RS03-02-2010

Ashland City Council

MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR SESSION OF COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
3rd floor Municipal Building
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers

Ruth Detrow Ward 3, Councilwoman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Ward 1:   Robert L. Valentine   Present
Ward 2:   Robert M. Valentine   Present
Ward 3:   Ruth Detrow       Present
Ward 4:    Sandra Tunnell       Present
At-large/President: Stephen Stuart   Excused

Note: Throughout the minutes, Robert L. Valentine and Robert M. Valentine are designated as to their ward representation, W1 and W2.

Motion to excuse Stephen Stuart by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Robert M. Valentine W2.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

Motion to appoint temporarily Ruth Detrow as acting President of Council by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Sandra Tunnell.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PRESENTATION OF MINUTES:
(a)   Regular Session 2/16/10
(b)   Special Session 2/18/10
(c)   Special/Executive Session 2/22/10

Motion to accept the minutes for Regular Session 2/16/10 by Sandra Tunnel, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

Motion to accept the minutes from Special Session 2/18/10 by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Robert M. Valentine W2.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

Motion to accept the minutes from Executive Session 2/22/10 by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Sandra Tunnell.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

LEGISLATION

     Ordinances:
Ord. No. # 10-10
Item (a) AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL FUNDS TO DEPOSIT AND EXPEND MONIES FOR THE
                PURPOSES SPECIFIED; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

Moved for non-reading in full by Robert M. Valentine W2, 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, Sandra Tunnell.

Larry Paxton: As we progress through the sale of the Golf Course property, I was reading that legislation and Council set a motion to the fact that they wanted that sale of the property, the monies, to be deposited into a Golf Course Capital Improvement Fund. In doing that, this Ordinance creates such a fund so that we can now deposit the monies that the city has received from that buffer zone that we wanted to offer those residents. We have received the money so we can proceed with the next step. This creates the fund to do so.

Questions or comments?

Moved by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Sandra Tunnell 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, Sandra Tunnell.

Move to suspend the rules, 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights, by Ruth Detrow, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

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, Sandra Tunnell.

Ord. No. # 11-10
Item   (b) AN ORDINANCE CREATING ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING HERE
                INAFTER NAMED FUNDS FOR THE YEAR 2010 AND DECLARING THIS LEGISLATION TO
                BE AN EMERGENCY MEASURE NECESSARY TO MEET THE FINANCIAL NEEDS OF THE
                CITY OF ASHLAND, OHIO.

Moved for non-reading in full by Sandra Tunnell, 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, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

Larry Paxton: These items create additional appropriations to the Ordinance we passed at the last Council meeting. In doing that, with the community corrections program; this $5,000.00 dollars is actually an additional grant for that fund in that program. It is a one-time grant. In doing that it needs to be appropriated. It can be used for counseling and supplies for that program. The second item now funds, and it puts money into that fund that you had just created with the first Ordinance this evening. In coming up and arriving at the number, I believe I figured about $2950.00 dollars or $2980.00 dollars an acre just as an estimate at this point. It does not say that is the price that we are going to get but just so we can first of all put the money into the fund we had received from the property owners and then so we can expend some money out of that fund for the surveys and the legal descriptions that have to be prepared in order to sell the buffered land off to the property owners as well as it puts additional dollars in there for expenditures, revenues and expenses. The third item is a grant that we applied for last year from Congressman Bocceri’s office. It is a federal earmark for waterline installations for replacements of current water lines within the system. Unfortunately I grabbed the wrong dollar amount. The grant is only for $500,000 dollars. It is an 80/20 grant so the dollar amount; that is the total amount that we could spend for the city’s share and grant money. I apologize for that but the dollar amount should be for $500,000 dollars. That is a federal earmark that the Congressman graciously put in the federal budget. The Mayor is still researching that to make sure we do have and can get Congressional minutes of that, I believe. What they are trying to do is appropriate this so the Engineering department can then start the process, along with the Water department earmark and set aside which waterlines we want to work on.

Richard P. Wolfe II: What is the proper number that should go in there?

Larry Paxton, Finance Director: $500,000.00.

Richard P. Wolfe II: Well, lets just put it in. Lets just change it to that and that is what Council can vote on. Would someone from Council move to correct that number to $500,000.00 dollars?

Move to make the number correction to $500,000.00 by Robert M. Valentine W2, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
     Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

Richard P. Wolfe II:   So when you are voting on that Ordinance, you are voting on it with the number change.

Larry Paxton, Finance Director: I apologize for that.

Questions or comments?

Motion to approve the amended Ordinance by Ruth Detrow, moved by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Sandra Tunnell 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, Sandra Tunnell.

Move to suspend the rules, 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights, by Ruth Detrow, seconded by Sandra Tunnell.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

Move the amended Ordinance be passed by Ruth Detrow, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

Ord. No. # 12-10
Item   (c)   AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SER-
                  VICE, TO ENTER INTO A MODIFICATION OF THE CONTRACT AUTHORIZED BY ORDINANCE
                  NO. 18-07; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

Moved for non-reading in full by Robert M. Valentine W2, 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, Sandra Tunnell.

Michael Hunter, City Utilities: We are just under 2 ½ years into a 3-year contract with H & L. Bio Solids to remove the lime sludge from the Water Treatment Plant. This year when I put the budget together, I put $200,000.00 dollars in the line item, however the contract does not specify the amount. It specifies $100,000 per year so we are looking to expand that. This will allow a treatment of approximately 4300 dry tons over and above what we would typically remove which is right around 6,000 or 7,000 dry tons.

Questions or comments?

Robert L. Valentine W1:   Give me the figures back. What were the amounts?

Mike Hunter: Typically we are paying $23.45 per dry ton. If you do the math on that, we are looking at about 4200 or 4300 dry tons. We want to double that amount. Even when you double that amount folks just so you know, we still have a tremendous amount of sludge at that plant. Each year I am going to be coming back and looking to increase that amount when we go out for our next bid. Right now we are playing catch up and right now we taking out more than we are putting in but just by a little.   We are reaching a capacity in those lagoons, when they begin to overflow, it puts us in a situation we do not want to be in so I am looking this year to go ahead and double the amount that we take out.

Robert L. Valentine W1: Thank you.

Moved by Robert L. Valentine W1, 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, Sandra Tunnell.

Move to suspend the rules, 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights, by Ruth Detrow, seconded by Sandra Tunnell.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

Move the Ordinance be passed by Sandra Tunnell, seconded by Robert M. Valentine W2.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

          Resolutions:
Res. No. # 2-10
Item   (a) A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FILING OF APPLICATION: PROJECT TITLE FY 2010 SMALL CIT-
                IES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM; AND DECLARING AN EMER-
                GENCY.

Moved for non-reading in full by Robert M. Valentine W2, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1 to invoke Section 113.01 of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Resolution 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, Sandra Tunnell.

Mayor Stewart: This is an annual process of going after Block Grant money. Typically it would do some sewer sponsor work, waterline work, something of that nature. It is authorizing us to make application.

Shane Kremser, City Engineer: We are going to pursue projects. It is not a lot of money that we can attribute to that. I think it is only going to be around $50,000 or $60,000 dollars we can use for improvement and it is in an LMI area (lower to moderate income area).

Questions or comments?

Moved by Ruth Detrow, seconded by Robert L. Valentine W1 to invoke Section 113.01 of the Codified Ordinances as the distribution of this Resolution 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, Sandra Tunnell.

Move to suspend the rules, 3 separate meetings, 3 separate nights, by Ruth Detrow, seconded by Sandra Tunnell.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

Move the Resolution be passed by Sandra Tunnell, seconded by Ruth Detrow.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.


WARD REPORTS

Ward 4:      Sandra Tunnell
   No report.

Ward 2: Bob Valentine
   (a) I had one call and talked to Mr. Paxton about it.

Ward 1: Bob Valentine:
(a)   I had a call from a person on Eastbrook, the southern part. There was truck, and I don’t know if it was one load or two loads, but it was dumping snow up there and it wasn’t a city truck. I think his concern was that if people were doing that and it starts to thaw, it could affect sewer and everything else and might affect his house. I understand his concern. What I did is I called the acting Police Chief, and he checked with Jerry to make sure it wasn’t our truck and it wasn’t he then went up to look at it and I called the person back and told him the situation. He had a concern about it and I guess if I were him, I would too. Did you look at it Jerry?

Jerry Mack, City Services: No I did not.

Ward 1:    Bob Valentine (cont’d)
(a)   The gentleman seemed satisfied.
(b)   Another call I had received was regarding the policy of serving beer at Brookside Golf Course. I don’t think he was opposed to it, but it was just the idea that someone called him and asked him, do the people have to vote on this and I said no and explained to him that we had a committee that was established last spring and made recommendations to Council and Council moved ahead with it and he understood. What is happening now out there is the leagues are starting to get set and I am sure they have set up some rules as far as what is going to transpire regarding the use of beer and that is probably why he called me.

Richard P. Wolfe II, Director of Law: We had legislation last fall where Council authorized the filing of an application for a Liquor License and we pursued that and we obtained a liquor license for the sale of beer at Brookside Golf Course.

Ward 1:   Bob Valentine (cont’d)
   (b) The question that came to his mind was he thought the people had to vote on it.   He was satisfied with that.

Ward 3: Ruth Detrow
(a)   Someone approached me with a concern about advertising for employment for Police Chief and Fire Chief. According to this person, the word around town is that we said there will only be someone in Ashland who even needs to apply, so I guess I will let the Mayor conclude this because I did check with him.

Mayor Stewart: First off, we did not advertise for the position of Police or Fire Chief. The Police Chief will be appointed from someone within the current organization. It is a perrogative that is prescribed by the Civil Service as well as the Charter and so there was no advertising. There has been nothing in that direction at all relative to the Fire Chief. There is not an open position for the Fire Chief’s position until he actually leaves office and then we can start a process there. I haven’t made any decisions on that. I can tell you that my decision is made relative to the Police Chief and those who are qualified and choose to take the test for the Chief’s position will be permitted or encouraged at their own effort to do that. As far as a question that you didn’t ask, Ruth -Police officers--we have received numerous applications and resumes from all over for a position within officers to take a vacant position as a Police Officer. I don’t know where this came from. We did not advertise for a Police Chief.

Ward 3: Ruth Detrow (cont’d)
(a)   I appreciate that and also all of these jobs are Civil Services jobs with very strict rules about how they are to be filled and I know that our Mayor is following the rules carefully.

Mayor Stewart: I have very good guidance and there were some questions regarding the Charter and Civil Service and Rick and the Civil Service Commission guided us through that and we have exactly as I stated, it is a perrogative or I may go either way, inside and outside or just inside.

Richard P. Wolfe II: It is a perrogative of the Mayor and the Charter change, which we enacted; a number of years ago authorized the Mayor to exercise the option to go outside of the city if he chooses. Historically, the reason being that there were times where there was maybe only one person that was eligible to become chief from within and until we had the option to go outside, the Mayor was not necessarily stuck, but that was the only choice the Mayor had, so what we have done now is create the opportunity to expand that search if the internal pool does not in the Mayor’s opinion appear to be sufficient, I am not trying to speak for the Mayor but I think it is his opinion that there are a sufficient number of people within the department who are eligible to take the test and who are capable of serving as chief so that it is not necessary at this time in the case a Police Chief to go outside. That decision has not yet been made as far as the Fire Chief but it may very well end up being the same.   The same options.

Mayor Stewart: I would like to add; during this testing process; you don’t set down and fill out a couple of 8 ½ x 11 sheets, it pretty much takes a day to do. There are interviews and there are three interviewers to interview these candidates. There is written, oral, simulation of circumstances. It is a very comprehensive process. I haven’t done it, but I know about it.

OLD BUSINESS:

Robert L. Valentine W1: I have a couple of questions about the General Fund revenue. General property tax in 2008 and 2009, in 2008 it was over $600,000 and some, now it is back to $580,000, what is the reason for the decline?

Larry Paxton: The decline is based off of the fact that we have had a lot of foreclosures unfortunately and properties in foreclosure and possibly the tax collection not being as strong as what it may have been in previous years. It was a conservative approach on our part to project a conservative number with the hopes we would receive more. If you project a budget in a bad year or in a difficult year with aggressive numbers you don’t need, then you have to cut someplace down the road when you get towards the end of the year. If we projected a balanced budget, and we did with conservative numbers, it is our hope that we will save additional money than what we appropriated.   $580,000 was the property tax and we are hoping we receive more than that and if we don’t, that is a conservative number.

Robert L. Valentine W1: One other question too, the personal property tax went off the books, when in 2008, right?

Larry Paxton: Yes, 2009.

Robert L. Valentine W1: Does the state compensate us for this in any way?

Larry Paxton: Yes, the state eliminated the personal property tax, actually I have more information here on that, the state eliminated the personal property tax but instituted a CAT or Commercial Activity Tax. In doing that, right below the $580,000 that you found on your appropriations, it says Personal Property Tax, when we did the budget, we meant to insert the word CAT Tax on that 40002 Revenue line. That was changed today. You will see from the February printout that it says CAT tax on it. It is a lot smaller number then that Personal Property Tax collected in previous years.

Robert L. Valentine W1: As far as you and I are concerned it is a small number but when you are looking at a budget it is down maybe down about 20,000 to 30,000. Now when they do this, is this done by law, by the State? Is it a permanent thing?

Larry Paxton: Yes it is permanent.

NEW BUSINESS:

Robert L. Valentine W1: I have received this and I think we all received this, Ashland Municipal Court annual report and Financial Statement. It is quite involved as I went through it. You just don’t realize how much money goes through to this court, how much goes to the city, county from the court and what the expenditures are. I want to thank Judge Fridline and the Clerk of Courts, Eric Akers for the fine report. I thought they had done a nice job and I appreciate it.

Richard P. Wolfe II: The Clerk of Courts, Eric Akers is working very hard on those kinds of issues and he is very concerned about keeping everyone informed and we meet periodically with the Clerk and the Judge on an informal basis just to keep the lines of communication open and it is working very well.

Robert L. Valentine W1: But I doubt if the average person knows you spend $2 million dollars.

Richard P. Wolfe II: No, they probably don’t. One other point, you had asked Mr. Paxton if that change was permanent. Well, it is permanent until the Legislature decides to change it to something else. It is in place now as the status quo, so to speak.

Finance Director’s Comments:

Larry Paxton: I really don’t have a whole lot to share with you at this point. We are working on it and we have passed the budget, now we are into the annual audit for the city. They came in this week as well as the city had an independent auditing firm from the US EPA in today to review the Waterline project that we did last year and that went relatively smooth. We are in the Audit season right now.

Mayor’s Comments:

Mayor Stewart: I have an abbreviated statement and I am going to read part of it. This is regarding snow removal from the City’s sidewalks. There are sidewalks within the city that have not had snow removed since the heavy snow had begun over 2 weeks ago. Many of these sidewalks are used daily by school children that is forcing them into the streets while walking to school. I am not using school children as an excuse to enforce snow removal but they are a prime example of those that are in danger where sidewalks are available but not cleared. I want to focus on the sidewalks with pedestrian travel. All of them, by Ordinance are to be cleared. I understand that it is a huge effort but it has to be done. I shouldn’t have to bring this issue out in a public meeting like this but it is an issue we are going to address in some manner. I again suggest if you have a neighbor that is unable to clear their own sidewalk or does not have the resources to hire snow removal, why not offer to be a good neighbor and help clear their sidewalks? We don’t want to get into the process of issuing summons or citations or whatever the case may be, but ladies and gentlemen we have got to get these pedestrians out of the street and there are some main streets that have sidewalks that haven’t been touched and as a property owner, and it is what our Ordinance says, as a property owner, has the responsibility to see that their sidewalks are free and clear of ice and snow within eight or twelve hours after the snow stops. I know the snow went on and on but it is time to get them cleared. If it takes a good neighbor to help someone who is not able or not financially capable of hiring someone, that is a great way to be someplace special here in Ashland or somebody special in a special place. With that, that is all I have this evening.

Robert L. Valentine W1: To mention that, my neighbor must be special right beside me because we take care of the driveway and he clears the sidewalks. The only problem we have, you only have three houses and then you are out in the street because the sidewalk comes to an end. I had mentioned that before. It sounds like it is going against what you are saying, but your point is well taken.

Mayor Stewart: If there is a sidewalk there, you need to clear it.

At-Large: Stephen Stuart – (Not Present)

Comments or questions from the Audience: Items that are not included on the Agenda.

Lila Koch, 415 Miller Street, Ashland Ohio: I was just asking about the houses being torn down. What is the schedule and how many more are on your schedule to be torn down?

Mayor Stewart: There are three in the process, one over here behind the Valero Station, one on Cottage and one on Ashland Avenue. Those three are in the process. We are negotiating for three additional. We have the funds to purchase the property, tear them down and those homes are on a flood plain. So once they are torn down there will be no rebuilding on those sites but those are still in negotiation. There is a process we have to follow. There could be then as many as six torn down under the current process, NSP funding. There are two homes that the funding has assisted with a down payment and refurb money to put two homes back in a reasonable habitable condition so a total of eight homes will be impacted, six could be gone and two will be refurbed and families move into them.

Lila Koch: That is all the money you have left?

Mayor Stewart: That is all which is here in the current allocation, yes that is correct.

Robert M. Valentine W2: We have a list of probably how many more Larry?

Larry Paxton: Four or five other houses.

Robert M. Valentine W2: Yes, because that was last summer when I had talked to you and I had put that on the radar and then she called me again and called you back and you had went down and looked at it and you decided that one needed to go.

Mayor Stewart:   We are not the final decision makers on those. We make a recommendation and then they have to be evaluated by the federal agency and then they send someone up to look at the properties and either agree with us or disagree; they have agreed with us.

Questions or comments?

None.

WORK SESSION: Purpose – Discussion on CRA (Community Reinvestment Area)

Robert L. Valentine W1: The question I have and I asked before, but the Work Sessions are not a part of the general meeting. Work Session is a Work Session, which is separate.

Richard P. Wolfe II: Well, it is still a meeting.

Robert L. Valentine W1: You can do either one you are saying?

Richard P. Wolfe II: Either way, it is still a meeting of Council, no matter how you slice it. It is an open public meeting of Council.   You can continue under the present meeting or you can adjourn the Regular meeting and move to your Work Session.

Robert L. Valentine W1: The point is, and I am not disagreeing with what you are saying but if it is a part of the meeting, you can take action. If wasn’t a part and is a Work Session you couldn’t take action.

Richard P. Wolfe II: Yes, but I don’t think there is any action to be taken. I suggest if you want to just adjourn the Regular meeting and then go to your Work Session, the Division Directors could be dismissed if there is no reason to stay and anyone else that wants to leave can leave and we can discuss the Reinvestment area.

Motion to move into Work Session by Robert L. Valentine W1, seconded by Robert M. Valentine W2.
     Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

Work Session – 7:35 p.m.

Attendance:
Council members: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell
Mayor: Glen Stewart
Council Clerk: Valarie Bishoff
AACED: Evan Scurti
Media: T-G Jeff Russ

Evan Scurti: It is a new CRA with the pre-1994 boundaries. I think we are clear in terms of commercial and industrial abatement, the main changes you get to negotiate those contracts. The Ashland Economic Development Counsel will be listed as the Housing Officer managing all paperwork. The question you had when we left the last Work Session on February 16, 2010 was the residential section of this Ordinance. In the post- 94 program, again you can negotiate commercial and industrial but you can also set abatement levels for residential. Whatever level you set in the Ordinance, that is what the homeowner gets once they make the improvements. So all of Council has this?

Mayor Stewart: Did you all get it?

Evan Scurti: As you can see here, for the most part, 75% is pretty much the median and they fall right on target in terms of what other communities are doing. Mansfield doesn’t have any CRA’s. Wooster is doing 100%, 10 years on remodeling project. They do offer and I don’t have the Ordinance in front of me but it is similar language like we have. They also don’t like to reward Green- field Development. The idea of the CRA is not to attract a mansion being built on Greenfield and give tax abatement for that. It is supposed to be the re-development of dilapidated areas so I could track down that Ordinance if you like, but they have a similar demolition clause so that if you are building a new house on a site where there is a recent demolition, they give to 100% but for 12 years. The way ours is currently read, it would 75% for 10 years.

Mayor Stewart: There is a piece of this I want to share with all of you. Demolition—what is being demolished needs to be defined. In other words, lets say there are two lots and a person has a home on one lot and they have a garage on the second lot and they decide to sell that lot and it meets all of the requirements for zoning to build a home on because someone comes in and demolishes a garage, do you want that to be a CRA rewarded? In other words, I think we want to be cognizant of what we decide to do; is it something that is being refurbished or replaced?

Evan Scurti: That is what I just told Rick as he was leaving, obviously we need his help and he has always helped with the Ordinances but the demolition line which I put this at the end of my memo, just like the Mayor said, as I re-read it I realized, the language needs tightened up a little bit. You can have someone come in on a beautiful Greenfield site, take out a fence, build a mansion and say, well I demolished something, that house should be tax free. That is not really the intent of the CRA in my opinion. It should be for remodeling and building something where there has been demolition recently. So Rick can tighten up that language. Maybe putting the word in Primary Structure, whatever the correct zoning term is. If there has been demolition on this site, demolition of the primary structure, within the last two years, then a new house can be abated at 75%.

Robert L. Valentine W1: I am hearing the negatives; what are the advantages?

Robert M. Valentine W2: It makes the neighborhood look better.

Evan Scurti: The advantages of just the program?

Robert L. Valentine W1: No, we are talking about pre-94 and post 94 right? We have pre-94 don’t we?

Mayor Stewart: We have both.

Evan Scurti: Well there is a small post-94 in a portion of the Business Park but 95% of the map that you are looking at is pre-94 area. The main benefit in my mind, this residential piece is a small issue, and the main benefit is you are shifting to a model of where you can negotiate the commercial and industrial tax abatement. The way the pre-94’s are—if I go and put up another Wal-Mart in one of those shaded areas, technically the way you read the ordinances on the books, that building would be tax free.

Mayor Stewart: Without negotiations.

Evan Scurti: I don’t know if we want to be in the business of giving any tax abatement. Nothing against big box stores, but that is not really what you need incentives for. To be used to attract industry or now we are going into the post model, you can use it wisely for retail like downtown development.   Now if there is a creative downtown developer that wants to do things like David Lee is doing to buildings, you can negotiate with that person a fair abatement. It could be 50% or it could be 100% if you want to do that.

Mayor Stewart: The abatement is on the approved tax value.

Evan Scurti: Yes. You can never abate what is on the books. So if someone wants to come into our downtown, buy the building, move a restaurant in there, there is no tax abatement issue. Eventually I would like to maybe bring Phil Leibolt in to educate me and Council on the whole tax valuation process. Lets just say that developer came in and bought a building and did a great deal of interior renovation even though he is not adding onto the building, I think that still raises the tax value of the building and like the Mayor is saying, it is that improved value that you are abating.

Mayor Stewart: So if you have a tax value of $10,000 and it goes to $15,000, we would potentially be negotiating on the $5,000 dollar differential for how long and how much?

Evan Scurti: A lot of people get excited when they hear about these types of Ordinances. They think well our downtown and all of these retail shops, there will be no taxes. Well that is not true, all the buildings sitting right now in our town continue to be taxed, it is just the improvements and additions.

Ruth Detrow: How long is the tax abatement? Ten years?

Evan Scurti: For what, residential?

Ruth Detrow: Well, I was thinking about the businesses we were talking about.

Evan Scurti: Businesses, state law allows you to negotiate for industrial it is 15, you can go up to 15 years.

Sandra Tunnell: Section 4, at the bottom.

Evan Scurti: Oh, this is how Rick re-wrote it I guess. Yes. (c) in the red, up to and including 12 years and up to 100% for the remodeling projects of commercial and industrial. So whether it is a factory or a retail store, remodeling projects you can go up to 12 years. Then if you look at (d) if you are building a new factory or retail shop you can go up to 15 years.

Robert L. Valentine W1: The economy had no affect on this?

Evan Scurti: On what? On why we are doing this?

Robert L. Valentine W1: Yes.

Mayor Stewart: Actually, it does because things are in a loll right now and if you are going to make changes and there is nothing brewing so to speak, and that way we are not faced with somebody that is in the process or tomorrow they are going to be in process although we don’t know what is coming tomorrow but I believe personally if we are to make a change, it is a good a time as any under the current economy in the way things are going. It will give us a single process for all the CRA area.

Evan Scurti: Yes. There are some communities that still have the pre but by in large from what I am seeing, the State seems to be going to the post model. I thought by economy you meant, Bob, you know under the post model you have a chance to retain more of your tax dollars. It is not an automatic 100%.

Robert L. Valentine W1: This type of thing if Council would pass this, the future Council’s can’t change it. They could change it for the future, but these people whatever was given would be grandfathered.

Mayor Stewart: Nothing is retrospect, it is all-forward.

Evan Scurti: You cannot go back to the pre-94 model.

Mayor Stewart: Anybody that is covered by a CRA post or pre today won’t be impacted. It is the individual, the entity that comes in today to ask for it.

Evan Scurti: Future Council’s if they want to go higher than the 75% in the residential category, they can look at that for instance. You can never go back. The State won’t let you go back to the pre-94 concept.

Sandra Tunnell: Does somebody make up that 25% since it is coming from the State, if we are abating up to 75%?

Mayor Stewart: No there is no make-up. I have a philosophy on that. If someone improves something and we abate their increased tax, we are getting a little bit of something, which is better than all of nothing. I like that, I think it is factual from my perspective and it is an encouragement to help someone a bit.

Ruth Detrow: I agree. When I asked for a comparison of what we are doing with what other cities are doing, that was really my objective. I don’t want to see our city grabbing tax because we can and as the Mayor said, we might get all of nothing if we do that. We want people to come to our city. We want people to improve the buildings they are in, either residential or business. I really am strongly in favor of being as generous as we can.

Evan Scurti: Yes. I think that properties like the old Hess & Clark factory on 7th and Union. That is a real challenge to developers especially if they are going to do a conversion, say to housing. This is a real attraction. Developers have told me that. When they look at a store, downtown areas, they like to see the CRA program in place so they can negotiate for commercial abatement or to get the automatic for residential.

Sandra Tunnell: On that note, Evan and I have asked you about this before. When you talked to these different communities did they talk to you about how they use it as a marketing tool? I am assuming this is like Shelby’s website and this is Wooster’s, and it looks like Medina’s website, so I mean are they promoting it?   Are they being proactive, reactive?

Evan Scurti: I am sorry, I did not get into a discussion, but if they are doing their job, I am sure they are. If someone is interested in the Business Park, you talk about the infrastructure, cooperative council, negotiable land prices, etc. The key point is Enterprise Zone availability, opportunity for tax abatement. So I am sure, yes, as they are talking with potential downtown developers, it is a key point of their marketing message. It will be for mine as long as you all are okay with that as I am talking with downtown developers from here on out, we will definitely have to let them know the CRA is in place.

Sandra Tunnell: Do we have anything on your website now, or on the City’s website?

Evan Scurti: Yes, it is on our website under incentives and primarily talk about the Enterprise Zone program for industry. This is kind of in limbo so we really don’t talk about this. In fact we are even kicking around the idea in the future of having a downtown tab on our website. A unique part of the city and maybe some pictures and property listings, information on things like this.   The Mayor mentioned, yes there is a little bit of a loll in terms of commercial activity right now but if you read through section 14 and I will go through this again with Rick to make sure it makes sense. Apparently it did, I don’t see any remarks from him. It is kind of giving a window of opportunity there. If someone is in a pre-94 CRA and is just about ready to expand their building, they have a window here where they can still do that expansion and get in under the old holes, get the automatic abatement and then anything after that would be a negotiated process.

Mayor Stewart: What did he suggest in there? I had mine out when I was talking to you on the phone this afternoon.   I don’t know why we would want to do something like that personally.

Evan Scurti: Why give them a grace period?

Mayor Stewart: Yes, because it will be advertised, it is going to be a change.

Evan Scurti: I talked about this with the State and they gave me some tips. They said they have seen some communities do that so I added it in. I took this Ordinance from the State website. They have Draft sample post-94 CRA Ordinance and to your point it is not in there but they said it has come up in recent years where property owners complain you did this so quickly, what about a grace period? So that is essentially what that is.

Ruth Detrow: A grace period where it would be both of them would be in affect?

Evan Scurti: Sort of, you can think of it that way.

Mayor Stewart: Let us say there is a 90-day grace period, then somebody else gets an idea to do something at the 89th day and they come in on the 91st day and say no.   I think it is like a stop sign. Here is where we are going change it.

Sandra Tunnell: Well there is a 7-month grace period too. That is a lot of grace.

Evan Scurti: Yes I wrote this a while back.

Mayor Stewart: Either we are going to change it or we’re not and I personally don’t see the need to put a long extended grace period in. It will be announced, here it is in a Work Session; it will be in the paper. It already should have some people thinking in the event that they have something going and they want to make the application.   They don’t have to make an application and they can come in and it is done.

Evan Scurti: What about if there is construction going on right now on a property?

Sandra Tunnell: Shelby has the permits according to this. They have to have a State and an Ashland permit so they should already be in.

Evan Scurti: So maybe what you want this to say is, if the property has started construction, has received building permits, State and local building permits, and is under construction, it can come in under the old rules if they remember to file paperwork, they can get the automatic abatement.

Sandra Tunnell: What I am saying is, if I started a construction project and I already have gotten my paperwork from State and my paperwork from the city, I am already under the pre-94 aren’t I?

Evan Scurti: You have to remember to file your paperwork after the construction. The way the pre-94 works is once you are done with construction and you get an occupancy permit, then you file your paperwork with Roger.

Sandra Tunnell: I thought it says in advance of construction or is that first?

Mayor Stewart: Post is in advance of construction, right?

Evan Scurti: Yes, under the post-94 program.

Mayor Stewart: Pre-94 they get the process all done and come in and fill out the paperwork is that the way it works?

Evan Scurti: Yes. Most cities have language in the pre-94, they will say if you are doing a project, maybe come in and talk to the building inspector before you start but they you file paperwork after the completion of the construction.

Mayor Stewart: If you start construction to be the deadline, how long before you have to finish it to get in under that?

Evan Scurti: Right and that is what I was trying to address here was the building permit and the completion process. It gets very confusing. There are two issues.

Sandra Tunnell: How long after do you have to file if you are doing pre-94? I just put a new roof on 3 years ago.

Evan Scurti: That has been another fuzzy issue with the State, another reason I think this should be changed. Roger has told me, he has had issues where people do come in quite a bit after they have completed it and the way he reads the Ordinance, you are still supposed to still give it to them. Go see Roger.

Mayor Stewart: It doesn’t qualify for elected officials.

Robert L. Valentine W1: Well I was just thinking while she was talking; my roof went on, it would be just two years this summer.

Evan Scurti: Well let me do this. I am going to keep confusing myself if I keep trying to read this. What do we want (14) to say?

Sandra Tunnell: Did you say 14 was a suggestion from the State website?

Evan Scurti: No. It is not on the State website. In my discussions with the State, I am telling them I am planning on presenting this to you, they said that the grace period is being added to many Ordinances that they are seeing. It is an idea coming from the grass roots. The State didn’t think of these issues I guess when they drafted their template. So we can write it however you want. You want it to say, I think—If you started construction, if you have a building permit, you come in under the old rules, but your concern is, what if they never get finished?

Mayor Stewart: Anything you do, there needs to be a measure in my opinion. As long as there is not a measure, there is ambiguity, then you have a problem.

Sandra Tunnell: Since pre-94 you can afterwards, if I am building now, I only have until May 3rd to apply to pre-94, is that what that is saying?

Evan Scurti: Right.

Sandra Tunnell: Then on May 2nd, if I have already done the construction, I am out of luck, because it will be post-94?

Evan Scurti: Okay, what this section (14) says is, yes, if you just have finished a construction project by May 1st and we can push that out since it is already March, if you finish the project by that date, you can still file and get the pre-94. This Ordinance won’t take affect until May or whatever we decide, June or July that property owners that are just now finishing up projects can still file with Roger because this Ordinance doesn’t take affect until a few months from now. The rest of that section 14 says that essentially the other scenario is—If someone is contemplating a construction project right now and they get a building permit by May 1st and they complete the project by December 31st, which gets to the Mayor’s point, they can also get the automatic abatement. If their construction project is delayed and they don’t get that certificate of occupancy by the end of 2010, they are out of luck and they don’t get the automatic abatement.

Robert L. Valentine W1: Technically, they don’t have to do anything? Roger will automatically do it?

Evan Scurti: No that is the other issue with this project because you can have people complain, well I didn’t know about it, this or that. No. It is not Roger’s job to be the Police and go remind people to file paperwork. If they don’t remember to go to Anne and file paperwork, they don’t get abatement.

Robert L. Valentine W1: Are they aware that they are supposed to do this?

Evan Scurti: I don’t know, I don’t market this program.

Robert L. Valentine W1: I understand what your saying.

Mayor Stewart:   I would guess, and I am only guessing, that any developer would research what his investment was going to be before he would start an investment and this isn’t in just Ashland Ohio, it is throughout the State of Ohio so an investor, a developer I would think would at minimum ask the questions.

Evan Scurti: Again, It is not really Roger’s job to make sure he is giving away tax dollars everywhere he sees construction, you know what I mean. That is basically what it comes down to. If you don’t remember to file paperwork under the old program, there is no abatement. Does that make sense now, 14? I will look at it again with Rick. Does Council disagree with it?

Mayor Stewart: I don’t know what you’ve actually laid out here?

Evan Scurti: The grace period. You have to start by this date and if you don’t finish by the end of the 2010, too bad.

Mayor Stewart: There is another issue there that will cloud it a little more. We start to be under the pre-94 and low and behold something happens that I don’t get done by the end of the year, now I am out at both ends because I didn’t apply for the post-94 thinking I was going to be meet the pre-94 deadline for finishing and something got in the way, I couldn’t get material or something so I don’t finish and get occupancy until February 2011. Now I didn’t file for pre-94 before I started and I am out of luck post-94.

Robert L. Valentine W1: Well I don’t know how you could ever establish something that is going to solve everyone’s problems.

Robert M. Valentine W2: Well unless there was a hardship of some type where you could give a grace period and do it on a case-by-case basis.

Sandra Tunnell: Do you think we should eliminate that whole section, just have it being a case by case since you get to be in charge of that? That way you could eliminate the whole section.

Robert M. Valentine W2: Would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis?

Sandra Tunnell: You could appeal to what?

Mayor Stewart: There is no appeal process.

Evan Scurti: I think I am leaning toward what the Mayor I think originally said a few minutes ago. This is going to be confusing. Maybe we just shred the whole concept and just say—If there is construction going on right now and we can find a building permit to prove that, that can get in under the old rules, does that make sense?

Mayor Stewart: If he has started, he is out of the post-94 so he has to be under the pre-94 because he started. Post-94 says you have to apply before you start. So that eliminates anybody that has already started. So if they have already started it is pre-94.

Robert M. Valentine W2: In the date of the Ordinance will be all the post-94’s.

Evan Scurti: We won’t worry about saying this Ordinance will take affect whenever. So I will work with Rick to say, any construction in the process right now, evidenced by a building permit, that can be a pre-94.

Mayor Stewart: Effective with the passage of this Ordinance. It takes that grace period; it takes the case by case and all of that.

Evan Scurti: So Ordinance takes affect immediately.

Robert M. Valentine W2: If you are going to leave number 14 in there, you are going to have to do it case by case.

Evan Scurti: There is no grace period.

Robert M. Valentine W2: I know now.

Mayor Stewart: I want to raise another question. The administrator of this is our Economic Development Director and I know Evan and I know him well and I think he can handle it very well. People change and there is no governance over this by the city.   There is no oversight on this.

Sandra Tunnell: Well there is in that you are appointing two of the members.

Evan Scurti: Wait a minute, I don’t have any power, I never have.   All I am, just like in the Enterprise Zone, I manage the process. So if someone comes in and wants to build a factory, I take the paperwork set up the negotiating meeting. It is always your call, whether you want to offer abatement. Now with the residential, yes, I am not a housing inspector, I have talked with Roger about this change and we will work together to deal with the housing abatement paperwork but whomever the manager is, he or she is never empowered to say you get abatement or you don’t.

Mayor Stewart:   I am raising this as an awareness. I am not saying it is right or it is wrong.

Sandra Tunnell: Well the Mayor appoints two people and we appoint two people so that is oversight.

Evan Scurti: What she is referring to is a good point. You are supposed to once Council passes this, you are also supposed to create a housing council. I don’t know if the city has ever done that.

Robert M. Valentine W2: There is another committee for you Mayor.

Evan Scurti: The Community Reinvestment Area Housing Council shall make an annual inspection of the properties within the district for which the exemption has been granted under ORC. So every year, the State says you should have a Council that goes out with the Housing Office, me, and looks at the properties, business and housing that are under abatement. I remember when I interned at Gahanna, it was a very informal process, we piled in a van, went to look at all the properties under abatement and you file a report back to the State that you did that.

Ruth Detrow: Interior and exterior or just exterior?

Evan Scurti: Don’t know that. Section 7 is the Housing Council section. The Housing Council should be created. Two members are appointed by the Mayor, two by Council, one member by Planning Commission.

Sandra Tunnell: Then two more. Then appoint two additional members.

Evan Scurti: Who should be residents within the area.

Mayor Stewart: Is that a State statute?

Robert M. Valentine W2: Its got to be, it is too wordy not to be.

Evan Scurti: This is State recommended. If they don’t see this in your Ordinance, they probably won’t stamp this as a CRA because remember, you all are passing this Ordinance but this is only the beginning of the process. Once you pass it, I will work with the Mayor to send all kinds of demographic material, pictures of houses if the State wants to see this area and then they certify it as a post-94 CRA. And we will also review your Ordinance. Yes it is a 7 member Housing Council. That is something we can do after we pass this Ordinance.

Mayor Stewart: Well the Ordinance directs it.

Evan Scurti: I remember Rick’s first draft, he had a big question mark, probably because he never heard of this.

Mayor Stewart: Well, in reality it’s not unlike a Planning Commission. There are many similarities.

Robert M. Valentine W2: But they only have one meeting a year, right? That is all it requires.

Evan Scurti: A good example how this program is misused around the State.   It is a story about how and that you have to have a resident on the Housing Council and a lot of communities I think throw these CRA’s out to industrial areas to give automatic abatement. It is supposed to be used for the inner core of your city, you know redevelopment that is what a CRA is for. This one community, there was one living resident within the CRA, she was 90 years old and the rest was an Industrial Park and they had to pile her in that van to go around. So we have (14) worked out. Any other issues? Are you okay with the 75% for the residential level?

Ruth Detrow: I would rather see it higher, but I don’t think I am in the majority, and that’s okay.

Evan Scurti: Well, Wooster is 100%, it is whatever you all want to do.

Mayor Stewart: Well it is only the percentage again, it only applies to the tax value increase.

Ruth Detrow: Also we are not losing anything, we are gaining.

Sandra Tunnell: And it is up to us, so if we are on the committee, we could say…

Mayor Stewart: No, residential is fixed.

Evan Scurti: In residential, you set the level.

Mayor Stewart: There are plenty of residential homes in this town that it would be wonderful if that would be the tool that could make them better.

Evan Scurti: In all reality again, this is more a ‘Phil Leibolt’ type question. It takes a lot to increase a property. If you just paint a house or fix up the railing, I don’t think that triggers a rise in property.

Mayor Stewart: Isn’t the tax valuation roughly 40% of resale number? If it is a $100,000.00 dollar house, it is going to be valued at $30,000.00 to $35,000.00, so if you put $20,000.00 more in it and it really raises the retail value by 20, you are only looking at another $7,000.00 dollars of tax potential and then whatever percentage we give of that. You are not talking about a dollar.

Ruth Detrow: We are talking a lot of goodwill possibly.

Evan Scurti: I won’t speak for the School district, but if I were the schools looking at all of this, the big property tax income is industry for that I think if I am correct. If you were giving 100% for every new factory coming into town, that is a big deal, but a 100% abatement on a $20,000.00 dollar improvement or 75% abatement on a $20,000.00 dollar improvement, not as big an impact on the local tax.

Mayor Stewart:   Do the Schools have to approve this individually?

Evan Scurti: No.

Mayor Stewart:   CRA’s are whatever is negotiated?

Evan Scurti: Right. Oh I thought you meant this Ordinance. Schools don’t have any approval over housing improvements. Whatever you sent as the percentages, that is it.   Now for commercial and industry just like with the Enterprise zone, if the proposed abatement exceeds a threshold, I think it is 75% abatement, if that is what you want to do for a factory, we have to go to the schools and get their approval just like we did with Barbasol. In all reality, there is really no reason to use this program if someone wants to build a factory, because we have the Enterprise Zone blanketing the City. The real benefit of this is pulling it out of the toolbox when we have, say a unique downtown project and it sets up the residential abatement we have been discussing. You can’t use the Enterprise Zone for retail. It is only for industry, the Business Park. So there are two parallel programs.

Mayor Stewart: What would you think about letting Evan go back, work with Rick and send you guys out a new Draft copy that you could consider again? I think it would be, from my view inappropriate with all the dialogue that is going on to have it reprinted and send it out and expect to act on it without some time to go through it. That is up to you.

Robert M. Valentine W2: Plus Steve needs to get it and read it.

Evan Scurti: Also a little review of the process after you pass this, I guess I will work with the Mayor to send a housing survey that the State wants to see in order to certify us for CRA. We have to send a letter; I think the State says, to the schools, they don’t have a vote on this Ordinance.    You have to publish this twice, I think in the paper and that is the reason why I haven’t listed all of those old legal descriptions. The State said just say that they are on file in the Mayor’s office because it is really going to increase your advertising costs if you have to print all of that. Okay, so the only real change is taking off that (14) and if you want to go to 100% for residential.

Ruth Detrow: I would vote either way, of course I would approve the Ordinance, however I would just prefer to have 100% because I think it would be a better tool for gaining people in our city.

Evan Scurti: Always keep in mind and I know you don’t want to revise Ordinances all the time but if you find it is a problem for whatever reason, 100%, you can always lower it for the future or if you start at 75% and think it is wrong, you can change that in the future.

Mayor Stewart: That is not a big deal to change. The meat of this Ordinance, that is a blank with two or three numbers in it that can be said that the next time it comes in.

Evan Scurti: I will also work with Rick before I send it back out to you, Mayor.

Robert M. Valentine W2: People have to know that it is available.

Evan Scurti: Like Sandra was saying, once you make this change and I am a little more comfortable of where this thing stands, I will market it very aggressively.

Sandra Tunnell: I guess my other question is – say we bought a house 10 years ago and this is how much the house cost and we haven’t had it re-assessed, and so values have gone up, I would assume some, and then I have my work done, who is assessing how much more that added to my property value. My neighbor bought her house 50 years ago. If she decides to do a big sweep and fix all the problems in her house, I mean that would probably fall under this but who is assessing how much?

Ruth Detrow: When I added to my house, I got a visit from a guy from the county who was assessing.

Evan Scurti: Right, through the Auditors office.

Ruth Detrow: They do it.

Mayor Stewart: Would it not be to your advantage in your case Sandra to have it assessed before you start.

Sandra Tunnell: I guess that is right, I was just curious.

Mayor Stewart: So there is a baseline of what it is going to be and when you are done?

Robert M. Valentine W2: You can figure out your property value on your taxes anyhow, right?

Mayor Stewart: No it is valued by an assessment.

Sandra Tunnell: That is what I am saying, my neighbor bought her house 50 years ago, she decides to get permits for all sorts of things, and do you go by that for assessing? I was just curious.

Robert M. Valentine W2: That is what your taxes are, based on your assessed value, and is what I always thought.   They come walking around every so many years.

Mayor Stewart: It is based on how they have appraised the tax value. It is appraised at some number and then your taxes are based off of that number whatever the percentage may be.

Evan Scurti: It is the construction project that is being abated.

Robert M. Valentine W2: So if you are going to side it, roof it and all this, and it is $30,000.00, that may be something you would want to think about.

Evan Scurti: Once we pass this or maybe concurrently, it maybe it would be a good idea to bring Phil Leibolt in.

Mayor Stewart:   I am not sure maintenance raises the value. It can certainly diminish the value. A new roof, what does that do to the appraised value of a house to a guy that walks around and looks at the number of bathrooms, how many square feet you have and do you have a concrete driveway?

Evan Scurti: I don’t want to speak for Phil. I think what they primarily look at is the new rooms or new additions.

Robert L. Valentine W1:   I would hope they do, but I don’t think they do.

Evan Scurti: You know the house you are tearing down right now?

Robert L. Valentine W2: Where, up on Cottage?

Mayor Stewart: One on Cottage.

Robert M. Valentine W2: What I am worried about, are we going to be there to mow it in three months?

Sandra Tunnell: That is a good example, that house, would you be able to make $10,000.00 dollars worth of improvements without adding on? Those houses are in need of serious internal.

Evan Scurti: This is why this demolition line were just low key, if you level that house, as long as someone comes along and gets a building permit within two years and builds a whole new house, it is abated. I think that is justifiable because a lot of people shy away from demolition sites. They just say well I will go find a Greenfield. Well now there is at least a tool to say you might want to take a look at that old site.

Mayor Stewart: That could be worth a lot.

Evan Scurti: So I will clean that up. I will call Rick, get this revised and then I will get it back out to you.

Mayor Stewart: It will all be supported by the minutes.

Motion to adjourn Work Session by Sandra Tunnell, seconded by Ruth Detrow.
    Ayes: Robert L. Valentine W1, Robert M. Valentine W2, Ruth Detrow, Sandra Tunnell.

ADJOURNMENT AT 8:25 p.m.

                                       Submitted by
                                       Valarie Bishoff
                                       Clerk of Council