treasurer of the association. I served nine years on the WSU Foundation Board of Trustees being on the investment and finance committee and treasurer prior to being vice-chair.

3. Challenges are: a) managing the fiscal resources to get the Village on a sound fiscal footing; b) developing and managing economic growth opportunities to help maintain that footing; and c) balancing the expectations of the citizens with the resources of the Village. I have developed, defended and managed budgets and I appreciate the many constrains involved in administering a municipality. One cannot, however, address such issues alone; I feel my background and experience will enable me to work collaboratively and effectively with members of the Council, Village administration and the citizens to address these challenges.

4. I do not see the result as divisive. This democratic result clearly demonstrates the criticality of everyone’s vote. Council, Village administration and a number of citizens went to great lengths to inform the community of the basis for the levy and to address any questions. I was one of the few who attended a number of those sessions. The best means of abating residual concerns, if any, is for Council to continue to demonstrate responsible stewardship of the resources with which it has been entrusted and for concerned citizens to be involved in the budgetary process through the Council’s public forums.

5. Issues attending any annexation application are many and include the land use plan, its consistency with approved comprehensive plans, utility reach and capacity, environmental considerations, etc. The limited land use tools available to a municipality must be employed to the extent practicable so the result will be consistent with existing plans, the tenor of the community and the long-term goals of the village. I favor use of PUD tools; however, they require additional Village resources to administer and are not always available or necessarily appropriate. Yellow Springs is effectively bounded on three sides so the benefits, costs and consequences of any application must be weighed judiciously. Contiguous development is better controlled ‘in the tent.’

6. We need both; however, pragmatically our ability to compete in the larger arena to attract appropriate business & industry to relocate to Yellow Springs is limited. We can ill afford the tax abatements and concessions lavished by other communities. Our highest potential lies in nurturing local entrepreneurs and start-up businesses. A residential example: the Birch III development (with which I had issues) — when owned by Antioch, the contribution of those 20 acres to the property tax income of the Village was zero. With the new levy, this acreage, once the 40 homes are built and assessed with a nominal valuation of say $400,000 each, should contribute nearly $54,000 annually (under the old rate — $12,700).

Kathryn P. Van der Heiden

Kathryn P. Van der Heiden

(Van der Heiden’s answers have been shortened to stay within the 100-word limit.)

1. I have been a Yellow Springs resident and homeowner since 1985. Prior to that time my husband and I were building equity in Beavercreek until we could afford a home in Yellow Springs. The issue of affordable housing has been around for a long time. We have always seen Yellow Springs as a desirable place to live for several reasons: diversity, a high proportion of educated people with a keen interest in the environment and overall shared values about a sustainable way of life. Professionally, I am a psychotherapist in private practice, a business consultant and mediator.

2. I ran for a Village Council seat in the 2004 election. I was motivated by a desire to be involved in the process of furthering our community in becoming more sustainable and diverse. I continue to believe in those goals. What I bring foremost to the table are skills in communication and maximizing positive group interaction and dialogue. These are qualities that I think would help the communication between the Council and the constituents the Council serves. I have had experience heading committees, setting up conferences and presided as president over the executive council of the American Academy of Psychotherapists.

3. I am concerned by the divisiveness that occurs when there is insufficient communication between groups and between the community and the Village Council. I believe that the village has become fiscally less solvent and is in need of infrastructure repair. Though I supported the tax levy I do not see this as our only vehicle for raising the income that we need to sustain our needs. We need to be open to inviting new, clean industry into our community and to do so we need to make space available both within the village and without. Zoning issues need to continue to be addressed to allow for in-fill so that we can minimize the use of valuable greenspace.

4. The split vote was in part a division related to values and priorities as well as an indication of a breakdown in the process of communication between the villagers of Yellow Springs and the governance. Very clearly there were some villagers who did not agree with the stated priorities of the Village Council nor the way in which the Council proposed to deal with the problems. Some of the villagers got scared and felt threatened by the discussion of mandated versus non-mandated services. Some felt the constraint of what an added tax would mean regarding their being able to continue to live in the village.

5. In the specific instance of the Fogg farm I am philosophically not opposed to annexation. Annexation and measured growth will benefit us as a village in the long-term. However any annexation needs to be seen in the context of its added cost to the village in conjunction with its potential benefit. Being able to afford annexation of any property needs to be an essential part of the decision. Each decision about annexation needs to be carefully considered in view of sustainability, affordability, type of growth (whether residential or economic) and taking measures to protect our environment. We need not operate on fear of annexation if we are careful to consider all of the options and take into account our joint vision for the future of the village.

6. Residential growth must be balanced with greenspace preservation and economic growth. There was a time when it was nearly impossible to move into the village because the houses never went on the market. This is no longer the case. A number of houses stand vacant and many are for sale. What we lack are houses in good condition that are affordable and that encourage a diverse population and keep people who work in the village in the village. Our future depends on it. However, without equal growth in the business sector more housing availability alone will not help the village sustain itself into the future.

Contact: dchiddister@ysnews.com