Invocation was given by: Sister Joan Rader, P.O. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Approval of Minutes – April 28, 2008
Copley moved to approve, upon roll call; Carey-Abstain, Copley-Yes, Russell-Yes, Beaumont-Yes, Johnson-Abstain and motion carried.

Workshop

a. Discussion of SBA Properties Cell Tower Agreement
City Manager Larry Boggs advised SBA Properties wanted to purchase the current contract from AT&T cell tower at our Wastewater Treatment Plant. Boggs advised (this company) has been in contact with him for about a year and they offered $175,000 to buy that (contract) out. Boggs advised he felt with that kind of money he wanted to apprise Council of it and get their opinion. He advised it was mentioned that they do go after other contracts and try to combine other companies on their tower and he was concerned it would eliminate some of the other companies in the city currently. Boggs indicated he was looking for direction from Council.
Council Member Beaumont inquired if we do this would we be in violation of any of the other contracts we have currently.
Boggs advised they say no that it was simply the land lease and they would take it over. He advised in fact they said they were representing that company so providing they were giving him the “straight scoop” he didn’t see any problem. Boggs advised the other “kicker” was that it was a 99-year obligation they want us (city) to sign on for and this would carry out a lot longer than what our current contract was for and we wouldn’t have any income for basically 100 years if we take the $175,000. He advised he felt it was a “roll of the dice” as well as we don’t know how long this technology was going to last. Boggs advised if it stays in existence he believed it was over $400,000 that we would recoup over that time period, but if it goes by the wayside we would have zero.
Robertson advised he guessed if they (SBA) were fronting $175,000 it was going to go on for awhile.
Council Member Russell inquired as to what was their idea for wanting the 99 years.
Boggs advised it apparently was their standard language, but he didn’t negotiate with them as this was the first time he has even really talked to them. He advised they have made a lot of calls and sent a lot of letters and this was the first time he received a dollar amount on it.
Council Member Carey inquired if this type of payment would go into the general fund.
Boggs advised that was correct.
Carey advised the potential of putting that $175,000 away and not spending it to collect interest was nearly impossible.
Boggs advised probably and every year it would go up 4%.
Carey advised to the $175,000 was basically worth six or seven years of monthly income and would carry us out to 2032.
Boggs advised he was told they would try to add other companies to their tower.
Beaumont inquired if they could table this issue until they find out if they were dealing with the right people. He advised if they were speaking on behalf of this company then that assignment should be recorded in the county records. He advised he was rather leery.
Carey advised he felt they (SBA) were negotiating a way for the current people to save themselves a bunch of money.
Russell advised one thing about it, none of us would be around in 99 years to see what transpires.
Carey advised but he hoped he would still be here in 2032.
Boggs advised he would get some more information on who they were truly representing and bring it back (to Council).
No further discussion.

b. Discussion of Amending the Bee Ordinance with Dale Meade
Dr. Dale Meade of Heritage Lane advised Rittman has an ordinance, which prohibits the keeping of bees within the city limits. He advised it was probably an ordinance which was originally adopted without an understanding of how things function. He advised most of these (ordinances) were to prevent getting stung by a bee, yet most of the time people were stung by a yellow jacket, which was part of the wasp family. Meade advised honey bees typically were not terribly aggressive. He advised about 65% of our food crop was produced by bees through pollination. He advised bees that were kept outside the city limits were being exposed to a lot more pesticides and chemicals whereas bees within the city limits tend to be much healthier and much less susceptible to that and he believed bees could be kept quite safely on a city lot with virtually no risk of a person being stung.

Council Member Richard Lapehn arrived at 7:09 p.m.

Meade advised a honeybee when it stings loses part of its abdomen and dies so a honeybee was typically not apt to sting except in defense of their colony. He advised they don’t just fly around and sting people. Meade advised he felt with some reasonable restrictions placed on the keeping of bees within the city limits, it would be beneficial to the ecology both to the city and the region and present little or no risk for an increase in bee stings. He advised in fact it would probably decrease the risk because nature affords a vacuum because when honeybees were not around yellow jackets tend to become much more abundant and the yellow jacket was a very aggressive stinging insect. Meade advised he has kept bees in a city in Colombia, which was a city of about 10 or 12 million people and had no problems as far as causing stings to any of the neighbors or anything of that nature. He advised bees were often kept in city limits with no problem and they do provide a very beneficial service as far as pollination. He advised we could provide a beneficial service in that we could be helping to contribute to the reduction of colony collapse disorder and at the same time help with the pollination of fruits and vegetables within the city limits and a five-mile radius. Meade advised he would propose that ordinance be amended where reasonable restrictions were placed. He advised obviously they did not want 200 colonies on a quarter acre city lot. He advised some restrictions were quite reasonable and logical, yet a total prohibition would seem to go beyond what was probably reasonable and beneficial. Meade advised there could be a limit placed on the number of bees kept on a property and it could be required there be a certain setback from the property line. Meade advised as a bee takes flight it takes a certain amount of time to gain altitude so if it was right on the property line someone walking on his or her own property could be in its flight path. Meade advised bees need water and if there was no water available they may go to a neighbors swimming pool or dripping faucet. He advised if water was provided and there was a reasonable (setback) and the one keeping the bees knows a little about keeping them they should be able to cohabitate with people very easily. Meade advised for our own ecology and the perhaps the enjoyment of some of our citizens he would recommend a modification of the current city statute.
Boggs inquired if Mr. Meade knew of any cities that have ordinances in place similar to what he was recommending.
Meade advised many cities have no ordinances at all, but he didn’t personally know of another city that has a prohibition that (Rittman) does. He advised when cities have restrictions usually they restrict things such as the number of hives per acre so that the population as far as density doesn’t cause problems. He advised he didn’t check various cities and what their ordinances might be.
Copley advised what he heard was that bees were relatively safe, but yet he went on to name a list of precautions that they would have to take and the fact that they would need to know what they were doing. He advised if the ordinance were changed it would allow someone who may not know what they were doing to have bees and in essence he felt the reason they needed the precautions was because they (bees) were not safe.
Meade advised we have rules for cars and if you don’t drive your car carefully and you run over your neighbor’s kids, but the fact that a car can be dangerous was not motivation to prohibit it, but rather simply restrict its use to what was reasonable. Meade advised honeybees were relatively inoffensive although you could encourage a honeybee to sting, grab one and you will get stung. He advised if you simply walk by a hive, you wouldn’t get stung. Meade advised when he says they are not dangerous he doesn’t mean to imply that it was impossible to get stung, it could happen. He advised if there were reasonable restrictions within the city ordinance it would put any risk to an absolute minimum.
Copley advised but there was still some risk.
Meade advised yes there was and he wouldn’t want to say that there was not because if someone walks to and kicks over a beehive, they were probably going to get stung.
Copley advised if some kids wander into a yard that happened to have hives, they could get stung.
Meade advised not just simply from wandering in the yard. He advised if they did something like kick them over, maybe. Meade advised if they wandered into my yard and pulled my dogs ears, they probably get bit too. He advised there was always some risk.
Beaumont inquired as to the reason Mr. Meade wanted (Council) to amend this (ordinance).
Meade advised primarily because of concern for our ecology because as the bee colony collapse disorder advances it carries the potential for massive disruption of our economy. He advised bees kept within city limits tend to be a genetic reserve where you can draw from those hives to strengthen and repopulate others. Meade advised while he didn’t have any definite plans at the moment he has kept bees and if he were retired and living in Rittman he would probably enjoy doing it again.
Beaumont inquired if he would have to be licensed (to keep bees).
Meade advised yes, you had to be registered with the state to keep bees legally in the State of Ohio. He advised you had to have an inspection from a bee inspector from the state so; someone who knows nothing about bees would not be able to legally keep bees within the city or outside the city limits.
Beaumont inquired as to what state agency controls said licensing.
Meade advised the Ohio Department of Agriculture and Wayne County has a bee inspector.
It was noted; the discussion for the proposed amendment would be for residential properties in the city.
Mayor Robertson advised it would like to see some sample legislation from other cities to see how they put the appropriate controls in place to keep it reasonable.
Carey advised to have something to compare to sounds reasonable.
No further discussion.

c. Discussion of the 2008 Revenue Tax Budget
Finance Director Lucinda Mann advised as in her memo to Council she stated they were
remaining pretty conservative and there were not a lot of changes over the next year being proposed. She advised this was the tax budget, which was the basis for the 2009 budget slated for approval later in the year. Mann advised she outlined the bigger changes most of which were based on historical data and how the year was going. Mann advised the tax budget was something the county requires in order to get a better idea of what our needs might be in the upcoming year so they can set their budget and plan for what they might give (Rittman). Mann noted there would be an upcoming hearing and Council would need to pass a motion in July approving the city’s tax budget. Mann advised she would be bringing the expenditures for Council’s review probably for the meeting in June.

Citizens Forum
Rick Hanlon of Olds Avenue advised he liked the bee idea and if it reduced the number of yellow jacket population he was all for honeybees. Hanlon advised Ord. No. 7479 under old business (regarding tax abatement for Thompson Services) he was not for 100 % abatement for a residential use, but could go along with 50% for a certain period. Hanlon advised he would still like to ask Council if they could put someplace on the agenda for citizen remarks at the end of a meeting so they don’t have to remark about something that happened two weeks ago. He advised Council has remarks, the manager has remarks and the finance director has remarks. Hanlon advised under the last Council remarks Mr. Lapehn, Mr. Beaumont and in the past Mr. Russell have indicated they would like to review the Fire Chief’s wage ordinance that was messed up awhile back and he didn’t see anything on the docket and he would like to know when they were gong to do so. He advised he believed he (Fire Chief) has done a good job and someone needed to do more than just talk about it, as he should be compensated properly. Hanlon advised to dispel any rumors that Mr. (James) Johnson was not residing in Rittman anymore he asked him to show some kind of proof that he was a resident of Rittman and was residing in Rittman.
Johnson inquired if he would like to see his driver’s license.
Hanlon advised (driver’s licenses) only need to be renewed every four years and he would like to see something a little more current at the next meeting.
Tim Stefanko of Salt Court advised he used to live next door to a beekeeper and he had no problems. He advised regarding the abatement it appeared as if Council has abandoned the idea of an abatement schedule and that was too bad because they were still running into this thing where they have no set policies to know what we’re going to do. He advised in Mr. Thompson’s case he believed it was time to come up with some resolution because he has been waiting for a long time and if that means going back to the arbitrary method of doing it on a case by case basis then so be it. Stefanko advised his first knee jerk reaction was that he wasn’t in favor of 100% abatement for residential use especially one that was going to be used as an income property. He advised but the more he thought about it the abatement was not a giveaway. He advised he (Thompson) was getting nothing and we’re not giving him anything. Stefanko advised right now he was paying property tax on the lot and would continue pay even if we (city) give him 100% abatement because the abatement was only on the improvement to the property. He advised in essence what they were saying to Mr. Thompson with an abatement was if he improves his property we were not going to reach into your pocket and take a bunch for taxes to those improvements. Stefanko advised it was his (Thompson’s) money and as far as he (Stefanko) was concerned he says let him keep it and let him spend it because if it was between him (Thompson) spending it and the county and city government spending it he (Stefanko) would rather see Mr. Thompson spend his own money. He advised any contractor’s he would hire and pay would have taxable income. He advised if he sells his property at a profit then that profit was taxable income. He advised if he keeps his property as a rental property then any money he would make as a rental would be taxable income. Stefanko advised it was costing us (city) nothing and it was his (Thompson’s) money to risk and didn’t cost the residents anything I say let Mr. Thompson keep his money. Stefanko advised he wanted to remind Council at the last Council Meeting that item (f) under new business – health insurance was unable to (suspend the rules) and pass this (legislation) we could have saved the city $2500, but was unable to do so because we didn’t have enough Council present. He advised this got him thinking as to what was actually paid to the Council and the Mayor. He advised the first four months of the year we (city) paid out $1,100 to people who have not been here. He advised the more he thought about that the more he thought if we (city) actually kept the money we paid out for services never rendered, we would have had enough money to pay our Fire Chief for services already rendered. He advised he didn’t believe elected officials should get paid for meetings they don’t attend. He advised it wasn’t to say there weren’t valid reasons for not showing up, but if you call a plumber and he says he can’t come out because he was sick, but said he would be sending the bill anyway I doubt you would pay it. He advised he felt it worked the same way if they were an elected city official. He advised it was not a full-time job that has paid vacation and sick time. Stefanko advised he noticed they had the license plate issue back on (agenda) and inquired if it was the same thing that was voted down the last meeting or were there some changes.
Mayor Robertson advised he believed it was written the same.
Stefanko advised he guessed it was one of those deals where we were going to keep voting on it until we come up with the answer we want.
The Mayor advised it was requested to be put back on for further discussion.
Stefanko advised he was with Charles’ (Council Member Copley) comments from the last meeting that if he would be happy to kick in $5 for license plates if they were going to (eliminate) assessments or reduce the percentage of assessments across the board to all not just select streets. He advised other than that he couldn’t support it. Stefanko advised Lapehn commented it was a progressive tax and he (Stefanko) owns three vehicles with a combined value of $4,000 and he has seen what Mr. Lapehn drives and believed it was not a progressive tax.

Old Business

a. Ord. No. 7482 An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Rittman, Wayne
and Medina Counties, Ohio Authorizing the Municipal Manager to Enter into a Cell Tower Ground Lease Agreement with Verizon Wireless for Use of Cellular Services and Declaring an Emergency. Third Reading.
Ord. No. 7482 was read on third reading.
Boggs advised he does have a preliminary contract and Kevin (Bower) has just started to review it although he thought there would still be some negotiations on the basic wording of the contract for two to three months. He advised he wants to make certain the safety services radios were protected as well as maintenance of the standpipe so as not to incur costs when we need to paint etcetera. Boggs advised if Council weren’t comfortable with passing this (legislation) before the final contract was signed then he would request they amend the ordinance to give him permission to negotiate with Verizon.
Russell moved to amend to allow the City Manager to negotiate the contract, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
Copley advised this (location) was not only the water tower, but the impound lot as well.
Boggs advised they were selling a lot of those vehicles and didn’t see the need for it to remain an impound lot or storage area old city vehicles. Boggs advised with the price of steel they have received some very decent offers on these cars than what a normal auction would bring.
Copley advised since it was (one of) the city’s water source(s) he inquired if there was anything to protect that water as these companies would have free access to the area.
Boggs advised the city’s water source was locked down as well as the city radios and there was an alarm system located there as well.
Copley moved to adopt as amended, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.

b. Ord. No.7484 An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Rittman, Ohio, Wayne and Medina Counties, Declaring it Necessary to Establish a Municipal Motor Vehicle License Tax Upon Municipal Residents who have Registered Motor Vehicles in Medina County. Second Reading. Ord No. 7484 was read on second reading.
Lapehn moved to place on third, upon roll call; Carey-Yes, Copley-Yes, Russell-No, Johnson-Yes, Lapehn-Yes, Beaumont-Yes and motion carried

c. Ord. No.7486 An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Rittman, Wayne and
Medina Counties, Ohio, Authorizing the Municipal Manager to Obtain the Release of Permissive Tax Funds from the Wayne County Engineer for the Improvements of West Sunset Drive and DeCourcey Road and Declaring an Emergency. Second Reading.
Ord. No. 7486 was read on second reading. Copley moved to place on third, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.

d. Res. No. 7487 A Resolution of the Council of the City of Rittman, Wayne and Medina Counties and State of Ohio, Declaring it Necessary to Improve Gish Road, DeCourcey Road, College Street, and Part of West Sunset Drive by Motor Paving the Existing Surface, All Together with the Necessary Appurtenances Thereto and Declaring an Emergency. Second Reading.
Res. No. 7487 was read on second reading.

Beaumont advised he drove all the roads again and spoke with Dave (Simpson, Service Director) about the costs and Gish Road for motor paving would cost approximately $24,500. He advised DeCourcey from Rittman Road across Sunset Drive all the way to Krabill Road was approximately $53,000, as we didn’t know if Milton Township would contribute toward their portion of that road. He advised College Street was approximately $14,900 and part of West Sunset Drive from Rufener Street to DeCourcey was approximately $9,000. Beaumont advised he really didn’t feel they should (pave) Gish Road and felt it was the least traveled (of this list) and the potholes were just filled. He advised we should look at the whole road situation including the other resolution (7488) for the assessment of Ohio Avenue. Beaumont advised we would be assessing the property owners from Fourth Street to Metzger Avenue on Ohio Avenue and at the same time we would be fixing Ohio Avenue from Main Street to Gainer’s Barber Shop on the south side of the street with no assessments. Beaumont advised the approximate cost of paving Ohio Ave. (4th to Metzger) would be around $25,000 and the other area from Gainer’s to (Main Street) would be approximately $6,500. Beaumont advised he honestly believes Ohio Avenue is dangerous. He advised he saw a lady driving a small Camaro hit a hole just past Fairmont Avenue go way to the right and up onto the (tree lawn). He advised many cars on the section near the square won’t stay in the right hand lane because it was so bad, but would actually drive in the left hand lane to avoid all the stones and holes and then swerve back to the right after they were in the intersection to go straight on. He advised he felt both sections of this road were a safety hazard right now. He advised summertime was coming and there would be increased traffic. He advised the Sleepwalker Festival was coming up and we were going to be having a parade on a road that was unsafe for cars let alone wagons, bikes and horses. Beaumont advised his thinking was if they do not pave Gish Road we would have the money to do Ohio Avenue without assessing the property owners. He advised he knows it has been a policy of the city for an improved road to assess the property owners for their portion that was being improved. He advised we were also going to pave the area from Main to the barbershop using city money without assessing, but assess from Fourth to Metzger (on Ohio Ave.). He advised he believed they needed to fix that street and fix it now. Beaumont advised if we go through the whole assessment process they were talking September before the road could be improved and it really needed to be done now. He advised he felt they owed it to the citizens to make these roads safe and he believed they were unsafe. Beaumont advised there was so much gravel on the road by the square he felt if you were going the speed limit and hit the brakes you would slide into the intersection. He advised he felt they all understood how bad the road was and he would like to see (Council) decide three things, not motor pave Gish Road, motor pave DeCourcey, College and W. Sunset and free up enough money to (asphalt) Ohio Avenue (without assessing). He advised in this manner Ohio Avenue could be improved within approximately 30 days. Beaumont advised when discussing assessments the last time Glen (Russell) mentioned the impact (of the license plate tax) on some senior citizens. He advised he understood they had to treat everyone fairly, but there were six senior citizens who own property on Ohio Avenue in the area we wish to assess that have homestead exemptions. Beaumont advised he didn’t wish to establish a precedent, but he felt this was a true safety emergency. He advised he won’t even drive Ohio Avenue at this point to avoid banging around on that portion of the road. He advised his proposal was instead of doing the assessments, we get these roads done right now knowing full well we may have paving projects in the future and we may have to assess and he wasn’t trying to change city policy. But, he advised he felt they should deal with this problem now and not in September. He advised he didn’t feel the citizens would be too happy if we motor paved Gish Road, a road that maybe gets 25 cars a day, and we don’t do anything until September or October on the most traveled road in town. He advised he felt they should also pass the permissive tax license fee. He advised he felt that would allow us recoup that money next year that we were paying for street repairs this year. He advised thus, bringing back the money we’re spending and not assessing those individual property owners who would be paying for a road everyone drives on and that was the big picture for the resolutions (7493, 7494) to help with road improvements.
Russell advised he agreed in part that he asked previously about whether Gish Road needed paved and he spoke about senior citizens and those in dire need concerning the tax. He advised he didn’t feel they could (assess) other people who were getting the road fixed and not do the same with Ohio Avenue. He advised if Council wanted to look at those six (senior citizens) and not include them, but he felt they were going to have to assess that street.
Mayor Robertson advised Beaumont was proposing eliminating all the assessments (this year) and part of that was to expedite the process because with the assessment they were adding three months (before they could begin the project).
Russell advised he realized that, but he felt they needed to assess that street. He advised he didn’t understand why they were skipping (not paving the entire section of Ohio Avenue from Main to Metzger), as he felt there were some bad sections from First Street to Fourth Street (on Ohio Avenue). Russell advised he also didn’t understand why the (property owners) from Main to the barbershop were not going to be assessed.
Boggs advised he felt it was possibly due to the section of road considered parking spaces, but it was up to this Council’s policy.
Russell advised he felt if they were going to do it, to do it right and if they were going to assess, let’s assess everybody. He advised don’t say we weren’t going to do anything (as far as assessments) from the barbershop on down, but the city would pay it all. Russell advised if that was the case let’s pay for everything.
Mayor Robertson advised paving was done from Main to Fourth (on Ohio Ave.) in 2002.
Russell advised we are doing two-thirds of the street and by this time next year we were going to look and say hey we really should have done it all.
Robertson advised that was probably another $20-30,000.
Johnson inquired in the long run if they don’t assess how was that going to affect (the city) financially.
Finance Director Mann advised Council needed to remember with assessments that we won’t even collect any of that money until 2010, but they have the money upfront.
Russell advised he felt what Mr. Beaumont was saying was that he wanted to eliminate the assessments completely and he didn’t have a problem with that, but it was the license tax that he had a problem with (implementing) the $5.00 put upon all the residents. He advised if they just wanted to go along and pay for Ohio Avenue that was fine if we have the money to do, but what were we going to do next year when there were more streets that were (in) bad (condition). He inquired as to what were we going to tell those residents and what were we going to tell the people on College and W. Sunset and (DeCourcey) because they were going to be assessed to a certain point.
Robertson advised Beaumont was proposing we eliminate the assessments on (the motor paving streets) as well.
Johnson inquired if they were going to eliminate assessments across the board.
Russell advised it was just for Ohio Avenue.
Beaumont advised that wasn’t what he was saying. Beaumont advised he felt the rationale for us paying to fix Ohio Avenue the only part (slated) for assessment was the part from Fourth St. to Metzger Ave. the cost for the improvement being approximately $25,000. He advised we (city) have the money to do that. He advised he believed that road is unsafe and that road needed to be fixed now. Beaumont advised if we are going to assess that road won’t be fixed until September. He advised at the same time we were going to do the paving on (Ohio Ave. [asphalt]) we were going to also do the area by the square that was bad. Beaumont advised we (city) are paying approximately $6,500 for the smaller portion on Ohio Ave. He advised he wasn’t saying eliminate assessments, he was saying in this particular instance only do not assess those people on Ohio Avenue (Fourth to Metzger), but let’s fix that road it is unsafe. He advised let’s pay to have it fixed. Beaumont advised with regards to the other streets (this year) it was his understanding the policy has been that we do not assess for motor paving. Beaumont advised this (legislation) (7487) were assessments for motor paving. He advised he was saying lets not assess for motor paving as we have not done that in the past and let’s not do Gish Road. He advised lets motor pave DeCourcey, College and part of West Sunset, as we have the money to do it. He advised we could motor pave those as we have always done in the past and we (city) have always paid for that in the past. Beaumont advised he was saying to continue that (motor paving policy for unimproved streets). He advised in this instance only let’s fix Ohio Avenue from Fourth St. to Metzger Avenue and not assess the property owners. Beaumont advised we could be fiscally responsible and recoup this money by passing the permissive license fee, which every other governing agency surrounding us has done. He advised it was not a discretionary tax, as it specifically states it has to be used for roads. He advised we couldn’t collect money for a license tax fee $5.00 and give more money to the recreation center or give more money to the police department. Beaumont advised the statute specifically states it was for road purposes only. He advised the money we would be spending to fix Ohio Avenue we would recoup at least that amount of money next year not in 2010, but in 2009. He advised every time someone in the City of Rittman renews his or her license plate we would get that $5.00. Beaumont advised if you look at the big picture of where we can obtain the funds and none of us want to tax people, but this was $.40 a month, $5.00 over a whole year and it goes right into our street improvement fund. He advised it would allow us to have money should this situation occur again. He advised if we have to do a whole road then obviously people would have to be assessed, but right now that road was unsafe and we could patch those holes until September, but that road he believed was unsafe. Beaumont advised his rationale was to do those three things.
Johnson advised he agreed they could move the money from Gish Road, but he didn’t believe they should stop assessing Ohio Avenue. He advised he could name one road right now that you probably never drove on that needed fixed very badly. He inquired of Beaumont if he has ever driven Seneca Street from Grant Street to the dead end at the creek. Johnson advised you (Beaumont) say you drive the streets, but he didn’t believe he drives all of them and he wasn’t saying he drives all of them either. Johnson advised yes, Gish Road does need some work done to it, but he felt if they were going move $24,500 from Gish Road they needed to put it somewhere else that needed work too. He advised he said from day one involving the street repairs that Seneca Street needed work and it needed it now. He advised that (Seneca St.) was a heavily traveled street because it was a residential area and there were a lot of homes on that (street). Johnson advised he felt if they were going to move $24,500 away from Gish Rd., which in his opinion needed work as well, then we need to put it (money) somewhere else and not just dump it into Ohio Avenue and say let’s not assess those people. Johnson advised let’s fix some roads and not just be picky over what road we were going to fix. He advised let’s fix some roads this year.
Copley advised if Gish Road was not in need of repair, as it sounded as if a few Council Members were in agreement of such, then he felt they could take Gish Road out of the ordinance. He advised whether we spend the $24,500 this year or not we don’t do Gish Road if it was not required. Copley advised it would be irresponsible to repair a road that was not in need of repair. Copley advised he was out on Gish Road the other day and they did do some patching and it wasn’t as bad as some of the other streets in town. He advised as far as assessments it has been city policy to assess improved streets and he felt it would be a bad thing not to assess Ohio Avenue. He inquired as to what would happen in two years if Main Street were in emergency need of repair were they going to repair it and not assess that street as well or what about State Street or any other improved streets. Copley advised the domino effect would be every time a street came up for repair it would be an emergency and we would say they weren’t going to be assessed. He advised he felt that was the picking and choosing that people don’t like. He advised nobody wants to be assessed for his or her street and at the same time they also don’t want to be assessed while someone else was not assessed when their street was repaired. He advised he felt that goes further along than assessing everyone (for improved streets).
Russell advised in answer to Mr. Johnson he believed when discussing the streets that needed to be repaired that Mr. Simpson said with the DuraPatcher they could patch those potholes. Russell advised he agreed with Mr. Beaumont on two of the issues, but he doesn’t agree with him on the third (license tax). Russell advised he felt his question was still not answered as to why they were not going to assess (property owners on Ohio Ave.) from Gainer’s Barbershop to Main Street. Russell advised he felt if they were going to assess everybody and inquired as to why we were assessing those from Gainer’s Barbershop to Main Street. He advised he understood the city was paying 50% of the street paving anyway. Russell advised he realized he didn’t know how much it would cost the senior citizens anyway and if Council wanted to exempt those six people he didn’t have a problem with that (action), but he felt the streets had to be assessed.
Copley advised it was his understanding that the reason they were not assessing from Main Street to (barbershop) because it was done just six years ago.
Johnson indicated they don’t assess the same property owners within a ten-year period.
Copley advised that section of street was recently done and recently assessed and he felt that was a valid reason not to assess.
Johnson advised it was also his understanding the majority of the damage was caused by a snowplow.
Carey advised it has been Council’s policy to assess for improved roads and he inquired as to the definition of an improved road.
Mayor Robertson advised curbs, gutters and storm sewers and College, DeCourcey and that portion of W. Sunset were not improved streets.
Carey advised so in years past they have not been assessed.
Robertson advised that was correct.
Johnson advised he has never heard of assessing someone for a chip and seal (motor paving) job.
Russell advised he believed they have done it.
Johnson advised he spoke with a past Council Member that it has never been done.
Russell advised he knew of someone who lived on a street that was billed and it was just tar and gravel. He advised it (cost) wasn’t much, but it was still everybody contributed.
Copley advised the assessment would be lower because the cost would have been lower.
Russell agreed it would be a lot less and advised but everyone contributes.
Robertson advised the policy of Council has been not to assess for motor paving.
Russell advised they were assessed because that was part of his or her street whether or not they had sidewalks or whatever.
Carey inquired as to how Ohio Avenue was going to be repaired.
Robertson advised currently the resolution (7488) was mill and pave with an asphalt surface.
Boggs advised he wanted to remind Council that by the time they get through the entire procedure it would be late August into September.
Carey advised he felt Ohio Avenue needed to be fixed right now. He advised it was just a disaster and the most highly traveled road for people coming in and out of the city. He advised he felt it (Ohio Ave.) needed to be fixed right now that we couldn’t wait until September.
Lapehn advised he didn’t feel they needed to assess for motor paving streets. He advised the portion from Gainer’s to Main he felt they should just repair and pay for.
Johnson advised for the purpose of Council being split on how this should be done he felt they should split this ordinance (7487) out road by road.
Russell advised he would like to say, if we don’t assess then next year we were going to have to block these streets off because when we decide to do streets again they won’t want to be assessed either. He advised he was looking ahead also. He advised Ohio Avenue should have been done a year ago, but it wasn’t and it needs it now, but he felt they were going to have to go through the process and the way the process works.
Copley advised this ordinance was saying it was necessary to do Gish Road and he was saying let’s remove Gish Road from the list and what we do after that was up to Council.

Copley moved to amend by removing Gish Road, upon roll call; Beaumont-No, Lapehn-Yes, Johnson-Yes, Copley-Yes, Russell-Yes, Carey-Yes and motion carried.

Johnson indicated he would like to separate the streets.
Russell advised he understood they were taking Gish Road off (the list) and the other streets were going to be motor paved, DeCourcey and College and West Sunset, but if you look ahead on the agenda to 7488 the Ohio Avenue has to install the new asphalt surface and he thought that would take care of what he was requesting.
Johnson advised no as they were also talking about assessing or not assessing. He advised he felt they should break it down street by street and not throw every single street into one ordinance. He advised he didn’t feel it needed to be done that way. He advised he felt it would be like taking the budget, which Council has argued over and doing it all in one night. He advised they should break it down and do it bit by bit.
Robertson advised leaving the possibility we could assess for motor paving on one street and not assess for motor paving on another street.
Johnson advised if that was what Council wished.
Bower asked for clarification if it wouldn’t be 6 separate pieces of legislation, as one to assess and one not to assess for each street on the list.
Johnson advised if it says to assess then we could amend not to assess.
Copley inquired if we weren’t going to assess did we need an ordinance for that street stating that it was necessary to improve it.
Finance Director Mann advised we wouldn’t need it if we don’t assess it.
Copley agreed and advised it was the same reason there was not an ordinance for the portion of Ohio Avenue that we were not assessing (Main to the barbershop).
It was noted the request was for 3 ordinances, as Gish was previously removed.
Carey advised Mr. Russell stated they (city) have assessed for motor paving in the past and he inquired of City Solicitor Bower, as he has been here for awhile, if he remembered if they have ever done assessments on a motor paved street.
Bower advised he honestly did not recall ever, although it may have been forty years ago, but since he has been here he didn’t ever recall assessing for motor paving. Bower advised he believed the previous administrations policy was that it wasn’t worth the hassle to go through all the assessment hoops.
Russell advised he believed he was told that in 1997 or 1998 Ohio Avenue was assessed.
He was advised Ohio Avenue was an improved street and that was milling and planing and installing an asphalt surface and was not a motor paving project on an unimproved street.

Johnson moved to amend by placing the streets on 3 separate resolutions, upon roll call; Carey-No, Russell-Yes, Copley-Yes, Johnson-No, Lapehn-No, Beaumont-No 3-3 Mayor – No and motion failed.

Carey advised they needed to figure out if they were going to assess these streets for motor paving.
Copley advised if (Council) didn’t wish to assess they would vote no on moving it to third and the ordinance would die and if you want to assess you vote yes and the ordinance advances to third reading for the next meeting and it could be decided at that time as well.
Mayor Robertson clarified this was for motor paving of DeCourcey, College and a portion of W. Sunset.

Copley moved to place on third as amended, upon roll call; Beaumont-No, Lapehn-No, Johnson-No, Copley-Yes, Russell-Yes, Carey-No and motion failed. Ord. No. 7487 died.

e. Res. No. 7488 A Resolution of the Council of the City of Rittman, Wayne and Medina Counties and State of Ohio, Declaring it Necessary to Improve Part of Ohio Avenue by Planing and Milling the Existing Surface and Installing a New Asphalt Surface, All Together with the Necessary Appurtenances Thereto and Declaring an Emergency. Second Reading.
Res. No. 7488 was read on second reading.
It was clarified this was an improved street.
Carey inquired if it was possible to use the money allocated for Gish Road to repair Ohio Avenue (Fourth to Metzger) now and do the assessments later in order to get the road fixed now and recoup the money when the assessment money was received.
Law Director Bower advised no.
Lapehn advised it has been eleven years since these property owners have been assessed.
Robertson advised that was correct, as the last time was 1997.
Lapehn advised it was a much more heavily traveled road, but eleven years was right outside the…
Beaumont advised for the record there were 74 properties and 22 property owners we were talking about here. He advised he went through the tax maps and all of the auditor’s records and some of those lots are double lots and two of the properties were owned by the city.
Copley moved to place on third, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.

f. Ord. No. 7489 An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Rittman, Ohio, Authorizing the Municipal Manager to Accept the Rates of Hatcher Insurance Agency, Agent for Principal, Plan 1274, Rittman, Ohio, for Employee and Dependent Hospitalization, Surgical and Major Medical Coverage for a Period of One (1) Year Commencing June 1, 2008 and Declaring an Emergency. Second Reading. Ord. No. 7489 was read on second reading. Lapehn moved to place on third, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.

g. Ord. No. 7490 An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Rittman, Wayne and Medina Counties and State of Ohio, Amending the Salary and Wage Ordinance No. 7467, Pursuant to the Attached Exhibit and Declaring an Emergency. Second Reading.
Ord. No. 7490 was read on second reading.
Russell inquired as to what was being changed or if there was specific wording that was different from what we had before as far as the salaries were concerned.
Copley advised the salaries were not changing. He advised what is changing was instead of repeating the exact same words already in the codified ordinances (on the attachment) we are placing a reference to those codified sections and in addition, with the newly passed fire department ordinance we were in line with that change. He advised thus, in the future if Council decides to change how city employees were paid in the codified ordinances they do not have to come back and change the pay ordinance as it would refer back to the section that was changed.
Mayor Robertson concurred and advised it was easier to keep those things in sync rather than having it written in two separate places. He advised it was written in one place and referenced in another to avoid inconsistencies, confusion and/or unfair treatment.
Copley advised if in the future Council decided to change something in the codified affecting how a city employee was paid, they would just have to change the codified and not have to come back to the pay ordinance and change it as well. He indicated it would be one change as opposed to two and avoid the circumstance of both changes not being made for whatever reason and becoming out of sync.
Copley moved to place on third, upon roll call; Russell-Abstain, Carey- Yes, Beaumont-Yes, Johnson-Yes, Copley-Yes, Lapehn-Yes and motion carried.

h. Ord. No. 7491 An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Rittman, Wayne
and Medina Counties and State of Ohio, Amending Section 1329 Flood Control and to Provide for the Renumbering of the Subsequent Sections Pursuant to the Attached Exhibit “A” and Declaring an Emergency. Second Reading.
Ord. No. 7491 was read on second reading.
Carey inquired as to why they were doing this.
Boggs advised we were mandated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources who was working with FEMA and he was notified that our ordinances were not up to date and changes had to be made. Boggs advised recently he was given a deadline from ODNR and FEMA to pass these changes or they would eventually revoke the privilege of any Rittman residents being able to get flood insurance protection.
Russell inquired if manufactured homes were permitted in the City of Rittman.
Bower indicated he believed they were prohibited in Rittman.
Lapehn moved to place on third, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.

i. Motion to Remove from the Table Res. No. 7479
Lapehn so moved, upon roll call; Beaumont-Abstain, Lapehn-Yes, Russell-No, Copley-No,
Carey-Abstain, Johnson-Yes and 2-2-2.
Bower advised the abstentions go with the majority and there were none, as it takes a majority to advance it. -motion failed.
Carey inquired as to why this was being requested to be taken off the table.
Robertson advised in order to vote on it. He advised it was tabled to be put aside so, now it would have to be removed off the table to be put back in front of (Council) to discuss it and consider the legislation.
Carey advised he should have asked before he voted.
Robertson inquired if it stands as failed.
Bower advised he guess it was failed unless Council Member Carey wanted to change his vote.
Johnson inquired since that motion failed if the motion would have to be made again.
Bower advised if you want to be technical.
Copley advised he could ask for it to be reconsidered.
Motion to Reconsider the Removal of Res. No. 7479 from the Table
Carey so moved, upon roll call; Beaumont-Abstain, Lapehn-Yes, Russell-Yes, Copley-No, Carey-Yes, Johnson-Yes and motion carried.

j. Res. No. 7479 A Resolution of the Council of the City of Rittman, Ohio
Granting Tax Abatement to Tony and Cathy Thompson for Thompson Services and Declaring an Emergency. First Reading.
Res. No. 7479 was read on first reading.
Lapehn inquired if it was known how many lots in the CRA zone that would qualify for this (abatement) if we were to start a trend.
Boggs advised he couldn’t give an exact count, but if (Council) would take the position which he recommended and use the R2 district (one-two family residential) within the CRA zone and only the ones in the floodplain, as there were very few lots left to build on and the reason he gave (Council) those maps to show the density of the housing in that area. Boggs advised that is with the CRA and the R2, now if they were looking at just the CRA zone, it would depend on if something develops.
Lapehn inquired Salt Street?
Boggs advised that was a possibility, yes, although he didn’t feel there were too many lots available on Salt Street.
Lapehn advised if they demolish something…
Boggs advised sure and that would be a renovation. Boggs advised he felt where Council was having a problem was this was a new development (single residential structure) on a vacant lot.
Carey advised he saw where this (abatement) was discussed with the new superintendent (of the schools).
Boggs advised yes, Superintendent (Jon Ritchie) wasn’t in favor of abatement for a new residential structure.
Robertson advised he wasn’t in favor of 100% abatement.
Boggs advised he (Ritchie) was more amenable to renovations, but had a problem with new.
Beaumont indicated he talked about this with the City Manager as well as the county. Beaumont inquired of Mr. Thompson if he got the base flood elevation.
Thompson advised Dave Laurila, (Surveyor) was checking on the elevation and he indicated if they build the (house) one foot above the base flood elevation they would be out of the floodplain and would exempt it from the flood insurance (requirement). Thompson advised but until the house was completed and re-surveyed and the proper papers filed for final verification.
Beaumont inquired if he knew what the elevation was.
Thompson advised he believed it was 3’9” from the ground level up, which was equal to an eleven-course basement above the ground. He advised that was equal to 8’ above ground, from the bottom of the lot, the house has to be 8’ to the floor joists to be out of the flood zone.
Beaumont inquired if he did so, he wouldn’t even need to be here (requesting abatement from Council).
Thompson advised there was no guarantee until it was complete. He advised he would have to make the initial investment. Thompson advised he also wanted to address Council with one reason they wanted to build a new home in this area (Frederick Street) was they were looking at other homes in the area to re-do and sell and this (new construction) would be a comparable as there was nothing in the area to compare for appraisals to bring the whole area up to a value. Thompson advised he needed some help with this capital investment, as it was a large amount of money to put in to a floodplain area. He advised that was the main reason he needed some help and it was really going to make a difference on what else they could buy in that area. He advised they were trying to keep Rittman growing.
Boggs inquired if Mr. Thompson was saying he was looking at renovations in this area versus (building another new residential structure).
Thompson advised yes, this was the only (vacant) lot in that area that he had access to (purchase). He advised he wouldn’t have even pursued all of this if they thought they weren’t going to get a tax break, as it was a big investment. Thompson advised they were looking at houses in that area to use as comparables with this new one and that was the long-term goal. He inquired if Council was in favor of tax abatement for renovations of residential structures.
Boggs advised yes, it was permitted.
Thompson advised he didn’t know if it (renovation) would have to be approved by the CRA Committee and be approved by Council.
Boggs advised everything had to go through the CRA and then to Council.
Thompson advised he didn’t want to run into this (problem) again with a renovation project by making the initial investment and then he can’t get any help. He advised he felt it needed to be addressed so he would know for the future what he could do.
Copley advised one concern that he has as his intent was to pass the abatement onto future owners for these fifteen years, but at the same time Council was passing the ordinance for an agreement with Tony and Cathy Thompson of Thompson Services. He advised the third party was not part of the agreement. Copley advised he wasn’t sure how that would work out because part of the CRA agreement was the city was allowed to inspect on an annual basis and if the new buyer was not part of the agreement he inquired as to how that would work out.
Boggs advised if they wouldn’t allow us to inspect it then the abatement would end. Boggs advised the other issue was Council could change the terms and could change the percentage or the number of years or to the first owner only. He advised whatever Council wanted to do.
Copley advised Tony (Thompson) was making an investment in the community, but the person who comes along and buys the house may not necessarily make an investment in the community, as they were just buying a house. Copley advised he didn’t feel it was an investment they (the homebuyer) wouldn’t have made otherwise. Copley advised that was where he was having a problem giving abatement to the buyer. He advised if the house were expensive enough there were issues selling it and (Thompson) would decide to rent it, he would have no problem with him keeping the abatement for the time he owns it. He advised what is a problem to him was passing the abatement on to other owners.
Robertson advised the abatement made the property more sellable for the builder.
Beaumont advised the abatement goes with the land, it doesn’t go with the people. He advised if (Council) approves the abatement for this particular lot, it goes with the land. Beaumont advised after Tony and Cathy move on and three or four owners later the abatement would still be there for the land.
Copley advised if a business comes and asks for a CRA abatement and they get it and then a year later they sell out; that abatement was lost because the agreement was between the city and that company and not between the city and whoever happens to buy the property.
Beaumont advised he felt that was apples and oranges.
Copley advised it was CRA abatement and whether it was residential or commercial there was a change in ownership.
Robertson advised commercial abatements were usually based on employment and certain other factors. He advised if the business goes out it would be job problems.
Copley advised they might keep the same employment level.
Boggs advised CRA’s don’t necessarily mandate the number of employees although it could be done that way. Boggs advised the Enterprise Zones usually address employment.
Lapehn advised this was a home rule thing too.
Boggs agreed and advised the CRA was controlled locally because we passed legislation before 1994.
Lapehn advised right, the county wasn’t going to come and say yes or no to this abatement.
Boggs advised this was totally all our ballgame.
Copley advised the way the ordinance was currently written it states Tony and Cathy Thompson for Thompson Services shall be granted tax abatement on the capital costs…, but it doesn’t say anything about the future owners and he inquired if that was a correct assessment of the way the ordinance was currently.
Bower advised yes because as Mr. Beaumont said it would run with the land.
Copley advised that was not what the ordinance was saying from what he was reading.
Bower advised it doesn’t have to because it would run with the land. He advised just like restrictions within an allotment as there were not future buyers listed on it. He advised whoever owns the house buys it subject to the restrictions in the allotment. Bower advised it was the same thing here that it goes without saying. He advised that was what the phrase “run with the land” means.
Copley advised and where was that phrase located, as that was what he was having problem with as they were doing an agreement with Tony and Cathy Thompson for Thompson Services and not an agreement with the owner of that property.
Bower advised it doesn’t have to say that, but he could put “and this shall run with the land” if it makes.
Copley advised he would prefer that it not be in there. He advised all he was asking was is it in there or not.
Bower advised the phrase “run with the land” is not in there.
Copley advised he was fully aware of that what he was saying is “are future owners going to get the tax abatement” and your answer was yes.
Bower advised yes.
Carey advised they would put the abatement on the cost of the construction and not on the lot.
Bower advised correct, only on the improvement.
Carey advised the money the city, county and schools were currently collecting would continue to be the same aside from adjustments.
Bower advised correct.
Carey advised the school wouldn’t get any benefit from the new construction, but they would actually not lose any money.
Bower advised correct.
Johnson advised his concern was the 100% (abatement) for 15 years. He advised he would be more subject (to approve) 50% (abatement) for maybe 10 years. Johnson advised he didn’t like (approving) 100% abatement on residential areas. He advised he understood it has been city policy if a new business in town was given 100% abatement to help them get going, but he could not see giving the residential tax abatements 100% for 15 years. He advised he could not see giving the maximum allowable. He advised 50% to him seems pretty fair and adequate and running through ten years seems more than adequate. He advised he put that in there to save an argument over years mainly. He advised he was in full agreement with Mr. Hanlon (on this issue).
Russell advised he understood Mr. Thompson already had his basement finished and inquired if when he starts backfilling if he was going to sort that water where it runs off onto other properties or was he going to put drains in there. What’s going to happen?
Thompson advised there was five course of block that would be out of the ground, but there was already hookup into the new storm sewer that runs along the property and the spouting and everything would go right into the storm sewer.
Russell advised he didn’t want there to be runoff water and flood the next home or a neighboring property.
Robertson inquired if Thompson felt in his opinion that he was out of the floodplain based on what he has done thus far.
Thompson advised he knows the elevation is correct. Thompson advised Dave Laurila could not give him 100% assurance.
Robertson advised he understood, but he has made every effort.
Thompson advised yes he has.
Boggs advised you never get out of the floodplain. He advised the floodplain remains the floodplain. He advised they could elevate (a structure) and ask for a certificate of exemption so as not to pay flood insurance, but they would still be in the floodplain.
Lapehn inquired if any word came back from the superintendent from several emails back and forth saying he was going to talk with the treasurer.
Boggs advised no, he believed the superintendent was buying time to provide an answer and he never did get any other response from him.
Lapehn inquired of Thompson if he would continue construction at 50% abatement.
Thompson advised if that was the best he could get he would. He advised he needed some incentive to convince someone to buy a home in that area and that was his biggest point. He advised even though it will be a brand new home, it was in the floodplain. He advised he needed a good incentive to get a buyer. He advised hopefully that would lead to renovating homes in the area.
Carey inquired if he was able to elevate and get an exemption from flood insurance would it be able to help sell the house.
Thompson advised it would never be out of the floodplain.
Carey advised he understood, but the elimination of the cost of the flood insurance.
Thompson advised yes, he believed that would be an incentive. He advised he wasn’t sure how that would work from the banks standpoint. He advised he has never done this and he didn’t know if they would take the general area and still require extra insurance. He advised he could update Council as he progresses.
Boggs advised banks were mandated by law to force their “loanees” to have flood insurance if you are in the floodplain and that came from FEMA. Boggs advised but, he shouldn’t have any problem getting a certificate of exemption.
Thompson advised Mr. Laurila couldn’t guarantee it.
Beaumont advised the reason the abatement request was for 15 years was that was the lowest term for an owner occupied home.
Johnson advised he doesn’t agree with abatement for 15 years.

Johnson moved to amend for a 10-year abatement at 50%, upon roll call; Copley-Yes, Russell-Yes, Lapehn-No, Johnson-Yes, Beaumont-Abstain, Carey-No and motion carried.

Copley advised if Mr. Thompson were able to get a certificate of exemption he would in essence be getting a double benefit. He advised the only reason he was coming here was because of the extra expense of the flood insurance otherwise he wouldn’t even be here. He advised if he were to get the exemption then he would like to see that you don’t get the abatement.
Thompson advised the property would still be in the floodplain. They need some incentive to try to get a potential buyer and even if he wouldn’t be required to carry flood insurance, it would still be in the floodplain.
Copley indicated he would like language added to the legislation and asked the Law Director to look into it.
Thompson advised FEMA in Wayne County in order for them to allow us to build this home required him to build one foot above the base flood elevation. He advised the new (floodplain) guidelines were changing and becoming even more restrictive. Thompson advised they had no choice.
Bower clarified that Copley was requesting a contingency of the exemption if obtained for flood insurance.
Lapehn moved to place on second as amended, upon roll call; Carey-Yes, Beaumont-Abstain, Johnson-Yes, Lapehn-Yes, Russell-Yes, Copley-Yes and motion carried.

New Business

a. Proclamation – National Peace Officer’s Memorial Day – May 15th
Mayor William Robertson called upon all citizens of Rittman to observe Thursday,
May 15, 2008, as “Peace Officers Memorial Day” in honor of those peace officers who, through their courageous deeds, have lost their lives or have become disabled in the performance of duty.

b. Motion to Set a Regular Meeting of Council for Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 7:00
p.m. Due to Memorial Day Holiday. Russell so moved, upon roll call; Lapehn-Yes, Johnson-No, Beaumont-Yes, Carey-Yes, Russell-Yes, Copley-Abstain and motion carried.

c. Proclamation – EMS Week – May 18th – 24th
Mayor William Robertson hereby designated Emergency Medical Services Week as May
18 through May 24, 2008 and encouraged the community to observe this week with appropriate programs, ceremonies and activities.

d. Ord. No. 7493 An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Rittman, Ohio, Wayne and Medina Counties, Declaring it Necessary to Establish a Municipal Motor Vehicle License Tax Upon Municipal Residents who have Registered Motor Vehicles in Medina County. First Reading.
Ord. No. 7493 was read on first reading.
Johnson read a prepared statement as follows:
“My fellow Councilman and citizens, welcome. In case you forgot today is May 12, 2008. Tonight this Council will debate whether we should raise plate fees for Wayne and Medina Counties. All of this because the state says we can. Today oil prices closed as $123.94/barrel. Gas prices are hitting $3.79, which is 60% above where they sat on this day last year. A gallon of milk now cost $.02 under the national average of gasoline. The average citizen of this city, state and the country struggle to make a house payment month in and month out we have a Council Member that says “it’s only $5.00”. Just because a Council Member states that does that mean the city has to automatically follow what one Council Member says? It seems to me this Council is starting to act like a school district. We get tight for money so we are going to go after the people and tax them. Seems to me this Council needs to forget about how they feel and go straight to the people and see how they feel about the issue. Tonight a member of this Council talked of helping senior citizens on Ohio Avenue when it comes to street assessments and at the same time will be a hypocrite and turn around and say let’s tax that citizen $5.00 more a year. Based on last meetings minutes that he read, he came across a split Council, a 2-2 tie, and (tonight) we have two more members here, which means the vote could go any way. I am sitting here before a vote will even be taken and letting this council and all citizens know my vote will be no for this type of a tax. I believe because of a split Council these ordinances need to be removed from this table and only be reconsidered if we are going to place it on the ballot and let the citizens of this city decide if they want to pay $5.00. Council does not have that right in my opinion because of a split decision.”
Copley advised since they were asked to reconsider he did some further research on the taxes. He advised in the State of Ohio we have 2300 tax districts of those 439 or 19% collect zero. He advised 698 or 30% collect $5.00 total. He advised 213 or 14% of the states taxing districts collect $10.00, which was still below and we were already up to well over 50% of the state that we (Rittman) are above. Copley advised 493 or 21% collect the same as we do $15.00 and only 357 or 16% of the total state tax districts collect the maximum of $20.00. Copley advised this includes not only the municipalities, but the townships as they have the right to collect as well. Copley advised he would like to reiterate that he feels it is the wrong time to raise taxes. He advised while our federal government was contemplating removing some taxes temporarily whether a good or bad idea they were still contemplating it or at least they were saying they are contemplating it whatever the case may be. Copley advised here we are trying to raise taxes and he feels it is the wrong time.
Carey advised his understanding was this $5.00 goes to improve the roads.
Mayor Robertson advised it could go for signage as well, but yes highway type expenditures.
Russell advised street repair.
Carey inquired if this (legislation) is passed the potential of not having to go through the assessment process every time we need to (repair) a road, might possible go away.
Robertson advised he didn’t know.
Copley advised this (proposed tax) would bring in $23,000 additional dollar, which was enough to do one road this year. He advised all the other money we (city) were expending to fix the other roads with this tax we will have to assess.
Russell advised any future streets we would still have to sit down and go through process.
Carey advised there wasn’t enough money that was what he was asking.
Russell advised no.
Beaumont advised if he wasn’t mistaken we (currently) collect approximately $17,000 annually and if this passes that $17,000 would increase to $53,000. He advised he believed basically what they were doing was asking the residents as a whole, every resident of the City of Rittman to pay an additional $5.00 when they renew their license (plate) tags. Beaumont advised that money was specifically earmarked to fix the roads for (use by) all the residents. He advised it had to go to the roads; the money could only be used for that particular purpose. Beaumont advised he didn’t know how it could be any fairer than that because if you own one car you pay an additional $5.00 whether you live in Wayne or Medina County (in Rittman) and we get the money for one purpose. Beaumont advised he didn’t want to raise taxes either, but he believed as a Council they agreed at the beginning of the year to have all the department heads come and give us their cost saving measures. He advised we (Council) were asking them (dept. heads) to tighten the belt and provide the citizenry with the same level of services knowing full well we may not have the funds next that we have this year. Beaumont advised he believed if we are going to impose a tax on someone we do it fairly. He advised when he spoke earlier his desire to fix Ohio Avenue was based not on fairness, but on a safety issue and he still believes Ohio Avenue to be unsafe and it would remain unsafe until we fix it. Beaumont advised Council has decided we will pursue the assessments and he agreed with that, as he has never said he doesn’t agree with assessments. He advised he said that sometimes there were situations that arise that we just have to deal with. He advised he believed this was an excellent opportunity for us to treat everybody in Rittman the same. He advised he doesn’t want to raise taxes, but it was money that was needed for our purposes for every citizen in Rittman. Beaumont advised whether we were fixing Seneca Street or Gish Road or DeCourcey Road, Pinewood Avenue, Hilty Drive, it doesn’t matter. He advised all the money everyone would be paying would be used to maintain the streets. He advised he felt the most important thing was that it was fair and they weren’t separating out any particular group, but were making a fair increase that every other taxing authority around us (already) does. He advised they (surrounding areas) use that money the way they were required to as well. Beaumont advised he felt they were short-changing the people in their (Council) ability to provide a quality service in this case maintaining the roads by not doing this.
Copley advised we are behind on the road projects there was no doubt about that. He advised the reason we are behind was due to a more pressing problem, which was Landis Ditch and we had to take care of that flooding problem. He advised the Council at that time made the decision to go forward with Landis Ditch knowing at that time they would get behind on roads (being repaired). Copley advised were we going to catch-up in one or two years definitely not, but he felt they would catch-up. He advised we had a valid street program without this additional tax and he believed in time we would have one again. He advised it wouldn’t happen in a couple of years, but he believed they would catch-up.
Johnson advised his feeling was lets say you got a guy working at Morton Salt maybe 70 hours a week because of the rising cost of food, the rising cost of fuel and barely able to make a house payment and was faced with the choice of feeding his family or pay his house payment this month. He advised and you want to tell this guy while he’s got this decision to make we were going to force him to pay more money for his license plate. He advised this wasn’t the time to start throwing this kind of “crap” on our citizens. Johnson advised that was what this was to him a bunch of “crap”. He advised he was all for sending this thing to the ballot and let the citizens decide if they think its “crap” or not and if they want to pay the fee let them tell us they want to pay the fee. Johnson advised let’s not sit here and make that decision and because of the constant going back and forth at this time he would like to make a motion to have legislation drawn up to take these two ordinances (7493, 7494) we are proposing right now on the November ballot.
Bower advised the proper procedure would be to pass this (legislation) and certify it to the state by July 1st and then have a referendum on it. He advised the statute specifically provides for a referendum and it could not be passed on emergency.
Johnson inquired if after passage we would encourage a citizen to circulate a try to repeal it.
Bower advised yes in order to go to a vote.
Johnson advised he didn’t want to sit up here with a Council that was for it and vote on this. He advised he felt before they pass this that they should even be touching this sort of issue. Johnson advised he felt they should let the citizens tell us and he has yet to hear a citizen say they were more than willing to give us more money. He advised he just couldn’t see it not with the prices of everything else and the foreclosure rate. Johnson advised to tell people it was just $5.00. He advised when he read what Councilman Lapehn said at the last meeting his face turned red that if a guy has five cars he should automatically be able to afford $25.00. He advised that was a load of “crap”.
The Mayor advised Johnson he didn’t need to keep using “that” word in a public meeting.
Johnson apologized and advised he understood, but he felt the citizens needed to figure out and finally needed to know what this was all about. He advised we are pressed for money for road repairs. He advised let us not do what a lot of people do, as every other town around us does it, so what. He inquired as to why our city had to follow suit with Wooster and Orrville and Wadsworth. Johnson advised we’re “a small town with a big heart” remember. He advised it sounded to him like they wanted to be the small town that follows everyone else and that was not what he was here for. He advised he represents the citizens and everyone from Main Street on down that he has talked to don’t see a need for this type of tax.
Copley advised for the record he would support sending these directly to the electorate to avoid having to force a citizen to go around and collect signatures when this Council has the authority to send it themselves. He advised he felt it would be nonsense for this Council to pass it in hopes that a citizen will take the time and effort to put a referendum on the ballot. He advised he felt it would happen whether they wanted it to or not and he suggested we skip that phase and let the electorate vote on it. He advised from what he was hearing it would be a split Council with the ultimate decision resting on one vote and that was the Mayor’s. He advised why not let it rest on the vote of all of our citizens of this community who are registered voters.
Johnson advised that was the reason he would like to continue with his original motion to stop these two ordinances and have legislation be drawn up to for these to be placed on the November ballot and if this Council was really as concerned about this as they sound and if it takes special meetings, well let’s do it. He advised lets let the citizens decide what happens in their city for a change.
Carey inquired if there was time to get it on the ballot in November.
Bower advised he believed August 23rd was the deadline.
Beaumont inquired as to the cost.
Robertson advised he believed it depended on how many issues were on the ballot.
Discussion included how many precincts were in Rittman.
Copley advised when someone brings a referendum we would be paying it anyway.
Johnson advised if this does pass he would make sure and find a citizen or he would circulate a petition himself. He advised either way the city would be paying the money.
Robertson suggested Johnson’s motion be a separate one from moving this to second.
Johnson advised that would eliminate the sole purpose of his motion, which was to stop us from voting on it at all. He advised this Council should not be voting on this at all. Johnson advised he would like to table this indefinitely and replace it with legislation to take them to the ballot. He advised let’s quit dictating what this town does and let the citizens say what they want.

Johnson moved to table indefinitely, upon roll call; Carey-No, Copley-Yes, Russell-Yes, Beaumont-No, Lapehn-No, Johnson-Yes, (3-3) Mayor-No and motion failed.

Lapehn moved to place on second, upon roll call; Johnson-No, Lapehn-Yes, Beaumont-Yes, Russell-No, Copley-No, Carey-Yes, (3-3) Mayor-Yes and motion carried.

Johnson advised he would like to request legislation be drawn up to put this issue on the November ballot. He advised he would also encourage this Council not to vote on this again.
Bower indicated Councilman Johnson would like him to prepare legislation to place on the ballot.
Johnson advised yes for both Wayne and Medina Counties.
Bower advised just so we are clear, earlier Council passed the one for Medina County (7484) and Johnson was not requesting that one be placed on the ballot.
Johnson concurred. He advised he just wanted the additional $5.00 fee proposed in new business (7493, 7494) that Councilman Beaumont requested be brought back for the additional $5.00 for both Medina and Wayne County.

e. Ord. No. 7494 An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Rittman, Ohio, Wayne and Medina Counties, Declaring it Necessary to Establish a Municipal Motor Vehicle License Tax Upon Municipal Residents who have Registered Motor Vehicles in Wayne County. First Reading.
Ord. No. 7494 was read on first reading.
Copley moved to place on table indefinitely, upon roll call; Russell-Yes, Beaumont-No, Carey-No, Johnson-Yes, Lapehn-No, Copley-Yes, (3-3) Mayor-No and motion failed.
Carey inquired if this were to pass and even the citizens agree if down the road the situation of the city changes this (tax) could be eliminated.
He was advised yes.
Lapehn moved to place on second, upon roll call; Copley-No, Lapehn-Yes, Johnson-No, Carey-Yes, Beaumont-Yes, Russell-No, (3-3) Mayor-Yes and motion carried.

f. Motion to Advertise for Sealed Bids to Sell Municipal Property No Longer
Needed for Municipal Purposes.
Copley inquired if we have any idea what potential buyers would want to do with this land.
Boggs advised he believed there was one party who wanted to possible extend their business and one potential buyer that would sit on it for the future.
Copley advised potentially they could be selling land that was just going to sit there and not be used for anything if the person who wants to let it set for investment purposes were to be the high bidder.
Boggs advised initially the interested party that came to him was the owner of the shopping center as there was some concern one (tenant) might relocate to a separate building and he wanted this lot to build a separate building. He advised with the thinking it might be more feasible to put a newer establishment in that area for drive-thru’s and such.
Copley inquired if anything could be built in this area because of flood control.
Boggs advised they would have the same issues and would have to elevate. He advised he didn’t see this lot doing us (city) any good. He advised if someone was interested in (purchasing) it he didn’t see any use for it.
Russell advised he has always been opposed to selling city property. He advised if he was assured that someone was going to build there he could break that bond and vote for it. He advised just to sell it to have it sit there he couldn’t see why they would do it because the city might need it in the future. Russell advised if there was a buyer and they assured us they were going to build a business then he would break that bond and vote in favor of it.
Robertson advised he didn’t believe they could make that a condition of the bid, as it was to the high bidder.
Johnson advised he had problems getting rid of city property for reasons such as a water tower location if needed. He advised we heard EMS Chief Baillis tell us in the future he would see a need for a bigger station or a second (EMS) station. Johnson advised he didn’t want to see us give up land that we know if we were ever going to need or not and we don’t know. He advised he didn’t like the idea that someone was just going to let it sit when we could use it. Johnson advised if nothing else we could put a park there to help the city beautification wise. He advised giving up city property for the possibility of it not being used for anything he couldn’t do that especially knowing that the EMS Department was growing continuously with call volume and it might need a bigger or second station and this might be land used for that (purpose). He advised he could not give up this type of property for public health, safety and peace.
Lapehn inquired if we were talking about lot # 3025, which was .371 of an acre, which was about 1/3 of an acre.
He was advised yes.
Lapehn advised one-third of an acre he couldn’t imagine a water tower in the floodplain, as that didn’t sound smart to him. He advised this lot was way too small to have an EMS Station. He advised he couldn’t imagine what could be built on a third of an acre. Lapehn advised it was a little sandwiched lot between the dentist and the creek (on Main Street). He advised he couldn’t imagine city usage for a third of an acre other than parking for a festival.
Russell advised our (current) EMS building was probably on a third of an acre.
Johnson concurred and advised like I said a second station.
Lapehn advised that (area) seemed pretty close to the other station. He advised if they were going to build another station he would want it to be south of town, west of town or north of town and not two blocks from the current station. Lapehn advised he couldn’t see the future, but a third of an acre didn’t seem like much.
Johnson inquired what about a small park for kids in that area.
Lapehn advised there was a park off of Home Street and the big park by Bellevue.
Johnson advised parks close together happen all the time in the city like First Street and Third Street (parks). He advised he sat on the parks and recreation committee last year and wanted to see another park added into the city. He advised here we were giving up land where one could be put in. He advised that didn’t make sense to him. He advised he could think of uses for this land, as he has already come up with three.
Robertson advised he felt they would be hard pressed to put a park next to Landis Ditch.
Johnson advised he has seen them in worse places.
Beaumont inquired as to what brought this (issue) to the table.
Boggs advised the shopping center owner has been “bugging” me for over a year now. He advised he brought it up to Council about a year ago and Council wanted him to wait until the water study was complete to see if this would be a (viable) location for a water tower and it isn’t. Boggs advised (the sale) made no difference to him, but he brought it up at the two business establishments request. He advised if Council doesn’t want to sell it then that was Council’s wish.
Johnson advised personally he doesn’t want to get rid of it, as he was even against vacating an alley to have a yard running through it. Johnson advised you shot down one use with the water study, but he had two other uses for that lot. He advised if the city didn’t have money to build a park there were grants out there the city could go after to build the park. Johnson advised giving up what may seem like a little bit of land to (Lapehn), but a little park to a kid was the biggest thing on the planet. He advised we need to do something for our youth in this town and here was an opportunity to do it and selling it was not the right choice.
Carey so moved, upon roll call; Carey-Yes, Copley-No, Russell-No, Johnson-No, Lapehn-Yes, Beaumont-No and motion failed.

g. Res. No. 7495 A Resolution of the Council of the City of Rittman, Wayne and Medina Counties, Ohio, to Provide for Municipal Services for the Proposed Annexation by the Property Owner of Approximately 5 Acres in Milton Township, County of Wayne and State of Ohio and Declaring an Emergency. First Reading. Res. No. 7495 was read on first reading.
Johnson inquired as to the intent of what they (owners) want to do with the land.
Bower advised build houses.
Johnson advised he wanted to ask, as he didn’t want to see a Guilford Township thing happen again.
Russell inquired if the other properties have been contacted. He advised he has been informed by one of the property owners and they would love to get into the city if annexed. He advised if we were going to go that route maybe we should ask the other property owners if they would like to be included.
Boggs advised Mr. Isaac signed a document (stating he won’t fight annexation) when he tapped into city water due to his well going bad. Boggs advised there was another pending annexation in this area and as soon as he was given the “green light” he was planning on talking to him and some of the others (property owners in that area).
Russell inquired if it wouldn’t be better to check with the other property owners and bring all those properties in at one time.
Boggs advised he could do that. He advised the reason this (ordinance) was going through like this was he (Faber) was on a timetable, as he would like to build one house right away. Boggs advised he planned on talking with the property owners to see if there was any interest and there was one property owner in particular who want to (come into the city).
Russell inquired if we annex this (property proposed in this legislation) and the other (surrounding) properties won’t be annexed was he (Faber) responsible for part of the Main Street when annexed getting the street improved.
Boggs advised whatever Council wants to do.
Bower advised he (Faber) would be responsible for water and sewer.
Russell advised he was talking about the street.
Bower advised he wouldn’t have to repave the street.
Russell advised he wasn’t talking about repaving it, but putting a little gravel and tar on it. He advised there was the city limits and from the city limits to Eastern Road that part was bad. He advised we don’t take care of that part, do we? He inquired if that wasn’t MiltonTownships responsibility.
Boggs advised yes it was out of the city right now.
Russell advised that was what he was saying. He advised if he (Faber) owns part of it there should be some kind of connection there where he could at least help patch it.
Boggs advised if it was in the city we would patch it.
Johnson advised he didn’t have a problem accepting this annexation considering there is a firm plan set in place. He advised we know what he’s going to do.
Russell inquired if he followed what he was talking about. He advised he wasn’t against the annexation he was just saying that…
Robertson advised it would be up to Council if Main Street were being paved Milton Township would pay for their portion and it would be up to Council to assess or not for the paving. Robertson advised we don’t charge anyone for patching.
Russell advised well it needs to be patched out there.
Johnson moved to place on second, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.

h. Ord. No. 7496 An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Rittman, Ohio Authorizing the Municipal Manager to Accept the Renewal Rates of Wichert Insurance Agency, Inc., Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio on Behalf of Selective Insurance Company for Errors and Omissions Coverage for All Members of the Fire Department, Property and Casualty, Auto General Liability, Ambulance Malpractice Insurance, Law Enforcement and Public Officials Insurance Pursuant to Attached “Exhibit A” Subject to Yearly Audit, for a Term of One (1) Year Effective June 1, 2008 and Ending May 31, 2009 and Declaring an Emergency. First Reading. Ord. No. 7496 was read on first reading. Russell moved to suspend the rules and have second and third reading, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried. Ord. No. 7496 was read on second and third reading. Lapehn moved to adopt, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.

i. Motion to Go Into Executive Session for the Purpose of Considering the
Purchase of Property for Public Purposes and Invite the City Solicitor and the City Manager – 9:30 p.m. Johnson so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.

j. Motion to Come Out of Executive Session – 9:49 p.m. Lapehn so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.

City Manager’s Remarks
City Manager Larry Boggs advised May 18th (2:00 – 4:00) was the Police Open House and there would be a lot of presentations prepared. He advised they would be demonstrating the “Shoot/Don’t Shoot” computer owned by the Air Marshalls and was pretty neat.
Boggs advised the city received a recycle grant for approximately $63,000, which would enable them to purchase a one-ton dump truck and a chipper to continue our recycling efforts. He advised we would be going after the second round (of grants) in October to see if we could add to that (award amount).
Boggs advised they were verbally notified they were successful in our presentation for the CDBG funds to the Wayne County Commissioners. He advised if we receive final approval we would be replacing all the sidewalks on both sides of Fairlawn Avenue, which was the worst area in the city with the tree (roots).
Boggs advised he would be having a “shredder day” sometime in July as the city needs to (purge) some of our records. He advised we can only rent the machine for four hours at a time and we could open it up to the public like some of our neighbors have done for a communitywide shredder day, which he believed would add to their recycling efforts. Boggs advised they were still looking into the issue of the possibility of a temporary compost drop off area for grass clippings and such.

a. Approval of Financial Report for April
Russell so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.