RS7-3-2007

Ashland City Council

MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR SESSION OF COUNCIL
Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Council President called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

ROLL CALL

Ward 1:   Robert L. Valentine   Present
Ward 2:   Robert M. Valentine Present
Ward 3:   Ruth Detrow          Present
Ward 4:   Paul Wertz          Present
At-large:       Glen Stewart          Present

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PRESENTATION OF MINUTES: 6/12/07 Work Session; 6/19/07 Regular Session

There were corrections to be made, one on page 13 at top, a little more than half way down, Shoppers Shuttle, it should be, that it runs 1 day/week; not once a day.

Motion to accept the minutes by Glen Stewart, moved to be accepted and amended by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
Ayes: Bob L. Valentine W1, Bob M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Items not Included on the Agenda).

John Chorpening: The last time you were talking about the Charter as a possible way to word the gender neutral, (he, she). I was looking at the International Property Maintenance Codes Book and they cover it under the definitions in Section 201.02 where they state about masculine gender. It might make it easier than to print out the entire Charter.

Glen Stewart: I appreciate that. I will leave that up to our Law Director to make sure that all of our T’s our crossed and our I’s are dotted.

Questions or comments?

LEGISLATION

Ord. 43-07
Item (a) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO ENTER
            INTO A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE GOLF
            COURSE, PARK AND RECREATION DIVISION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND,
            OHIO, OBVIATING FORMAL ADVERTISING AND BIDDING; AND DECLAR-
            ING AN EMERGENCY.

Comments:

Larry Willis, Park Dept: These are two greens mowers for use at the Golf Course to replace some of the older equipment that we have. Some of the equipment we are still using there is up to 10 years old and recommendations are to replace them about every 7 years. I would appreciate getting this Ordinance passed to obtain these two mowers.

Questions or comments?

Robert L. Valentine W1: Is it my understanding you are going to replace them and use those for parts, or use those for future use?

Larry Willis, Park Dept: We will use those as back-up spare mowers. We have five mowers. Two are used for the greens and two are used for the tees. In September when we top dress our greens, we like to keep these mowers as back-up so we do not have to put our new mower heads out there on all of that sand that is on top of the greens.

Ruth Detrow: In this Ordinance, it has the two greens mowers and then it has three eleven blade cutting units, one narrow Wiehle Roller. Those are three different groups of items?

Larry Willis, Park Dept: Each mower has three cutting units to the mower itself; they are called tripods mowers. We are buying one set of new mower blades or heads for the mowing units and one set of rollers for each unit.

Glen Stewart: Are those in addition to or is that an option, you buy the mower and then you buy the blades, is that what you are saying?

Larry Willis, Park Dept: With the mower blades, there are different options on the type that you are asking.

Glen Stewart: So this is a package for two mowers?

Larry Willis, Park Dept: Yes.

Questions or comments?

Move the Ordinance be passed on the 1st reading by Glen Stewart, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
Ayes: Bob Valentine W1, Bob Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart

Move to suspend the rules 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights by Paul Wertz, seconded by Ruth Detrow to invoke Section 113.01 of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Ordinance has satisfied the requirements of said Section and that a further reading be dispensed with at this time.
Ayes: Bob Valentine W1, Bob Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart

Move the Ordinance be passed by Ruth Detrow, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
Ayes: Bob L. Valentine W1, Bob M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart

Ord. 44-07
Item (b) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE TAX COMMISION BUDGET OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OHIO, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2008, AND SUBMITTING THE SAME TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

Move for non-reading in full by Paul Wertz, seconded by Ruth Detrow.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Comments:

Anna Tomasek: This Ordinance adopts the tax rates for the City of Ashland for the fiscal year of 2008 and this piece of legislation needs to be adopted so it can be submitted to the tax commission and county auditor.

Questions and comments?

Ruth Detrow: It is a tentative budget and can certainly be amended to suite what we see as a situation when it is time to pass the final budget.

Anna Tomasek: That is correct.

Questions or comments:

Motion to pass the Ordinance on the 1st reading, , moved by Robert Valentine W1, seconded by Ruth Detrow.
Ayes: Bob Valentine W1, Bob Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Move to suspend the rules, 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights, by Wertz, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1 to invoke Section 113.01 of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Ordinance has satisfied the requirements of said Section and that a further reading be dispensed with at this time.
Ayes: Bob Valentine W1, Bob Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart

Ord.
Item (c) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 927.03 OF THE CODIFIED ORDI
            NANCES OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OHIO, RELATIVE TO WATER
            CONNECTIONS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.   1st Reading

Move for non-reading in full by Paul Wertz, seconded by Ruth Detrow.
Ayes: Bob L. Valentine W1, Bob M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Jim Cooper: This is the Ordinance for annexation in relationship to water and then the next one is sewer.

Mayor Strine: This is a situation where for a number of years we have been providing water and sewer to locations outside the City and it has come to the point where I feel and I have discussed this with all Council people at one time or another that it is time that the people who we are providing water and sewer to become part of the community and really what brought this on is the fact that we have to totally redo the sewers out on the east part of town and that is where a lot of these locations are where we are providing water and sewer and they are not in the City and it is going to cost in excess of $1,000,000.00 dollars to correct that situation; and therefore I feel and recommend to Council that all of those locations annex into the city. I have worked very closely with Rick on this and I don’t know if Rick wants to make any comments on this but that is my recommendation.

Richard P. Wolfe II, Law Director: A lot of this stems from the Supreme Court case 1 year ago involving the City of Perrysburg where the city took the position that they were going to discontinue providing water and sewer service if parties outside the city declined to annex; and the city won the case before the Supreme Court. This legislation and the one after it are patterned after the Perrysburg Ordinances and we hope that we will have the cooperation of the parties to annex and become a part of the city so that we are not providing water and sewer services outside the city and if we don’t, we feel the weight of the court decisions at this time are on our side that we can compel that so we are hoping that this won’t come to that; but this legislation is a pre-requisite to moving in that direction and it is my understanding that this is part of what or one of Council’s top priorities for the year so this is meeting a request in that regard.

Comments or questions:

Robert L. Valentine W1: Rick ended with a statement, that was the statement I was going to make too. We prioritize each year a number of things that we should try to accomplish over that year and as you mentioned one of the top priorities was this particular one.

Mayor Strine: One issue I would like to be very up front with everybody that I have talked to regarding this which includes some of the property owners on the east side of town. One of the most important things about the annexation is the fact that we are providing services to entities which some of the employees do not pay city income tax because they are not in the city and that is the reason that I feel they need to become a part of the city and help support the city in all of our services which would include them paying income tax.

Richard P. Wolfe II, Law Director: Which means some of the employees neither live or work in the City, so if they live in the city, it would not matter but because they live outside the city and their workplace is outside the city, they are not paying any income tax. And this is also in the area where we have an agreement with the township as to dealing with future annexations and so it shouldn’t be a problem in that regard as far as the township is concerned.

Glen Stewart: There are trade offs for those water and sewer users outside of the city. Today they pay a significant premium for both of their services for being outside of the city. Once they are annexed, they will come under the rate structure for whatever their usage would be under the regular city rate structure.

Richard P. Wolfe: They should actually realize the savings in that regard. And one of the reasons why this hasn’t come before Council earlier is that I am hesitant to speak before this administration, but it was my understanding that the Mayor was interested in communicating with a number of these entities prior to this legislation being enacted and I believe he has done that and I think that was a reasonable thing to do. There are others, it is just not that area; but that is a pretty large part of it.

Ruth Detrow: Is there a connection then Mr. Mayor, you said that we are going to have to do a great deal of repair and redoing sewers in probably more than the East side. Does that mean if someone chooses not to who is already getting sewer and water that the higher rate is outside the city. Does that mean if they stay outside the city; are they going to end up not getting the upgraded sewers?

Richard P. Wolfe II, Law Director: No, they are not going to get the service at all.

Glen Stewart: It is further provided that any person or entity presently receiving water service from the city shall upon notice from the city immediately comply with provisions set forth herein, here and above, failure to comply with such policy shall result in water service being terminated 60 days from date of notice.

Richard P. Wolfe II, Law Director: You don’t have the choice to not annex and continue to get the service.

Glen Stewart: And as Mr. Wolfe has indicated this Ordinance is an attested Ordinance.

Questions or Comments?

Motion to pass in the 1st reading by Glen Stewart, moved by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Robert M. Valentine W2.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Glen Stewart: Is this an Ordinance that this Council would choose to not pass all three this evening? This is a significant Ordinance.

Motion to move to suspend the rules 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert M. Valentine W2 to invoke Section 113.01 of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Ordinance has satisfied the requirements of said Section and that a further reading be dispensed with at this time.

Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Paul Wertz
Nays: Ruth Detrow, Glen Stewart

Glen Stewart: 2/3, is that what we need?

Richard P. Wolfe II: Yes, it is passed on the 1st reading.

Glen Stewart: So this Ordinance will come back up for a 2nd reading at our next Regular meeting.

Ord
Item (d) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING SECTION 921.39 OF THE CODIFIED ORDI-
            NANCES OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OHIO, RELATIVE TO SANITARY
            SEWER SERVICE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. 1ST Reading

Move for non-reading in full by Paul Wertz, seconded by Ruth Detrow.
Ayes: Bob L. Valentine W1, Bob M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Glen Stewart: Any Comments or questions? A very similar Ordinance, has the same impact only applying to the Sanitary Sewer Service and again those receiving Sanitary Sewer Service outside of the city pay a premium. I am not prepared to tell you what that premium is, I haven’t asked recently. But they do pay a premium. When they are annexed, it will go back to the standard rate structure for whatever entity they fall into.    Again, this Ordinance is based on other Ordinances that have passed the core test.

Comments or questions?

Paul Wertz: What is the time frame for the city if somebody wants annexed into the city?   What is the time frame to get sewer and water put to these people, if they want to do it?

Mayor Strine: It would have to be by each situation, and it depends on what type of lines we have to their property. If you have lines right in front of their property, it wouldn’t take long.

Richard P. Wolfe II- Law Director: Well, unless the lines are there, we can’t provide the service. It is when the service is available. It just depends on what you authorize to be constructed and when the work can be done and when you have to tap in. That is kind of an Engineering question; I need to defer to Jim on that. It is part of an overall plan and depends on what area you are talking about. Of course now is the time when we are doing a lot of that kind of stuff and as far as a time frame for either of these two pieces of legislation, once it is passed, then there is a 60 day notification so we were trying to get things in place before we get too far into the fall. We have been working on this for a number of months and another 2 weeks isn’t going to hurt anything.

Jim Cooper: If I could add one thing; the situation you are talking about Paul, where there is no sewer there, we have to generate plans, put it in the budget and those types of things; where as out east we have a sewer system; it just needs to be upgraded. You can still continue to have service there until we get the upgrade.

Richard P. Wolfe II- Law Director: Upgrade and extension? There are some areas needing upgrading, and in order to upgrade and move on to extend we have to improve what is getting out to there.

Questions or comments?

Motion to pass on the 1st reading, by Glen Stewart, moved by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Robert M. Valentine W2.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Move to suspend the rules 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1 to invoke Section 113.01 of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Ordinance has satisfied the requirements of said Section and that a further reading be dispensed with at this time.

Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Paul Wertz
Nays: Ruth Detrow, Glen Stewart.

Glen Stewart: That Ordinance will come up again on the next Regular meeting also. The Sewer Ordinance will come back before Council. It could be passed for both readings at the next Council meeting or it may be passed one time and moved to a 3rd evening if that is what Council would choose.

Ord. 45-07
Item (e) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CODIFIED ORDINANCE SECTION 521.10
            RELATIVE TO “NONSMOKING AREAS IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ASSEM-
            BLY”; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

Move for non-reading in full by Paul Wertz, seconded by Ruth Detrow.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Bob M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Comments or questions?

Richard P. Wolfe II – Law Director: We have had in place for a number of years, section 521.10 that dealt with smoking in public places. The passage of the issue at last years election and the enactment of rules implementing the new law pertaining to smoking on a statewide basis pretty much made that Ordinance obsolete and it was brought to my attention by Al Sanders when he met with me and brought me a copy of the new rules and pointed out that it pretty much superseded our Ordinance and that being the case I felt the appropriate thing was simply to repeal our Ordinance because it is in conflict with the State Law and the State Law has superseded it. So this is just a response to the fact that there is a statewide law pertaining to this. The State Law covers everything that we had and more.

Move the Ordinance be passed on the 1st reading by Ruth Detrow, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Move to suspend the rules 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1 to invoke Section 113.01 of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Ordinance has satisfied the requirements of said Section and that a further reading be dispensed with at this time.
Ayes: Robert L Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Move the Ordinance be passed by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart

Ord. 46-07
Item (f) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 31-07 OF THE CITY OF
            ASHLAND, OHIO, RELATIVE TO THE ASHLAND BUSINESS PARK RETEN-
            TION POND PROJECT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

Move for non-reading in full by Paul Wertz, seconded by Ruth Detrow.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Jim Cooper: We are requesting an increase in the price of the Retention Pond. Initially   when we came up with the estimate of $70,000.00 1 ½ year ago, we did not anticipate 35,000 cubic yards of more material. Based on that and new requirements from the EPA as far as Water quality, we operate on an estimate; additional money will come from Storm water and the revised estimate is $ 125,000.00 dollars. This will take care of 85% of the business part of storm water.

Mayor Strine: It will also help a lot down stream.

Glen Stewart: And as that Park develops, it will be a little faster run off. This is the storm water plan.

Questions or comments?

Richard P. Wolfe II – Law Director: The Ordinances drafted shows you what the previous estimate was and what it is changed to and the Ordinance 31-07; the rest of it still remains in effect but this is changing the dollar amount.

Move the Ordinance be passed on the 1st reading by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Move to suspend the rules 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1 to invoke Section 113.01 of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Ordinance has satisfied the requirements of said Section and that a further reading be dispensed with at this time.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Move the Ordinance be passed by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Glen Stewart.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Ord. 47-07
Item (g) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO ENTERPRISE ZONE
            AGREEMENT #037-02-01 BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASHLAND, ASHLAND
            COUNTY AND REINEKE COMPANY, INC.

Move for non-reading in full by Paul Wertz, seconded by Ruth Detrow.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Comments:

Lee Reineke, P.O. Box 199, Nankin, Ohio 44848: We had a change of ownership. A Company that came in as a partner as an LLC. We were an S Corp. An LLC cannot own a part of S Corp therefore we had to change and go to an LLC. That was advised by our Accounting/Auditing Firm that this vacated or nullified the current agreement we had. This will be under the Enterprise Zone agreement and in so doing I got in touch with Evan Scurti and had ask him, what do we need to do?

Glen Stewart: You are in the process of doing that?

Lee Reineke, P.O. Box 199, Nankin, Ohio 44848: Yes, trying to.

Questions or Comments:

Evan Scurti: He explained to me that the Company for all intent and purposes remains the same, is thriving and doing very well with the same management team.   Allowed to continue agreement to the schools. Started 2002 and expires in 2011.

Richard P. Wolfe II- Law Director: So you are saying that there is no change in the effect of the Enterprise Zone agreement? As far as how this structural change pertains to the Enterprise agreement, is there any change at all? This is not just a name change. This is a structural change in your company. How does that relate to the Enterprise Zone agreement?

Lee Reineke, P.O. Box 199, Nankin, Ohio 44848: Once again, I think that is up to the Council. I mean the agreement we have I think is the best agreement for the city, which is why I would like to keep it.

Richard P. Wolfe II- Law Director: So you are saying there would be no change?

Lee Reineke, P.O. Box 199, Nankin, Ohio 44848: There will be no change.

Ruth Detrow: But this is a partnership now?

Lee Reineke, P.O. Box 199, Nankin, Ohio 44848: No it is a limited liability Corporation. There is a company by the name of Varying Technologies, they own 50%.

Ruth Detrow: And they are in agreement? They are going to own 50% of this company, do they agree with that?

Lee Reineke, P.O. Box 199, Nankin, Ohio 44848: They don’t own 50% of the company because of the agreement. The Company has been changed. That is where this problem comes in. If you want to call it a problem. It is no longer Reineke Company, Inc.   It is now Reineke Company LLC.

Ruth Detrow: Then the agreement for the City of Ashland is with Reineke Company LLC only.

Lee Reineke, P.O. Box 199, Nankin, Ohio 44848: What we would like is that the agreement change the Reineke Company Inc. to Reineke Company LLC. If we were to elect to go the other way and pay property taxes, they would be eliminated next year. Property taxes would go away.

Ruth Detrow: I think that the Enterprise Zone, that we have at various manufacturers in town, are an excellent idea. I am very much for them. I just want to make sure that the agreement we are entering into is an agreement with the same people and not the same people plus some other people that might not agree.

Lee Reineke, P.O. Box 199, Nankin, Ohio 44848: I am the spokesman for the group, the other people agreed to go along with this.

Questions or Comments?

Move the Ordinance be passed on the 1st reading by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert L. ValentineW1.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow. Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Move to suspend the rules 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights to invoke Section 113.01 of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Ordinance has satisfied the requirements of said Section and that a further reading be dispensed with at this time.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Move the Ordinance be passed, by Ruth Detrow, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Res. 11-07
Item (a) A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
            SAFETY OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OHIO, TO FILE AN APPLICATION
            AND ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OFFICE OF THE ATTOR-
            NEY GENERAL, STATE OF OHIO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING
            FUNDS THROUGH THE D.A.R.E. GRANT PROGRAM; AND DECLARING AN
            EMERGENCY.

Move for non-reading in full by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Comments:

William Miracle, Police Chief: It is a Grant we apply for through the Ohio Attorney General’s office to help partially fund our D.A.R.E. program. We usually receive in the area of $10,000.00 to $ 15,000.00 dollars a year to fund it.

Ruth Detrow: This is an excellent program. It is a privilege for us to support it.

Glen Stewart: I would agree.

Move the Resolution be passed on the 1st reading by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Bob M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Move to suspend the rules, 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights by Paul Wertz, seconded by Ruth Detrow to invoke Section 113.01 of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Ordinance has satisfied the requirements of said Section and that a further reading be dispensed with at this time.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Move the Ordinance be passed by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Robert M. Valentine W2.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

WARD REPORTS

Ward 2: Bob Valentine
(a)   I just received a letter from a gentleman that lives by Brookside Park with complaints of people driving through the park on the dirt roads around the softball fields. They are not Park employees, they are just kids cutting through. I will give this to Tim Clingan, Parks/Recreation, and he can address it.
(b)   Another call, House on Sharp Street, a complaint follow-up.
(c)   A call on Ward Drive, Mr. Cooper was taking care of that.

Ward 1: Bob Valentine:
(a)   A call from Garfield Avenue, a water problem.

Jim Cooper: We do realize there is a problem with Garfield Avenue. We are in the process of starting to do some design work, so we have a set of plans. We are looking into funding. Engineering is working with Curt Young and once we get a set of plans then we will discuss it with the Mayor and Council.

Glen Stewart: Rusty water?

Robert L. Valentine W1: Really rusty. It has been going on for some time now. Long time.

Ward 3: Ruth Detrow
(a)   West Liberty Street, Rick Reynolds. He has had an ongoing problem with private snow-plowers. He wants to talk about it now so that we don’t end up trying to say something at the last minute. His concern is that private snow plowers put snow on lawns and on other people’s driveways etc… He says that there are other cities which have Ordinances which say if you plow snow onto someone else’s property, you are required to move it. I have not investigated what other cities. The more I talk to people about it, the more difficult an Ordinance that would be to enforce. I am wondering if anyone has any suggestions on that. Because I just don’t know how it could be enforced. It just seems it would be a good neighbor not to put snow on somebody else’s land.

Bill Miracle, Police Chief: I don’t have the slightest idea on how we would enforce it.   Frankly, how would you know what snow went where or whose snow it was? Unless you absolutely see it, videotape it happening I suppose, but off the top of my head, I do not have an answer for that.

Ward 3: Ruth Detrow (cont’d)
(b)   Sherman Avenue. I got a call from a lady who is very unhappy because
     there is a great deal of speeding on Sherman Avenue according to her. She
     has gone out and yelled at people before because they were speeding. Mr.
    Mayor, you remember we talked about Sherman Ave. and speeding on there.
    How can we police it better?

Mayor Strine: That is another difficult issue Ruth. I get complaints and I am sure the Police Chief gets complaints. We can ask the Chief to put the portable up there.

Robert M. Valentine W2: I know if you see that in various parts of town, you automatically when you see that, no matter how fast you are going, you automatically look at your speedometer.

Ward 4: Paul Wertz
(a)   I would just like to thank the Law Director and Chief for whatever they are doing in my neighborhood, keep up the good work.
Council at Large: Glen P. Stewart
(a)   I want to acknowledge a receipt of a letter from Mr. Stratton regarding: he voiced some opinions about sidewalks and I appreciate his comments and I am not going to read his letter but I want to acknowledge receiving it. His comments from my view are very constructive.
(b)   I received an e-mail, I bypassed you Mayor and I shouldn’t have done that; I talked to your Engineer and it was asked that a wheelchair ramp be installed at the corner of OakCrest Court and Woodview Drive. For the life of me, I don’t know how this happened, but all intersections in that subdivision where there are sidewalks, had wheelchair ramps with the exception of one corner and it does not have a wheelchair ramp and this has been a request for it. I do not know the process on that and I shared that with Mr. Cooper and it may take some more discussion but I wanted to acknowledge receiving that request.

Glen Stewart: There has been a great deal of, I trust they are young people, in various neighborhoods, it has happened in our neighborhood of entering cars, unlocked cars, possibly breaking into some cars, doing some minor damage on cars. I think what we need to do, as residents of our community, be very cognizant of any unusual activity. I guess I might say, strangers! I think if it looks like a problem, smells like a problem, it probably is a problem. Those activities I presume, and the Chief could probably tell us very quickly; are these annual spring events or summer events with longer hours and no school due to an unusual amount of activity right now from my viewpoint. Chief is the activity up right now or is it normal?

Bill Miracle, Police Chief: It just runs in cycles depending on who’s out running around at the time. We have had a rash in the last couple of days of not only car burglaries but also a few houses being entered. So, the usual crime prevention methods apply here; lock your doors when you leave the house, lock your windows, be cognizant of who is running in your neighborhood and if you see something suspicious, don’t hesitate to give us a call. Don’t keep anything in your cars that you don’t want to lose. There are a few simple things that you can do, because in most of the cases, they are in for what they can steal, turn it into cash very quickly and do with what they want to do with it.

Old Business: None.

New Business:
(a)   Discuss name for replacement of John Hovsepian, Economic Development
     Council). We will consider that a little later.

Robert L. Valentine W1: April about 1 year ago, the new insurance program for employees. Is it a possibility that we could update this at maybe the next meeting or two meetings from now on how the insurance program is going?

Glen Stewart: Are you talking Health Insurance?

Robert L. Valentine W1: Yes.

Liquor Permit Request: New   Moran Foods, Inc. DBA Save a Lot 635, 161 Center Street, Ashland, Ohio 44805

Glen Stewart: Chief, being a new permit, I doubt if there is any record of any problems in the area.

Bill Miracle, Police Chief: As far as I know there aren’t any. Rick I don’t know if you can answer this. Is there a problem if there is a Church right across the parking lot from them?

Richard P. Wolfe II, Law Director: They would get notice. They would have the right to object if they chose to.

Glen Stewart: That is a brand new Church. What entity would know that they are there?

Richard P. Wolfe II, Law Director: Is it there now? Well I think when they file their application they have to disclose that.

Glen Stewart: It probably wasn’t there two or three weeks ago. They just bought the Art Center. Will we want to request another hearing?

Richard P. Wolfe II, Law Director: I think if you want to act on your own behalf and proceed with whether you want a hearing. When we send it back, we can also bring to their attention that there is a new entity.

Motion to not request a hearing by Paul Wertz, seconded by Ruth Detrow.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Glen Stewart: So that will go through as no hearing requested.

Mayor’s Comments:
(a)   I have a recommendation for an appointment to the Health Board. Council can take a look at it. Carol Scurti is whom I am recommending for the Health Board. In my view Carol is very well qualified and also falls in line with what I have attempted to do over the years is get some young people involved in these things. You can see her qualifications there, which I handed out to everyone. If you would like more time to consider that, that is fine. If not, I would appreciate you confirming that appointment.

Move to recommend Carol Scurti for appointment for Health Board by Paul Wertz, seconded by Glen Stewart.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Glen Stewart: The appointment is confirmed.

Mayor Strine: Also we need to discuss setting a meeting for our Well Head protection plan.

Glen Stewart: I talked with Mr. Paxton today and he has suggested that that is about a 20 minute slide presentation plus allocate 10 minutes of questions and answers. I would like, and it is not imperative, but it would be good if we could get this done in July on our next Regular Meeting on the 17th. So Valarie, will you make that a part of our agenda? There will be a presentation.

Valarie Bishoff, Clerk of City Council: Yes Sir.

Glen Stewart: Larry will you give Valarie the proper terminology for this? Will there be a Grant request that comes with this?

Larry Paxton: It is just a part of the process. The process being an Engineer from Columbus coming to present the 20 minute program.

Glen Stewart: No actions will be required that evening.

Larry Paxton: No. It is just a local meeting to discuss the plan.

Glen Stewart: Is it classified as a hearing, to be advertised as a hearing?

Larry Paxton: Just an open meeting.

Glen Stewart: So that will be on 7/17/07 agenda.

Motion to move into an Executive Session to consider the appointment of a public official and discuss a matter with the Law Director of eminent litigation by Glen Stewart, moved by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert M. Valentine W2.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Glen Stewart: We will take no action and we will be back shortly.

Executive Session: 7:55 pm

Move to go out of Executive Session and back into Work Session by Paul Wertz, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

Work Session continues at 8:15 pm

Glen Stewart: At this point in time we will move into the Work Session. The sidewalks are the subject of our work session and I have in this pile the latest tabulation of the Sidewalk Survey. There were 1685 surveys returned, there are between 7,000 and 8,000 surveys sent out. I do not have the exact number of Water Bill Accounts, but in that range. So, this for a survey to be returned somewhere between 17 and 20% is a very respectable return. I am going to read these.

·   Question number 1. Are you in favor of Legislation requiring sidewalk repair and new sidewalk installation? Yes or No.   Yes – 552    No- 1009.
·   Question number 2. Do you favor the installation of sidewalks in all neighborhoods, if the topography of the property allows at the expense of the property owner? Yes or No    Yes- 214       No- 1417.
·   Question number 3. Should the repair of the existing sidewalks be at the expense of the property owner? Yes or No. Yes – 493    No – 1109.
·   Question number 4. Should the cost of repair to existing sidewalks be shared equally by all Ashland citizens through taxes already in place? Yes or No.   Yes- 915      No- 707

That is the recap of the survey and I am going to suggest to this Council that we have those results in front of us. We need to address the issue of sidewalks in Ashland, Ohio. Back in April, I made a suggestion that we put a moratorium on any new construction of sidewalks for 6-8 weeks hoping to get some resolution of how we were going to address the 10-year program. The 6-8 weeks is well passed and the construction season is moving very rapidly. I would open this Work Session up to: What is the pleasure of the Council; and what is your pleasure to the direction for which we need to start to move? I failed to mention, Valarie, how many comments did we get? Maybe 250?

Valarie Bishoff, Clerk of Council: I would say 380-400 comments.

Glen Stewart: There were comments that were either written on the survey or separate piece of paper returned, Valarie says 380-400. Many of them were exclamations of variations of these questions and Valarie read through most of them and Ruth read some of them.

Ruth Detrow: I read over half of the first ones and have not read the more recent ones.   Most people don’t want to pay individually for sidewalks.   They want everybody to pay for them instead of themselves.   That is going to be a problem because there are a lot of people who have already paid to have their sidewalks done. How do you deal with that?   There is no way this can be fair. A lot of people also said, “I just don’t have the money”, and I certainly can sympathize with that. I think in places where we have to have sidewalks, and certainly there are places where as a City, we are going to be remiss if we don’t make sure sidewalks go in. I think in places where we have to have sidewalks, if people don’t have the money, I think we have an obligation to put sidewalks in and split the cost. I also think there are lots of people who can afford to put in sidewalks in places where they are needed.

Glen Stewart: I would confer with that.

Comments or questions?

Paul Wertz: I think what people are telling us is people who don’t’ have sidewalks now don’t want them. They want to repair the ones we have. But who is going to pay for them? In the long run, everyone is going to pay. How are we going to do that so we do not have a conflict?

Robert L. Valentine W1: One thing I think we have to get straight is; sidewalks are for safety; to deny that is wrong. That is what they are for. I think everyone of us probably have come up with some idea or ideas to come up with a solution to this problem. I think it is a very complex problem and if you want me to I will read you some of the ideas that I have had.
1.   All sidewalks in need of repair should be repaired.
2.   If income eligible, city should charge no interest to repair sidewalks.
3.   Thru Streets with traffic, sidewalks should be installed.
4.   Streets where sidewalks have been started should be completed.
5.   When applying for State funds, sidewalks should be installed/projects, which we are already doing.

Robert M. Valentine W2:
·   My main idea is to fix what is broke. That should be the number one priority. If you walk anywhere in this city, you are talking E. Main, W. Main, Sandusky Street, Cottage Street. At night, you have to look down while you are walking, if you don’t you will break an ankle.
·   I concur also with Robert L. Valentine W1, where you have sidewalks then open spaces, you need to fill those areas in, number 1 it looks terrible, then again if you have a lot of sidewalk, you have people I see walking, there are beautiful sidewalks, but they are walking in the road. You can put it there, but will they use it? That is my other question.
·   Cul-de-sacs, areas that have very little automobile and no commercial traffic, non-thoroughfare streets; if people in those areas want sidewalks, then they can bring petition to Council stating that they want sidewalks, otherwise none will be required.
·   In areas of heavy automobile and commercial traffic as determined by the Engineer, sidewalks need installed on at least one side of the street and in other areas with poles, ditches, severe slopes, anything else the Engineer deems not possible to physically or economically install sidewalks; these areas will be exempt from installing sidewalks.

Paul Wertz: I feel the same way. Fix the ones we have.

Glen Stewart: I will share with you my revised plan.
·   Continue with sidewalks in all developments residential as well as commercial; platted after 1988 as prescribed by existing Ordinances. So if you build a new home today, you are going to put a sidewalk in.
·   Continue with sidewalk maintenance, repair, and replacement as prescribed by Ordinances for any existing sidewalk in need of repair or replacement.
·   Continue with sidewalk installation according to the 10-year plan or less, may be 5 years for streets described in the next paragraph. Ensure sidewalks are constructed along any main traffic corridor such as Claremont, Cottage, Sandusky, Cleveland Avenues and so on. I am not going to identify all of the streets. Where sidewalks do not currently exist in highly pedestrian traveled streets, consider constructing one side only with the construction cost being shared by property owners from both sides as well as sharing all future maintenance costs. Very difficult. Very difficult because I do not want it on my side. I do not want to shovel it when I am in Florida. We have established this pattern on Baney and Mifflin and other streets where sidewalks have recently been installed. When the street program went in.
·   Pre 1988 platted neighborhoods with non-through streets, cul-de-sac streets and strictly neighborhood streets with little or no commercial traffic and do not currently have sidewalks may be exempt from mandatory installation unless a need is established by the residents of their neighborhood or the city, the city’s traffic committee and approved by the City Council. That doesn’t flow real well but it gives an option; if the city sees a specific need, if the traffic committee sees a specific need or if a resident sees a specific need, they could petition to see if it is approved.
·   I also propose a scaled cost to the resident property/property owner based on income to be worked out with the city using Issue 2 for example, Community Development Block Grants, when available and I don’t have all of those sources. There may be grants, I don’t know that. But I concur that there are property owners that may absolutely be in a situation they could not repair their sidewalks and we need to address that. Funds are tight, but we need sidewalks. My position on rental and commercial property would not be part of the scaled cost. If you own a rental property, I am looking at that as a business and income is not going to be a factor on whether that would have subsidized sidewalk construction cost or not.

This is just a draft that I basically, Bob and I have very similar drafts before we ever got into our survey process and I think maybe all of us had this. I don’t propose this is an end. I don’t propose at any of our presentations tonight are an end to all of this, but we need to take a position and it is a very difficult position to take when the community has told us, “We want everyone to pay for the sidewalks”. Many, many, many people have already paid for the sidewalks, but that is up to this body as a whole, what do we want to do?

Robert L. Valentine W1: What have the comments been about? ; the areas where we have no sidewalks at all? Specifically, and in the Ward I represent, Countryside.

Glen Stewart: Well, to me from the Ward meetings that we had, I think it is quite evident that those neighborhoods that do not have sidewalks as a whole for a neighborhood; they do not want sidewalks. And I am not citing Countryside specifically, but as an example and there are other areas in our community that I could; take the Columbus Circle area; there are no sidewalks in the Columbus Circle area. Out by the park. What I personally look at as one of you pointed out. The real issue is safety.   And the safety from the condition of some of our sidewalks is atrocious. Mr. Valentine? And I don’t want to dominate this discussion guys, where do we go?

Ruth Detrow: I think that the people who don’t have sidewalks and don’t want sidewalks, I think the reason for putting sidewalks in at all in those areas should be safety. And it seems as though maybe it would make life a lot easier for everyone if we just simply said a certain count of cars using that street says that we need sidewalks on that street because it is dangerous to walk along the cars. I asked Mr. Cooper; what a busy street is in terms of cars, and I have suggested a number that he said, that isn’t a busy street. Do you have a number now?

Jim Cooper: To be very honest with you I would like to consult with some other cities and talk to some traffic engineer to get a good answer for you. And I would be glad to do that.

Ruth Detrow: It would be a little bit of effort and money for us to do a traffic count on the streets. I don’t think it would be that big a deal, would it?

Jim Cooper: Yes Maam, if we did the whole city, you are looking at $ 100,000.00 dollars.

Ruth Detrow: What about certain, specific streets? For example Columbus Circle.

Jim Cooper: We could, but then I would think we might get into an issue of just picking certain streets and not others, then those streets have the option of coming back at you. I don’t know if that might be a problem. I am not saying we can’t do it, but it would be expensive to go out there and do what is necessary.

Ruth Detrow: There goes $100,000.00 dollars that could be used to put sidewalks in when we need them. We have to have something objective to evaluate where we need sidewalks. I was thinking traffic count would be an objective thing. The State says you have to have a certain number of accidents before you can put in a traffic signal and I guess they have some other requirements too? But if we are objective and we say a certain number of people using street means there have to be sidewalks there, I think that would be objective and closer to fair then a lot of other things.

Glen Stewart: I would think that, I believe that West Main Street, Sandusky, Cottage, possibly Union, Cleveland, Broad Street all the way around from E. Main to Center Streets to Claremont to Broad. Those are main traffic arteries that I question that anyone could legitimately as low traffic or non-through type streets. I suppose that Broad Street isn’t a through street. It ends up becoming Mifflin Avenue. I am thinking in those types of streets. If we were to take a position on that type of street and take a position on repairing currently disrepaired or poorly major damaged sidewalks. The paying part is a whole other story. No one wants to pay for it. No one would really want to give up any other general funded activity in this community to pay for sidewalks. No one wants to give up a whole lot, in my opinion. No one said that they wouldn’t give something up but. How many miles of streets are in Ashland? 40 some miles?

Jim Cooper: Over 100 miles of streets.

Glen Stewart: If 10% of those miles, if there are 10 miles of sidewalks in poor repair, that is 55,000.00, 52,000.00 feet of sidewalk at $15.00 a foot.   Where do we come up with that?

Ruth Detrow: Well we have already said that the sidewalks that exist and are in poor repair must be repaired. If we take that as a given, one of the givens, then we have to look at the people who just can’t do it because of low-income and I would think low income, we say that 1 ½ times poverty level. There are already established low income guidelines and I think we should use one of those.

Glen Stewart: I concur that we could extract some income guideline to graduate the cost assess if we chose to do that.

Paul Wertz: It would be expensive to the city, but not as bad for part of it. If you were going to pay for the whole thing, that would be very expensive and that wouldn’t be fair to the people that already paid to have their sidewalks put in. There are a lot of people out there putting their sidewalks in. Up from me, they put their sidewalk in.

Glen Stewart: Well, and we are telling anyone who builds a home today, that the sidewalks are a part of it.

Robert L. Valentine W1: That is where I run into trouble. You are talking about platted in 1988. Streets with sidewalks that were started and not completed, that is why they will never be completed.

Glen Stewart: That much of this bigger problem. The big picture, that is relatively a small piece and the piece or damage in sidewalks of disrepair is a huge number. Did you not tell us $15.00 dollars a lineal foot for sidewalk at one time?

Jim Cooper: $5.00 dollars a square foot, so it would be actually $25.00 dollars a foot.

Glen Stewart: Wow, well let me change my numbers. If there are 10 miles of bad sidewalk that needed to be replaced at that rate, it is close to $900,000.00 dollars.

Jim Cooper: If you do both sides, it will be double that. Close to $2,000,000.00 dollars.

John Chorpening: At the Board meetings there is a lot of talk about adding in a small tax to cover the area of sidewalks. It makes people feel like they did not want to put the cost of repair to the homeowner that has already paid for it once and then they felt like there was no need to repair these and that would be a fair way to do that.

Keith Ballantyne: That is why there were a number of suggestions to separate the two issues and get at the repair issue and get that resolved and work on the other in the meantime. You keep insisting on putting the two together and even your questionnaire stated that. You would have had a different response if that question had two separate issues. Most people want to see the sidewalks repaired, most people do not want to have to put sidewalks where they were exempt some years ago when that area was developed. You are talking about exempting some now, then later on when new Council is in, you will be back into the same thing.   You are digging yourselves a hole.

Glen Stewart: To clarify that Mr. Ballantyne. The ones that I spoke of pre 1988, they were exempted by the plat very similar to what Countryside had. They just did not have to put them in and an example of that is Woodview Drive. You go down to Woodview Drive maybe 1000 feet and there is no sidewalk and then from there on, there are sidewalks. That is where that 1988 came from but I concur we have 2 issues, repair and installation.

Robert M. Valentine W2: Nobody wants to pay for it, so what is so simple about that. We do not have any money to do it. When you sent out the survey and you asked somebody if they wanted to spend money or not, and they say no; send me the survey I am going to tell you I don’t want to spend money either. There are just some things that have to be done on your property though.

Glen Stewart: There are supposed to be sidewalks on the city streets. Is that true Mr. Cooper? The areas that are already annexed out on 250 on the city streets. Buehlers for instance.

Jim Cooper: Yes. Along 250, that was the decision.

Jeff Swank, WMAN Radio: Considering the results of any levy, you have seen School Levy results, you have seen Municipal results. Everybody can sit here and say I don’t want to pay for sidewalks and then put it up for a tax, but you have to put that before the voters. What are your chances that that is going to pass? Not very good is it? You can sit here and say anything, that doesn’t mean it is going to pass. All of those people, 1100 people that said I don’t want to pay anything, they are going to go to the ballot box and vote no. So that is going to put you in the same position you are in now.

Paul Wertz: We have to fix the ones we have. Have them repaired. To me, people ought to fix them now. And people that need to fix them should be paying for them too, just like the other people. I see that there are people out here that cannot afford them. But fix them now. Adopt something like Shelby has.

Glen Stewart: I would offer a proposal. I would offer a proposal to this Council that we generate a fee schedule for a supplemental cost like subsidized schedule based on income for a resident property owner. For repair of existing sidewalks. Generate a sliding scale whether it be the Shelby scale or a derivative of it or our own schedule and bring that back to this Council. I would love to see a committee of Council people do this and anyone else that the committee might want to bring in for good information. Then lets see want kind of dollars we may be saddled with. I don’t know exactly how to do that but we can only do so much in a year. And that is what the 10-year plan was to start with. It was a plotted plan and I concur, if we tackle the repair, we will have done one whale of a job. I really want to see sidewalks in those high traffic areas but I would be very willing to back off for the time being on that to get the sidewalks that are in disrepair repaired. Are there two Councilpersons that would like to look into a subsidized sliding scale, if that is an appropriate way to look at it? Based on income on resident owners. If you are in business and own property for rental, you are not a resident owner. We are letting the construction season slide by. Now in reality, we never backed off of the repair process. I have the sheet here that I read; it was for new construction only that we asked for a moratorium on. The Ward meetings came about and the survey came about and there may be perceptions.

Robert M. Valentine W2: If you drive around the neighborhoods of the first area and second area, there are still a lot of them not finished. Unless we re-enforce those.
The first area has gotten some still not finished. I still see some in the process of being done. We need to re-enforce that the repairs are still on schedule.

Glen Stewart: In my opinion, we opened this up for the community’s input. We have heard the input. New sidewalks are going to be very difficult. I still believe there are places that sidewalks should be in place, but I feel so strongly about sidewalks that you can’t push a baby stroller or a wheel chair or a walker; I think we have to tackle that.

Ruth Detrow: I think we would be wise to remember that times really are tough for a lot of people and that maybe this is the time for the city to come up with a way of helping those who really don’t have money. And I don’t mean helping them entirely. I mean helping them on a graduated scale.

Glen Stewart: May I get two Councilpersons on securing some sort of recommendation to come back that we could put in to the proper legal format?

Robert L. Valentine W1: I would be glad to work on it.

Paul Wertz: I will do it.

Glen Stewart: Thank you, I appreciate that. I have some information, but not a lot.

Robert L. Valentine W1: Would Cherie Helterbridle have any information on Income Eligible?

Mayor Strine: She might be able to get that. Yes.

Anna Tomasek: You can also use income guidelines. That is what we use for C.H.I.P. There is a section for income limits.   I have that in my office. It is Federal.

Larry Paxton: I helped Paul Wertz to gather that information from Shelby, I would be more than happy to work with Bob and Paul in that process.

Glen Stewart: Well, with the Mayor and with Mr. Cooper’s permission, but I can’t solicit other people’s work. This is great!

Jim Cooper: I would like to be involved with that too.

Anna Tomasek: I would be more than willing to help also.

Glen Stewart: You will have to get an Auditorium to get this gang together. That’s great. I appreciate that.   I have one more thing I would like to do. I have asked Valarie to put on our own Agendas at the bottom what our upcoming Work Sessions, so we will have it in front of us every week what future Work Sessions we have. On the 10th, next Tuesday, we are going to have a presentation from Anna Tomasek on Transit system, we are going to be looking at the International Maintenance Code and I would like to add to that the Charter Revisions. Those are imperative that we get moving on the Charter Revisions and if you would allow me, I will give you some feedback on the Charter Revision relative to the City/County Health, you asked for me to get information from Mr. Sanders. He has sent me a package of Ordinances used in other communities to go from a City to a County Health Dept. He has that. What we did not succeed in getting and apparently it is very difficult to identify cost savings by being a single entity instead of the City/County entity. I asked Mr. Sanders very specifically that would make a big difference to us to know the financial impact of this and Mr. Sanders basically said Glen I know there are reports and the paper work that has to be done for the County and has to be done for the city. I really am at a loss to identify dollars and cents that would be saved. So if we choose to ask Mr. Wolfe to draft an Ordinance; I was thinking in terms of an Ordinance and maybe that is what these are that would allow Council to go to a City/County if at some point in time we saw the validity of it rather than directing to a common entity. I think we were thinking in terms that we needed an Ordinance that would direct us in that direction to dissolve and become just a single Health Department. If we had a Charter change that would give us the flexibility of doing that at sometime in the future. We will leave our options open.

Mayor Strine: That would certainly be a good option.

Glen Stewart: I know this is short notice and I don’t expect you to make a decision but that might be something you would want to look at and ask Mr. Wolfe to start on an Ordinance that would allow us to put something like that on the ballot for a Charter change.   Allowing us to but not directing us to.

Robert L. Valentine W1: I think what you are saying is there needs to be more research on it.

Glen Stewart: And we don’t even have to put it on.   The Charter Revision committee felt strong enough to make the recommendation and that is why I throw out an option of a Charter change that would build into the Charter the ability to do this. I see a question Mrs. Detrow.

Ruth Detrow: Yes and I really haven’t gotten through why it doesn’t seem as though that would be beneficial.

Glen Stewart: We want to be looking, I would like it at our very next Work session next Tuesday, I would like to determine which changes we feel the most viable to go forward with because we are running out of time and to drop all of these on the Law Director at one time and if we decide that on the 10th, it is highly unlikely that they will all be ready on the 17th to vote on; that means a special session because we do not meet in August by Charter so any meeting we have in August becomes a Special Session, isn’t that correct? And we have to have it filed with the Board of Elections by 8/23/07. So the Charter Changes that they sent to us, I would like to make that decision in our Work Session next Tuesday. Then on the 17th Charter Revision will be back on the Agenda probably under old business. Mayor, do you have any other department heads that you would like to have make presentations?

Mayor Strine: Not necessarily, that would be up to Council if there are any areas that they would particularly like to hear from. We could plan that.

Robert L. Valentine W1: Well, I was just wondering because remember the last time we had a Work Session, we talked about the Parks and I forget who else, but you said you would bring them later on. There were 3 things we worked on in the Work Session and we only worked on one.

Ruth Detrow: I think we are asking the voters to do something different. What we are asking the voters to do is to give Council the authority to do this rather than asking them if they want the Health Dept to remain as it is rather than to be a different Health Dept. all just one organization. So we are asking you if something different there. What they would have to do if they voted to elect Council to do it has nothing to do with the decision that would be made.

Glen Stewart: They would be empowering through the Charter that decision process of whether to go or not.

Ruth Detrow: There is no reason why we couldn’t in a year put the actual issue on the ballot.

Glen Stewart: That is true. We can put it on anytime we choose.

Robert L. Valentine W1: I am sure that when you are talking about something like that, it is going to come up in the next election. What you are voting for and you are giving Council the perrogative that in the future if everything looks like it would work out well as far as the city is concerned and the County; you are giving them the power to go ahead with that. I understand what you are saying but I think they should understand what they are doing and they have the perrogative of voting yes or no.

Ruth Detrow: But they wouldn’t be voting on the Health Dept. issue. They would be voting on do we want to give Council more power than they have.

Robert L. Valentine W1: Well could we pass an Ordinance to do that?

Glen Stewart: I don’t know, that depends on what the Charter’s specific language is. There is nothing compelling to put it on there anyway other than we want a recommendation and at this point in time, there appears not to be any significant financial gain to do that, loss or gain.

Robert L. Valentine W1: That doesn’t make a lot of sense unless the responsibility they have has increased because I think one of the things I was looking at when you talked about the combining was duplication. I thought you could eliminate some duplication. If you could eliminate some duplication, you could eliminate some cost. But so far you haven’t found anything out.

Glen Stewart: I asked the question very directly and yes it was not quantifiable at the time.

Ruth Detrow: Well, actually when you think about it, the two organizations, the people who would be eliminated would be volunteers. Well, aren’t the two boards volunteer boards? And as far as employees are concerned, I wouldn’t think they would eliminate anything. It is cumbersome, it is awkward. I think it is a good idea to have it as one board but I don’t think it will save money in the long run.

Glen Stewart: Well, look at it really well and next Tuesday; I will share one more thing with you, as the Mayor and others I think I identified, will put together those lists of priorities at the beginning of this year.   I want to share:
1.   Corporate Boundaries/Recreation- We are working on it.
2.   Water Development- We are working on it.
3.   Communications: County and Community – We had one meeting.
4.   Industrial Park Infrastructure- going very well.
5.   Housing Code and Maintenance- Coming up in a Work Session.
6.   Sidewalks- we beat our brains out on that.
7.   Infrastructure: Sewer and Water Lines- We are working on it.
8.   Zoning Review: We haven’t gotten with yet.

So if we are actively pursuing 7 out of 8, that is about 88%.

Motion to adjourn the meeting by Glen Stewart, moved by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Robert M. Valentine W2.
Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Paul Wertz, Glen Stewart.

ADJOURNED AT 9:25 PM

                               Submitted by
                               Valarie F. Bishoff
                               Clerk of Council