PART II: Survey reveals Ashland residents feel voiceless on $2.1 million ARPA spending plans

ASHLAND — The residents of Ashland didn’t get a chance to weigh in on how $2.1 million of American Rescue Plan Act money was spent.

A need would arise, typically one related to infrastructure, and officials would dip into the allocation. In fact, council didn’t even discuss the matter during regularly-scheduled meetings.

“I don’t think (council) ever discussed what we could spend American Rescue Plan money on,” said at-large councilman Dan Lawson said.

“The mayor and finance director would come to us and say ‘we have this project’ and, by the way, we have American Rescue money to spend it on.”

Consulting the residents through a public forum or through open council meetings wasn’t a requirement of ARPA. But, as Dan Lawson said, “it would have been fun to brainstorm.”

We decided to ask how residents would have responded. Because, after all, the city has until Dec. 31 to obligate (or earmark) the rest of the money — a total of $428,988.

The ARPA rules give cities like Ashland another two years to spend it all. But if that money goes unobligated, ARPA rules dictate a clawback, or a return of the federal money. 

Survey Results

So far, Ashland Source has heard from 146 residents around Ashland County who responded to a survey sent to the publication’s email newsletter subscriber list of 11,229. Of those, 69 indicated they are residents of the city of Ashland. 

The survey is unscientific and far from representative of the city population’s general sentiment — but the respondents’ answers offer real insights.

Specifically, the survey asks respondents to rate their level of awareness involving ARPA on a scale from 1-5. It also asks respondents if they feel involved with the way their local government or school district is spending the money.

In addition, it provides space for the respondent to answer why or why not.

Overall, the city’s 69 respondents rated their level of awareness involving ARPA right around the middle. But nearly half (34) gave their knowledge a rating of one or two, indicating they knew very little.

Only 13 rated their knowledge of ARPA higher, with fours or fives.

Despite respondents’ relative knowledge of ARPA, the vast majority of respondents — 85% — reported feeling voiceless when it came to decisions surrounding how the money was spent.

The rest of the respondents fell in the middle, and only five people reported feeling heard.

The survey also provides space for respondents to offer opinions on which public projects or initiatives they wished officials paid more attention to in their community.

To analyze the responses, we broke them up into three buckets: infrastructure (physical facilities that serve a general public), social services (programs that serve people in need) and other.

Infrastructure	Social Services	Other	Total
22	16	7	45

When you break it down, respondents favored infrastructure projects more than social services. The table above shows the number of respondents whose answers fit into one of three buckets.

‘No one solicited my input’

Some respondents were harsh with their criticism, pointing to a failure of officials to involve them in the process.

• “It was all decided by the mayor. Ashland City Council rubber stamps anything the mayor does.”
• “I don’t remember being asked for an opinion.”
• “Nobody’s voice is heard if it doesn’t fit the city’s political opinion.”
• “I only heard about the money after it was already approved to be spent. There did not seem to be any opportunity to have any input into the decision making process at all.”
• “I’m only hearing about this money for Ashland through this article in The Source.”
• “No one solicited my input.”
• “There were no neighborhood meetings to discuss, ask the population about their needs, how the pandemic has directly affected them.”

Some people were pleased with how Ashland has spent the money. 

“We have a phenomenal local government which seeks input from the community,” one respondent wrote.

Others, despite feeling out of the loop, projected trust in the local government’s ability to “make decisions that will benefit us in the community,” according to one respondent.

The survey is still open. Fill it out at this link. (Answers can be anonymous.)

One of the respondents, Lee Peters, 59, moved to his Walnut Street house in January 2018 from Westerville. He works from home, and occasionally runs along the streets and sidewalks for exercise.

When asked which public projects or initiatives he wishes public officials paid more attention to, his answer was simple: “Sidewalks, playgrounds and affordable housing.”

“The sidewalks in this town, they’re not safe,” he said. “They’re uneven, sometimes nonexistent. Ashland is not a very walkable city.”

Peters understands that sidewalks are not part of public infrastructure. Local governments are not responsible for their maintenance in Ohio — adjacent property owners are.

“But it seems to me that when the city is investing and trying to make the city better, investing in sidewalks would send a message to residents that we want it to be pedestrian friendly,” Peters said.

Karen Kick

Edith “Karen” Kick, 79, lives in a condo in Arthurs Court. She regularly volunteers at charities in the city that serve vulnerable people at places like the Ashland Church Community Emergency Shelter Services (ACCESS), the Inn at Ashland Woods, and Hospice.

“I’ve volunteered all my adult life,” she said. “I think we have a responsibility to serve and give back and support and encourage one another.”

Kick wished the city would have used some of the funds to help local charities meet basic needs. Money that would help charities like ACCESS and others provide boxes filled with necessary items like food, clothes. Maybe even programs that provide basic medical, dental and vision exams, she said.

Once, at ACCESS, she was tasked with interviewing incoming families to determine their needs. She remembers speaking with a man and a woman in their 20s with a child who appeared to be around 2 years old. When she finished determining their needs, she asked what he wanted.

“He said, ‘I would like socks,'” she said, adding the response surprised her. Kick expected them to want items like a gaming system or phone. “I never forgot that.”

So what now?

The wishes Peters and Kick shared represent the split between residents’ wishes for infrastructure updates and social services investment.

Though both residents had different ideas, they shared one thing in common: feeling out of the loop with how the money should be spent. They had opinions, but they said they were not given a chance to express them.

Lawson, the city’s at-large councilman, floated the idea of hosting a public forum. What do you think? Vote in the poll below.

In the final part of this series, we’ll follow the money, line item by line item.

What specifically did the city’s ARPA money buy and what were reasons behind those expenditures?

Reporting for this series was made possible by a grant from the Poynter Institute with support from the Joyce Foundation.

Lisa Buie and Carolyn Robinson contributed to this report by producing the video featuring Lee Peters.