 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Council MinutesA Regular Meeting
on Monday, February 23, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
| Members Present: | Glen Russell, Richard Lapehn, Charles Copley, |
| Lynn Beaumont, Darrell Carey and James Johnson | |
| Members Absent: | None |
| Presiding: | Mayor William Robertson |
Invocation was given by: Barbara Brooks, clerk followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes – February 9, 2009
Copley moved to approve, upon roll call; Carey-Yes, Copley-Yes, Russell-Yes, Beaumont-Yes, Lapehn-Yes, Johnson-Abstain and motion carried.
Workshop
a.
Discussion of the Fire and
City Manager Boggs indicated in discussions with the EMS Chief they felt a renewal levy
along with a possible slight increase in
Boggs advised after discussions with people who have been through
the levy process before he would recommend they not put two levies
on at the same time, as in the past that has not gone very well. Boggs
suggested the
Discussion included the time frame had expired for the May ballot,
but not the August special election. It was noted the fire levy expired
in August of 2010 and the
Johnson inquired if a merger of levies would mean a merger of departments.
Johnson advised a primary concern of his would be making sure the
funds were going where they should and he inquired as to how hard
would it be to track what portion would go
to fire and what portion would go to
Russell advised he agreed that most everyone was pleased with the service, but he wasn’t sure it was a good idea to combine them and he noted the school has a levy on the ballot as well and he felt it was a gamble and they might lose both. He felt it was better to work on one and get it passed and then work on the other.
Robertson noted the school levy was a renewal.
Johnson advised why fix something that isn’t broke. He felt they could put one on this year and one on next year and still be o.k. without putting two levies on at the same time.
Discussion included when the current levies would actually stop collections, as they didn’t want a lapse in funds.
Copley advised his concern was the large millage being requested due to the combining and yet obtain the same revenue, as he felt it might be easier to pass two smaller levies. Copley advised he believed two ordinances per levy had to be passed prior to it being placed on the ballot.
Boggs advised he would try to get some information on a combined levy as well as two separate levies as to what it would cost to place such on the ballot. He advised he would also like information as to what it cost the homeowner per $100,000 of valuation.
EMS Chief Baillis indicated by combining the levies it would be considered a new levy and they would lose the hold harmless money as discussed at the last meeting.
b. Discussion of the Sewer Rates
City Manager Boggs advised they had approximately $498,000 carryover balance, which
were for the first 3 mos. operating expenses, which was
a good budgeting principle for government. Boggs advised recently
there was a motor that went bad and there was an emergency piece of
legislation under new business to purchase a new pump. Boggs indicated
a couple of the other pumps were on their way out and were going to
need replaced soon and they were looking at $50,000-$60,000 in replacing
motors alone. He advised it was $125,000 for the project underneath
the
Copley advised he provided Council with a spreadsheet using the raw data taken from the system for 2008 and averaging in December’s data, as that was not provided. He advised many other communities charge a base rate, which does not account for any usage whatsoever and then a flat rate was charged on each thousand gallons used. He advised the revenue received taking the 2008 data of the number of accounts with the number of gallons charged they received over $905,000 and if the 6% increase had passed it would have brought in approximately $960,000 for the residential units. Copley advised in order to get that same revenue, but with a $17 base and then a flat rate of $4 per thousand gallons. He advised the spreadsheet provides a breakdown of the sewer bill based on the gallons of water used based on this formula. Copley advised he liked this route (of $4 per M after the base of $17) because those who use 0 to 1,000 or 2,000 have a reduced bill and an average over the last ten years was $4.30 per thousand gallons as far as actual costs. He advised going forward if they needed more revenue they could raise the base or raise the per thousand rate and it would affect everyone equally because if you use more you pay more as opposed to currently some of the top tiers were actually paying less per thousand than the actual cost based solely on an average calculation. Copley advised he didn’t know how the rest of Council felt about changing the way they do (sewer billing).
Robertson confirmed these calculations were based on the 2008 data of usage of thousands of gallons and the number of accounts.
Copley concurred and advised if you used less than 1,000 gallons your bill would be $17 and if you used 1,000 it would be plus $4 and so on (for the sewer portion). Copley advised with some of the top tiers it does raise the rates, but he felt it was easily justified because it cost the city probably around that $4 range to process. He advised whereas a flat 6% increase across the board, they were raising those who use within the first 3,000 well above the actual cost. He advised it was just an idea.
Copley advised basically and he felt it was more simplified and based on the 2008 numbers it would bring in $10,000 more than if they raised it 6%.
Mann advised if they decided to make this change she would recommend putting the water on the same system to be consistent because to do one and not the other didn’t make sense.
Boggs inquired if Council would like this brought back in ordinance form, although he and the finance director would have to study (this proposal). Boggs advised it sounded like an interesting idea, but he wanted to work out some figures for himself.
Copley advised he felt the $17 and $4 would be accurate, although he provided all the numbers to Council and if they chose a lower base it would mean a higher per thousand rate and the upper tiers would really take a hit.
Copley advised he picked the $4 because that was the number he was shooting for and to use the $4 he had to go to $17 (to come up with the same approximate revenue as a 6% increase).
Boggs advised they would try to have something at the next meeting.
Copley advised previously he indicated that if they raised the rates they really should earmark some (funds) for capital improvements. He advised if we go with this (proposal) every dollar we take out of the base (for capital) would produce around $26,000. He suggested they (administration) look at what would be appropriate to earmark for capital improvements out of that base of $17 and still have enough for operating funds.
Citizens Forum
Rosie Blanton of
Roger Hessidence a long-time Rittman resident, a former City Council Member and Acting City Manager who currently resides at the Apostolic Christian Nursing Home advised they appreciate those Council Members who voted for the sewer line to be installed out to the home. Hessidence advised maybe those who voted against it could tell them what they objected to so they would have a better idea and possibly something could be worked out. He advised if we don’t know what they were objecting to we couldn’t know where to go. Hessidence advised he was requesting they each specifically state what they objected to and secondly he would like to ask Mr. Johnson to explain his absence at the last meeting as that was what seemed to turn this whole program down.
Councilman Johnson advised the reason he objected was that he was not in favor of the 110% for the first 15 years and the 125% beginning with year 16 through all eternity. Johnson advised the reason he was not here (at the last meeting) was that he has taken on a new job and that was his first official night of work and he notified the Clerk of Council of such and that he would not be able to make it to the meeting.
Hessidence advised with the 125% they would always being paying 25% more than those inside the city.
Johnson advised it was still 75% less than the ordinance states. He advised he felt because they were outside the city they should be paying 200% at some point. He indicated that he stated previously that he was in favor of a gradual increase until they reached the 200% and he advised it seemed to him there was no point in negotiating because he felt they (the home) were already set on numbers.
Hessidence inquired if the rest home on Sunset Dr. was charged the normal rate.
Johnson advised they are if they are within city limits.
Hessidence inquired so one rest home was different than the other rest home.
Johnson advised yes because one was 2 ½ miles outside city limits.
Hessidence advised the city paid to run the line out to Premier Pontiac and (the home) is going pay to install the line plus give $100,000 and the city would own the line and get all tap-in fees.
Councilman Copley advised his main objection was the percentage and as he has stated all along he would really like to see the contract end at some point. He advised since it basically goes on forever he felt that it would basically handcuff future Council Members and the 125% he disliked that part of the contract. He advised as far as the home putting in the line and paying for it and turning it over to the city, that was not unlike any development in the city who lays all the line and turns it over to the city and the city gets all the tap-in fees. Copley advised the only difference being they (the home) would have no ability to sell houses along that line to recoup some of that cost. Copley advised there was in the current legislation (a provision) for you to collect some of the back by someone who taps-ins paying a prorated portion of that line, although he felt chances were slim someone would want to do so, but the option was available if it was within the first ten years he believed. Copley advised his biggest objection was the rates as he felt they were too low and he felt the citizens of Rittman built the sewer plant and now you as an outside entity would be coming in and using and to charge a small amount above the normal rate was wrong in his opinion.
Councilman Russell advised he has know Mr. Hessidence along time and they have been friends, but when they disagree he guessed that was when friendships part. Russell advised his objection as the two others have said they didn’t feel the rates were there from the beginning. He advised he felt they gave the home opportunity to negotiate to a certain point although they didn’t point out what the particular articles were, they weren’t asked. Russell advised but he felt if they would have sat down and tried to negotiate it back there could have been some movement. He advised he was not satisfied with the rates and the ordinance specifically says 200% and when he took an oath and an obligation to serve this Council, to serve this city, that was what he was supporting at this time.
Hessidence advised all three were specifically stating that it was the rates. He inquired if it was the 10% (above) or the 25% from then on or what was it. He inquired as to what part.
Johnson advised both.
Copley advised all of the above.
Russell advised plus that same night they voted a 6% increase in the sewer rates for the residents of Rittman.
Hessidence advised that increase would apply to the home too.
Russell advised not necessarily.
Hessidence advised it would have to, as they were to pay 10% more.
Beaumont advised the sewer increase was defeated.
Russell advised he knew it was defeated.
Mayor Robertson advised the increase would have applied to the home too.
Hessidence advised if they raise the rates in town, it raises them out there (at the nursing home).
Johnson advised he also objected to the $100,000 tap-in fee, no at the amount of money involved, but at the fact that this Council did not even really begin considering (allowing) this sewer line until the $100,000 tap-in fee. Johnson advised he took it under strict advisement from the Attorney General’s Office to vote no for this type of legislation as it could be tied to a bribery clause because they did not consider this legislation until $100,000 of a tap-in fee was introduced on to the table therefore swaying votes to a yes as that point could be considered a bribe according to the Ohio Attorney General’s Office.
Fred Rastorfer of Louise Street advised if he remembers correctly, as he has been attending the meetings, he believed the home was a non-profit and he felt that should have some sway. He addressed Councilman Johnson and advised since this was a split (vote) he inquired why not let the voters of Rittman decide. He advised because every time the Mayor breaks a (tie) vote he (Johnson) seemed to think that the citizens of Rittman should vote on it.
Johnson advised he only thinks that on a tax issue and this was not a tax issue. He advised it was money and not taxes.
Rastorfer advised he felt the (objection to and the reason for requesting a ballot issue on) $5 for license plate was pretty weak anyway.
Johnson advised he has heard differently from other citizens.
Rastorfer advised he was sure 90% of the people in Rittman probably didn’t know or care about this.
Copley inquired if what he was saying was that if they (citizens of Rittman) did know about it they might object.
Rastorfer advised he didn’t know.
Copley advised by the way (that statement) was worded he felt it sounded as if he was saying they don’t know so let’s go ahead and pass it so they never know about it.
Rastorfer advised one way or another they probably don’t care and he referenced the lack of the number of people at the meeting sitting in the audience.
Copley advised he would agree except that a couple of years ago Council passed an annexation and the electorate felt it would cost them money in the future and overwhelmingly turned it down. He advised the things he has heard about this (the proposed contract with the home) could cost them money in the future although he didn’t know how. Copley advised the danger was there and the fact that the books state an outside entity pay a certain amount, he felt he should stick with the books.
Dave Maletich, Administrator of the Apostolic Christian Home inquired if they could ask Council to come up with a limit they would introduce as a fair and reasonable rate so he could go back to the (nursing home) board and say this was what Council feels is a fair and reasonable rate. He advised it could be brought up as all six were present and they weren’t all here at the last meeting. He advised Mr. Copley or Mr. Russell could bring it back up and allow an amendment to be added which would clarify what the rate should be. Maletich advised it would no longer be he and the City Manager negotiating, but it would be each Council Member telling what they want as a respectable rate to charge a not for profit nursing home.
Copley advised he believed our codified ordinances addressed such and currently it was actually 300% and he would be in favor of reducing it to 200%. He advised he felt the codified ordinances speak clearly on that matter and he didn’t see it as a Council decision at this point.
Maletich advised Council passes the ordinances.
Copley advised if they change the ordinance then so be it, but he was asking what was a fair rate and he felt at this point it was what was in the books and what was in the books was 300%.
Maletich advised he believed it was Mr. Russell that allowed negotiations to take place and Council passed it for a rate less than 200%.
Copley advised he believed that during discussions there was an indication from some Council Members including himself that at some point that rate had to be 200% and he felt he made himself clear on that (issue) and he apologized if he didn’t.
Maletich advised he also sees revenue that the city needs as they were talking about various projects and raising rates for the citizens and they could delay that rate increase. He advised if they wanted to shoulder the burden on the citizens of Rittman that was their decision, but they were allowing them some revenue from an outside source.
Russell advised they may not be getting a certain amount of revenue, but they were not going to give the ship away. Russell advised he did not appreciate Mr. Hessidence’s article in the paper and if he was going to put articles in the paper to make sure you have all the facts and the truth and not half-truths, but the whole truth.
Hessidence advised it was all facts.
Russell advised no it wasn’t.
Councilman Beaumont advised Mr. Maletich was asking them if the 200% was a fair and reasonable rate. He advised he believed the 200% was passed in 1996 and things change over time and he inquired if 200% was a fair and reasonable rate. Beaumont advised he understood it was in the ordinance, although it was not etched in stone, as they have the ability to change it and (the City Manager) researched what surrounding communities do to encourage people to use your facilities to help pay for them. He advised currently there was one outside the city a residential property that pays 3 times the rate now. Beaumont advised he believed the question asked was reasonable and did they believe the 200% was reasonable in this day and age and does it promote what Rittman wants to do. He advised they also have to take the facts of the particular circumstances and ask what were we getting and what was a fair and reasonable rate. Beaumont advised (the city) would own a sewer line that they have paid for and he asked was that fair and reasonable. He advised we (the city) were winning on that point and in addition they were paying us $100,000 and he asked if that was fair and reasonable, no. Beaumont advised they (the home) were asking to pay a fair and reasonable rate and they realized they would have to pay more than the citizens of Rittman, but they felt 200% was not reasonable and he tended to agree with the nursing home. He advised we also have the right to amend the ordinance to be fair and reasonable. He advised it promotes Rittman and he believed that was what they all wanted to do was promote Rittman. Beaumont advised we gain revenue, we gain good will in the county and he felt they open up a whole area of possibilities at the south end of Rittman that we may not realize for some time. He indicated he believed they would be congratulated later for their foresight in allowing this to happen. Beaumont advised he felt they needed to look at whether 200% was fair and equitable. He advised he felt they couldn’t negotiate this (contract) piece by piece, but that they had to look at the whole picture. Beaumont advised the way he looks at it we, as a Council and the people of Rittman were winners in two of the three categories mentioned and he felt they simply needed to come up with what was fair and reasonable in the rate category.
Russell advised he believed that three of the Council Members have said that the 200% was reasonable and so did the past Council that set the rate (back in 1996).
Johnson advised he believed several times they sent rates back with (the City Manager) that this Council felt was fair and reasonable and the home kept saying no. He advised he believed it went back to the home three times with rates that this Council agreed upon. Johnson indicated if (Council) changes the rates for a specific entity he felt others would come and ask for the same allowance and each would have their own ordinance for every instance. He advised he felt they sent fair and reasonable rates numerous times to the home as a Council through (the City Manager) and they keep turning them down. Johnson advised he felt the rate the home was asking for was not fair and reasonable to the City of Rittman as they have ordinances in place that specifically state 200%. He advised he gave a (proposal) beginning with (a rate of) 110% and gradually increasing it over 30 years to 200% trying to be fair to everyone. He felt some on Council kept changing their definition of fair and reasonable.
Copley indicated at a previous meeting an individual residential property owner near the home asked what their rate would be should they tap-in to this proposed sewer line and he advised there was no hesitation in the answer that they would pay 200% (for their sewer rate). Copley advised that (answer) tells him that Council felt up until this point that the 200% was A-OK and even further it was stated if someone else tapped-in to the same line they were giving a reduced rate to (another entity) that it would be 200% with no hesitation.
Councilman Lapehn advised as trustees of the sewer and water plants the idea of expanding the customer base to him was a good thing when the capacity was between 45-50% currently. He advised they have the capacity to take on new customers and it would be a steady customer base and it would bring more revenue into the city. Lapehn advised to him the particulars were the rates and as a good faith issue they (Council) entrusted to the City Manager, as they have done many times in the past, the desire that he negotiate on our behalf then come back and speak to us about the give and take of (the negotiations). He advised when they instructed (the City Manager) to negotiate and they obviously didn’t accept the last negotiation as it failed, but they did ask him to negotiate which at that time six people nodded and said go ahead and negotiate and come back to us so, there was the sense that what was in the books could be altered. Lapehn advised he doesn’t remember anyone saying under no circumstances would they listen to anything altering from what the books say or “Larry, don’t negotiate” or “Larry, don’t you dare speak to anybody because the books say this”, but rather he remembers six people nodding and saying yes, go negotiate. He advised to say that 200% was the only figure that was doable now was to him a poor faith issue on the part of six (Council) who nodded. Lapehn advised they could no longer accept what was agreed upon in ordinance form, as that was over and done with, but the fact that negotiations did take place and they agreed could take place was something of record and to now go and say, “we always saw it as 200%”. He advised there wouldn’t be any need for negotiations if they were saying, “Larry, don’t negotiate because we are set on 200%”. Lapehn advised to him as a good faith issue they should encourage Larry (City Manager) to negotiate again hearing the discussion here and knowing people have expressed their opinions and come back and see what happens with a new negotiation. He advised it sounded as if Mr. Maletich would like to continue down this road and it would be good for him (the home) and it would be good for the city and he felt they (Council) should be open-minded to a new customer who would pay a bill on-time and would continue to offer expansion in that direction and he felt it would be good for both parties.
Johnson advised he admits he nodded his head for negotiations to take place with the City Manager acting on behalf of the city, but he specifically recalls stated they needed to arrive at 200% over a certain time period. Johnson advised he has never said they should never be at 200%, but he has always stood by the 200% although he was willing to do gradual increases to get to the 200% to make things easier on the home.
Old Business
a. Ord. No. 7539 An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Rittman, Wayne
and Medina Counties, Ohio, Electing to Facilitate Reutilization of Nonproductive Land Within Its Corporate Limits and Declaring an Emergency. Third Reading. Ord. No. 7539 was read on third reading. Copley moved to adopt, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
b. Res. No. 7540 A Resolution of the Council of the City of Rittman, Wayne and Medina Counties Ohio, Authorizing the Finance Director to Request Advance Payment on Current Collection of Estate Taxes Due of Said City from the Wayne County Auditor. Second and Third Reading. Res. No. 7540 was read on second reading. Copley moved to suspend the rules and have third reading, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried. Res. No. 7540 was read on third reading. Russell moved to adopt, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
c. Res. No. 7541 A Resolution of the Council of the City of Rittman, Wayne and Medina Counties Ohio, Authorizing the Finance Director to Request Advance Payment of Real Estate Taxes Due of Said City from the Wayne County Auditor. Second and Third Reading. Res. No. 7541 was read on second reading. Copley moved to suspend the rules and have third reading, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried. Res. No. 7541 was read on third reading. Russell moved to adopt, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
New Business
a. Ord. No. 7542 An Ordinance of the Council of the City of Rittman, Wayne and Medina Counties, Authorizing the Municipal Manager to Enter into a Contract with Industrial Control Design & Maintenance of Tallmadge, Ohio to Replace the Sewer Plant Influent Pump and Motor Controller and Declaring an Emergency. Three Readings. Ord. No. 7542 was read on first reading. Johnson moved to suspend the rules and have second and third reading, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried. Ord. No. 7542 was read on second and third reading. Mann noted this would come from the sewer surplus fund, as this was a capital expenditure and there would be an appropriation amendment at the next meeting. Carey moved to adopt, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
City Manager’s Remarks
City Manager Larry Boggs advised Police Chief Burg provided Council with a list of problems with the police department building. Boggs advised he would like to schedule a workshop at the police department and fire department to take a look at the problems so Council could see what could become major problems if they don’t address them fairly soon.
Boggs advised he would also like to go to the water and sewer plants for a workshop so Council could see and have a better understanding of the daily operations.
a. Finance Director’s Remarks
Finance Director Lucinda Mann advised in June the University of Akron was having
their CPFA (Certified Public Financial Administrators) maintenance course. She advised it was a two-day course to go along with the training she had the last three years. Mann advised last year the cost was $275 and she was assuming the cost would be similar this year and she was requesting approval to attend such. Mann advised in answer to a question from Copley that this builds on the previous training and was really informative and was put on by the Ohio Association of Public Treasurers.
Motion to Approve the Finance Director Attending the Two-Day Training at Akron University in June. Russell so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
Mann advised she would be bringing an appropriation amendment to cover the expenses in the sewer surplus fund. She advised she was also going to have to redo the budget for this year as the FEMA money the EMS Chief was expecting last year hasn’t come yet.
Mann advised the auditors were here for three days recently and she wasn’t aware of any issues and they wouldn’t be coming back until May.
Council Remarks
Council Member Glen Russell thanked everyone for coming. He advised he knew they had some discussions that maybe should have gone on behind closed doors when there is negotiating because he didn’t feel they should negotiate a contract in front of the public until it was final. Russell advised they probably take for granted a lot of the times our City Manager as he appreciates him and felt he has worked diligently on everything they (Council) have asked him to do. Russell advised he would also like to thank the City Manager’s administration and his employees for doing the excellent work they were doing about anything asked of them and they had a smile on their face and he felt they were overlooked sometimes and taken for granted.
Council Member Charles Copley thanked everyone for coming.
Council Member James Johnson advised in all the ordinances it states three-fourths of all members elected thereto concurring and he inquired if that was a state requirement. Johnson advised three-fourths was seventy-five percent of the elected people therefore every ordinance/resolution takes at least five people sitting up here to pass. Johnson advised four was only sixty-six percent of the elected people of the six Council Members. He advised five would make it eighty-three percent greater than three-fourths of all members. Johnson advised all members elected to on a tie would include the Mayor making four-sevenths, which was barely over fifty percent of the vote. Johnson advised he felt maybe they needed to look at changing it so it fits all requirements as the way he understands it if there were two people voting no then nothing will ever pass according to this legislation.
Law Director Bower advised he routinely puts that clause in, as it was the emergency clause in case Council at any particular meeting wants to immediately adopt the ordinance.
Johnson advised (his point was) it says, “three-fourths of all members elected thereto concurring” and unless there were five votes it was physically impossible to do. He advised even a Mayor tie-breaking vote does not pass an ordinance according to this clause.
Bower advised on an emergency clause you need those five votes.
Johnson advised he understood for the emergency, but this does not state for emergency only, as this states (all) adoptions.
Bower advised it was implicit that if (Council) chooses not to adopt it that evening on emergency vote then you default to the three readings and you clearly get two-thirds vote or 4 out of 6.
Johnson advised on emergency reading it does not specify three-fourths to suspend rules and he felt it would require five votes to pass, as the ordinance does not change at that point.
Bower advised you need five votes, as you well know to do emergency.
Johnson advised that he knew, but according to this (ordinance) and going along with it they would still need five to pass.
Bower advised no you don’t.
Johnson advised according to this legislation and how it reads, yes you do.
Bower advised they can pass it on emergency if that was Council’s pleasure is, if they choose not to advance it on emergency then it defaults to normal procedures.
Johnson advised he understood all that, but the ordinance reads otherwise, which he felt meant going back several years they could say (legislation) did not pass because it did not have seventy-five percent of the vote. He advised sometimes it will read two-thirds and sometimes it will read three-fourths. He advised he looked at an ordinance from 2005 that read two-thirds of all members elected thereto concurring and then it became three-fourths of all members, even on first reading. Johnson advised he felt they needed to stick with one thing and figure out something that was going to state for anyone coming in to read it that it has passed because in his mind and anyone else with common sense that seventy-five percent was not 4 out of 6. He advised it was 5 of 6 and if the Mayor votes it was not 4 of 7. Johnson advised he felt common sense would tell you that this ordinance states that nothing passes.
Bower advised the Charter states when you referred to the Mayor breaking a tie that it takes 4 votes of Council. He advised your argument fails because you deal in percentages as it says 4 votes of Council and to break a tie the Charter says the Mayor becomes a voting member of Council…
Johnson advised he felt then this ordinance needed to state five members of Council instead of three-fourths, as a fraction was a percentage.
Bower advised because three-fourths would inherently be the four out of the six.
Johnson advised it would not! He advised four divided by six was two-thirds, which was only sixty-six percent and three-fourths was seventy-five percent. He advised it was basic math here!
Bower advised it meets the four votes requirement of our Charter to enact legislation.
Russell advised he felt it was explained in the Ohio Municipal League (publication).
Johnson advised he understands, but what he was saying was that the ordinance does not specify such and four out of six was not three-fourths.
Copley advised the Charter was clear it takes four to pass, but he felt the confusion comes whenever they use the language in the ordinance to say three-fourths. Copley inquired if they have an ordinance that says three-fourths does the Charter take precedence over that ordinance. Copley advised this was what we were reading and voting on and we were saying that three-fourths of us concur to pass this legislation when in fact in some cases three-fourths did not concur. He advised according to the Charter it passed, but going by the wording in (legislation) it should say two-thirds.
Johnson advised if they go by the three-fourths the five-dollar license fee would never have passed. He advised it was not suspended and it was passed four of seven.
Bower advised he couldn’t remember if that legislation had an emergency clause or not.
Johnson advised it stated in the ordinance three-fourths of all members elected thereto concurring. He advised going by simple logic and not attorney logic, which gets a little confusing because the law was “just way out there. He advised simple logic states the five-dollar increase never happened because three-fourths of the members inside this Council Chambers did not concur and agree. Johnson advised he felt simple high school knowledge tells you that it did not ever pass and that is the reason he brought it up.
Council Member Darrell Carey inquired if they put two-thirds in the ordinance and we vote to suspend the rules would it then automatically have to be seventy-five percent. He advised it would be at sixty-seven percent all the time and then vote to suspend the rules and make it seventy-five percent.
Bower advised you need five to suspend the rules. He advised this (language in the ordinance) was a catchall to give Council that flexibility.
Carey inquired if they could place the two-thirds language instead.
Bower advised they could do the two-thirds.
Johnson advised if they do that they have to go back. He advised he felt there were a lot of ordinances under that logic that have never been passed in the City of Rittman and they (legislation) used to say two-thirds.
Russell advised that was not going to work.
Mayor Robertson advised it could say two-thirds, but it still took five votes to suspend per the Charter.
Russell indicated he felt it would better to leave it as is.
Council Member Darrell Carey had no remarks.
Council Member Lynn Beaumont inquired as to the income tax credit given to those living in Rittman and working outside Rittman.
City Manager Boggs advised he felt it was a high percentage of people living in Rittman who work elsewhere and pay no income tax (to Rittman) because of our tax credit (given for what you pay another city) and he indicated he asked the Tax Administrator to track the percentage of people and the amount of revenue lost due to the full credit given.
Boggs indicated he felt there were two issues, one being the tax code and the other being the credit given for what people pay other cities.
Beaumont advised he felt our tax code was terrible and had so many holes in it and at some point it really does hurt the city. He advised he felt they should look at it and form a committee, as the Rittman tax code was antiquated and does not apply to a lot of the new tax laws that the state and federal government have in place and this was (the city’s) life’s blood.
Carey advised there were loopholes in the current city tax code that allow people not to pay what tax they should probably be paying.
Beaumont advised it would take time, as there was no quick fix and the committee could look at the sections that were deficient or start from scratch. He advised we want to promote business, but we need to have a tax code that fits. Beaumont advised the other issue he wanted to mention was the plan for the new high school building. He indicated he was a supporter of the schools, but advised he was not happy with the plan for the school. He inquired if the traffic flow had been addressed at all.
Boggs indicated he has been in discussions with the school administration and board regarding the proposed construction. Boggs advised he didn’t believe it was a traffic flow problem so much as a lack of parking at the elementary school. He advised there was a meeting on March 2nd with the school superintendent, city department heads and himself to look at some of the issues. Boggs indicated they were looking at widening the area at the elementary school marked for safety vehicles only to allow a parking lane and a drive around lane.
A lengthy discussion continued regarding the proposed construction and issues of contention including parking, the retention pond, traffic flow, the fence at the elementary retention pond, the fire hydrant inside the water tower fence, removing the tree lawn at the water tower and adding some off-street parking spaces among other issues.
Boggs advised he felt the biggest issue was not enough parking spaces.
Beaumont advised all the schools and the offices would be in one central location and the traffic was all scheduled to enter and exit onto Saurer Street and he didn’t understand why the traffic flow was not taken into consideration.
Russell advised when school lets out at the elementary school it was “one holy mess” and he avoids that area during that time.
Johnson suggested one-way streets during the times the schools would be letting out.
Robertson noted the retention pond for the new high school was bigger (than the elementary) and would always be wet per EPA requirements.
Boggs advised he felt the school board was willing to meet and he would try to set up a meeting with them and those on Council who could to see if some kind of agreement regarding these issues could be reached.
Council Member Richard Lapehn advised it was good news that Rufener’s Furniture would be expanding their business with the addition of a showroom. Lapehn thanked Councilman Copley for his work on the sewer rates as he appreciated the effort to find a solution to generate revenue. Lapehn indicated he hoped they could continue to negotiate with the nursing home and to find a solution to their sewer needs.
Mayor William Robertson had no remarks
a. Approval of Vouchers 50392 thru 50515 Including Then and Now
Certificates Questions were asked regarding #’s 50456, 50442, 50450, 50485, 50400 and 50508. Copley moved to approve, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
Adjournment: 8:47 pm
Russell so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
________________________________Mayor
__ ______________________
Clerk of Council
Send mail to webmaster@MAITS.com
with questions or comments about
this website.
Copyright © 2007 The City of Rittman