At the Aug. 25 Cortland City Council meeting, residents pressed the council and Mayor Petrosky over staffing and spending decisions, alleging improper payments, lack of transparency on consultant contracts and concerns about sewer and Ohio EPA compliance.

The meeting drew extended public comment from multiple residents and a long mayoral report. Michael Matheny, a resident who spoke at the podium, apologized for earlier behavior and then raised questions about personnel and record-keeping. Gary Burke, a former lift-station operator, said crews had pumped raw sewage into a creek during a flood response and asked whether that was an EPA violation. Neil Roman and other residents urged the council to hold the mayor accountable and to consider formal steps; some public speakers called for the mayor’s resignation.

Why this matters: speakers tied the staffing and contract disputes to public-safety issues (sewer and drinking-water compliance), municipal finances and the stewardship of grant and foundation funds that residents said should benefit Cortland taxpayers.

Council members and the mayor debated who holds appointment authority under the city charter. The mayor read charter provisions aloud including Article 3 and Section 4.04 to describe executive powers and the authority to appoint department directors, and said she had used emergency powers to avoid Ohio EPA penalties. She also cited Ohio Revised Code sections regarding duties of a director of public service and potential penalties for noncompliance with state drinking-water laws.

Residents and some council members criticized multiple consultant contracts and ordinance-authorized expenditures discussed in recent months. Speakers named several consultants and projects (engineering and design for downtown projects, the West Main waterline work and other items) and questioned whether the city had received deliverables for payments made. Multiple dollar amounts were discussed publicly during comment: a $350,000 allocation tied to an outdoor events/parking-lot project, a roughly $330,350 Mosquito Lake water-improvement amount, consultant contracts in the tens of thousands, and other line items; several callers said they had not received requested public records documenting payments and contracts.

The mayor and some council members defended use of outside consultants for work that requires licensed professional engineers or specialized grant-writing and design expertise. Council members said they review ordinance language and supporting documents before voting; callers said they did not consistently receive requested records in a timely way.

On staffing, the meeting included repeated references to Sean Radakin (identified in the meeting as having worked with the city beginning in 2022 and discussed as the service director or interim service director). Speakers debated his duties and whether council had been fully informed about remote work, hours and payments. The mayor described the hiring process for the service director position as having produced 33 applicants and an objective rubric for finalists; she said the job posting lists professional-engineering credentials as preferred but not required and that the new director can obtain required water licenses within two years.

On allegations of improper payments and governance, the mayor denied that she had authorized fines or illegal payments and told the meeting she would present documentation in subsequent sessions. Callers said they had assembled a multi-week investigation into ordinances, purchase orders and payments and requested council follow-ups and possible investigations. No formal investigation motion or vote was recorded on Aug. 25.

The meeting was highly engaged: the mayor’s report and a lengthy public-comment period together occupied the bulk of the session, with frequent interruptions and back-and-forth between the dais and the public. Several speakers asked the council to make a formal statement of confidence or no confidence in the mayor; at the end of the public comment period no formal motion from council on that request was on the record.

Council and staff commitments and next steps: council members said they would review public-records requests and minutes after the meeting. The mayor said she would address additional minutes (she noted she had reviewed through page 15 and would address the remainder at the next council meeting). Multiple speakers said they expect follow-up on public-records requests and documentation of consultant invoices and foundation/grant accounting.

The meeting closed with no formal removal, resignation or vote of censure recorded; participants set expectations for follow-up at the next meeting.