CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Robertson at 7:35pm)
ROLL CALL (7:36pm) Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson, Manager Hickman, and Law Director Hurst.
RECOGNITIONS (7:36pm) Mayor Robertson read the full text of a Proclamation of Appreciation for retiring Law Director Rufus Hurst, acknowledging his many years of service and dedication to the Village of Granville. Those present gave Law Director Hurst a standing ovation.
Resolution No. 00-43, A Resolution Of Appreciation To Robert Essman For His Dedicated Service To The Granville Board Of Zoning And Building Appeals, was introduced and read in full by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. A voice vote on Resolution No. 00-43 yielded seven (7) ayes. Resolution No. 00-43 is adopted. Mr. Essman, though absent, received a round of applause.
CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (opened by Mayor Robertson at 7:40pm) There we none other than those intended for the Water & Sewer request of the Granville School District. Mayor Robertson noted there would be an opportunity for comment on that matter specifically after the initial presentation.
Mayor Robertson closed Citizens’ Comments at 7:41pm
GRANVILLE SCHOOLS – Water/Sewer Request (7:41pm) Kathy Lowery, 316 Llanberis Drive – Superintendent of Schools. Stated she was present to enlist Council’s support toward maintaining quality schools in light of what she perceived to be Council’s goals—to maintain quality schools at a reasonable cost to taxpayers, to maintain the current quality of life in Granville, and to create an infrastructure that maintains that quality of life. Lowery described the current high school/middle school complex as “modular city.” She noted that they have enrolled 225 students over the last 20 months and expect to add 100 students/year over the next decade. The current enrollment is approximately 1,865 students and the situation for next year is urgent. The Board of Education, though not a proponent of rapid growth, is committed to being proactive in handling that growth. Lowery maintained that the school district must have a new intermediate school on line by Fall 2002 or they will have to add even more modules (at $165,000 each). To accomplish this goal, the bidding process must begin by April 1, 2001and construction by April 30, 2001. This means the architects and the construction company must have site information to continue the planning process—the reason behind the current request for water and sewer (W&S) to the selected site. Lowery then reviewed the strategic planning process that had culminated in the November 27th selection of the New Burg Street site, including the decision to purchase land enough for the new intermediate school plus additional acreage for future needs, including green space. The Board feels it has adequately addressed concerns re traffic, water-table levels, and potential rapid growth. Lowery and Board members are here to ask how to proceed with selective extension (i.e., how to work together toward a common goal in an expedient manner).
Jim Harf, 120 Wildwood Drive - School Board Member. Harf spoke to address written questions and concerns received from Council earlier in the day, as well as concerns presented by the newly formed Citizens to Protect the Comprehensive Plan. · How this site fits into the Comprehensive Plan (CP). The Board agrees with the CP concerns about susceptibility to annexation (p. 3). That, in fact, is behind their reluctance to site new schools south of town, where they would either have to pay an enormous price for W&S from Granville or get W&S from Southwest Licking or the City of Newark. Once W&S was available, the Board maintains that annexation of the land would happen immediately (from either Newark on the east or Pataskala on the west), resulting in high-density development that would adversely impact the schools. The Board agrees with the CP’s desire to keep the small-town character in place (p. 4). Harf maintains we can keep the “21st century analog of the 19th century schoolhouse” in place for the next two iterations but a split in schools (e.g., “north” and “south” elementary schools) may eventually be necessary. The Board interprets the CP references to “neighborhood/residential schools” (p. 10) to apply only to land contiguous to the City of Newark. Since Granville is still using the model of a single school at each level for the entire district, it follows that each school’s “neighborhood” is therefore the entire district. The Board agrees with the CP’s general development standards (p. 15). The requirements to “preserve rural character, discourage speeding, and have streets no wider than necessary” was one of the main reasons for not selecting the Watts property south of Newark-Granville Road (e.g., the road would have to be widened by removing all the old trees lining both sides of the street). The Board agrees with traffic/transportation issues facing Granville today (p. 16) and with the provisions for safe and efficient traffic on Township roads (P. 17). It maintains that the cut-through to Loudon Street from the New Burg Street site (originally recommended in the 1990 Comprehensive Plan) would cut in half the twice- daily peak school traffic through the Village. The Board feels its plan is supportive of the CP’s efforts to preserve open green space (p. 18). In summary, Harf maintained that the Board’s plan enhances the CP’s goals in that the School Board and the Superintendent decide on the site and their choice should be residential/ neighborhood in character. He added that the CP doesn’t specifically address Burg Street. · Clustering. Harf then addressed the consequences of clustering (i.e., having all the same grades on the same site). He noted that kids in every grade live in every corner of the district. Bus runs should minimize cost and maximize efficiency; a site as close as possible to the existing schools meets those criteria. Putting the new schools on the other side of town means picking up separate age groups on separate runs. That, in turn, means that annual operating costs could increase up to 50%, depreciation would increases by a third, and we would probably need more buses. Noting that it makes sense to build where the kids are, Harf reported that approximately 75% of new kids in each of three buildings moved either into the Village or north of the Village, not south. There is also the possibility of needing more schools—one now, a second 8-10 years down the road if enrollment levels continue as projected, a third within 20 years. This being the case, it makes sense to buy the land now. In the interim it might be used as green space or recreational space for the community. The Board believes the New Burg Street site is the not only the best site, but maybe the only satisfactory site. · W&S Extension. Harf stated that the Board “believes with absolute certainty” that Council could extend W&S in a binding agreement that would allow them to deny W&S to anyone else they chose in order to stop development. He added that issues of law-enforcement jurisdiction (i.e., whether the schools located in the Township would receive police protection and service from the Village or from the County Sheriff.)
Questions from Council Councilmember Moore asked if an attorney could clarify how the Village could grant W&S to the School Board but deny it to anyone else. (David Klauder, 436 Thornwood Drive, commented that he was unable to get water service 36 years ago when he was developing on Route 16.) [Steven Smith, Attorney with Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn, spoke to Councilmember Moore’s concerns. The first legal issue is whether a village or any governmental entity has the right to grant selective extension. They do, per an Ohio Attorney General’s opinion (which Mr. Smith will forward to Council). He noted that the acreage in question could be deed-restricted (e.g., for green space), the School Board could grant first-refusal rights to the Village, or a combination thereof. Since the immediate need is for only 22 of the 179 acres to be purchased, the School Board and the Village could enter into a lease agreement (i.e., $1 per year) whereby the Village could then make its own decisions about the land. The School District believes these W&S lines are to serve the children of the district. Therefore, they will pay all costs associated with laying W&S lines as well as the service distribution and will agree not to extend that service to anyone else without specific consent from the Village. The Township has represented to the School District that easements will be granted as needed. Mr. Smith reiterated Mr. Harf’s assertion that he had no doubt that an agreement could be fashioned to protect against future development, against the School Board selling off any of the land, and against any tap-ins by other developers. Assuring Council that two governmental bodies that serve the same constituencies can work together, Mr. Smith offered to work with the Law Director to ensure that those acres will be taken out of development, if-and-when they are bought by the school district. He specifically stated that “there will nothing else out there.”
Councilmember Lucier told Mr. Smith that this issue had been discussed at length in the course of the Kendal discussions re their proposed Burg Street site. Council’s greatest reservation at the time had been their fear that there was no way to restrict any future Council from changing decisions made by the current one. [Mr. Smith restated his assertion that the land could be deed- restricted, i.e., “take it out of your hands and put it on the dirt.”]
Councilmember Bellman said he was aware that the Village could in fact provide W&S outside its area but would then run the risk of becoming a public utility—an entity that could no longer discriminate between area users. [Mr. Smith felt that could be handled through a win-win agreement whereby, in return for the Village giving it the service, the School District would give over the use of the land (citing an Ohio State Supreme case re Indian Hills). He added that we don’t want to be without an agreement and leave the way open for a third party to get extension via judicial act. For example, if Council decided that nobody else was to get W&S, then someone did get it via a lawsuit, Council would be unable to stop subsequent extensions. The new W&S line would be jointly owned by the Village and the School District.] Councilmember Bellman cited the Western Reserve Steel Co. decision—118 Ohio State 544 1920—in which the municipality did become a utility once W&S was extended. [Mr. Smith, in turn, cited a 1948 decision that interprets the matter in a different way, added that the Attorney General’s opinion is much more current as well, and asserted that “there’s a whole body of law out there on our side.”
Vice Mayor Wernet asked if Mr. Smith believed there was a way to structure an agreement between the Village and the School District to avoid the risk of judicial intervention.] Mr. Smith responded there was, “but we have to give ‘consideration’ in the contract.” The School District doesn’t want to go the annexation route to get service; that leads to defeating the goal of being a small quiet community and, besides, annexed land has a right to services. [Councilmember Lucier asked if that meant the School Board had not even looked at annexation.] Mr. Smith said they were not ruling it out but preferred not to go that way. They don’t think it meets any of the CP’s goals. Ms. Lowery added that, from the School District’s point of view, the effects of annexation, should it occur, would be the opposite of the CP’s intent to preserve the integrity of a small village. She added that anything contiguous to annexed land could tap in to W&S services. [Councilmember Crais asked how the added restrictions were assembled and what it takes to undo them.] Mr. Smith responded that “it takes a heck of a lawsuit to undo them unless they become illegal by act.” He thought the better option would be to deed-restrict the land, confining it to school purposes— a “virtually permanent” option. Even better would be a lease arrangement with cooperative management, for recreational uses, green space—something specific.
Vice Mayor Wernet, following up on the referenced 1928 decision, asked if, by having already granted some W&S extensions, the Village had already triggered the “contiguous land…” issue (assuming the 1928 decision is still in effect). [Mr. Smith said the Village had triggered that clause. However, having extended W&S services two times, he felt if someone wanted to challenge it they would have already done so. He suggested making an “ironclad agreement” that benefits both sides.] Vice Mayor Wernet asked if ownership of the land would pass through the hands of whoever would receive it back. [Mr. Smith said it would if a reverter clause were included and noted that contracts can bind us either to do or not to do certain things.]
That being the end of the School District’s presentation, Mayor Roberts opened the floor for Citizens’ Comments. (8:30pm)
Kitty Consolo, 18 Samson Place (co-author of the “Dear Neighbors” letter). She was concerned that a lot of the agreements being discussed could be subject to interpretation. Obviously everyone wants “ironclad” but anybody could challenge it. Would the school board therefore be responsible for defending the village and indemnifying the village for any and all costs in defending and litigating any challenge? What can we do to prevent a mess? Ms. Consolo also asked Council if they knew how much water they had to give, and for how long? She urged them to check with the Village Manager of Seville, Ohio and emphasized how important it was for them to know the quantities. Ken Klatt, 58 Rose Drive (Township). He agreed with the Superintendent Lowery on the crying need for an intermediate school. Re the fact the deed restriction historically can be broken, he was concerned about what would happen if the State Legislature were not only to decide that centralized sewage-treatment facilities are the way of the future, but mandate them. In that case, private septic-tank owners might be required to tap in to the Village sewer lines, making any W&S deed restrictions obsolete. He also expressed deep concern about the dangerous nature of the Burg-New Burg intersection—fairly quiet at mid-day but a real problem at peak times. He cited one death in the last 15 years and hoped we never had to attend a high-school student’s funeral because problems in that spot had not been addressed. Charlie Metzger, 81 Maplewood Drive. He spoke as one of 17 “founding fathers” of the CP, wanting to keep debate on an even playing field by making sure the CP’s intentions are clearly represented. He stated that the original writers had no intention of either locating schools or specifying their type. He disagreed with Ms. Consolo about the language on p. 10 about “neighborhood residential zoning,” saying that the PC does not recommend that the School District choose a Village site. Rather, the intention of the language was/is to alert developers that they have to give consideration to the School District in their planning. He also stated that, contrary to what Consolo had said, the PC did not specify or intend that Burg Street, north of New Burg, should remain as rural open space. Their intent was to keep as much of this area as possible as open space, recognizing that “agricultural” zoning includes farm and residential use.
Abram Kaplan, 843 Burg Street (a co-author of the “Dear Neighbor” letter). He stated that all effects of local decisions are local, then asked if we want Granville to be a rural and attractive place to live, to maintain our quality of life. He urged Council to ask as many citizens as they could for answers—to search for common points of view—instead of assuming that future development is a good thing. He reminded those present that a citizens’ group three years ago identified three major goals: to protect ourselves from strip malls and urban sprawl, to protect our open space and preserve working farmland, and to protect the guidelines re annexations that threaten the schools. He added that residents also are concerned about excess traffic as well as the extension of infrastructure into rural areas of the Township. He asked why we would want to extend W&S—and thereby foster the effects of a school or schools—in the most pristine parts of our Township. Kaplan felt it was “frightening” to hear Mr. Harf say that the Burg Street site is consistent with the CP, stated that extension of W&S for Burg Street is a dangerous precedent, and asked the School Board to take another look at the Reese property. Laurel Kennedy, 758 New Burg Street (co-author of the “Dear Neighbor” letter). She felt the School District’s proposal was surprising, given that the burgeoning family housing market is now growing to the south and east of the Village. She questioned whether a cut-through to Loudon Street would in fact ease Burg Street traffic, and stated that it was the parents’ and students’ car that were the greater share of the problem, not the buses. She pointed out that there would be virtually no pedestrian access to the proposed site. She urged creating two campuses—one north and one south, buying only the land needed for the currently proposed intermediate school, then locating the new campus, if agreed on by the community, in the area where the growth is at the time. In short, don’t sacrifice sound reasoning in a race to begin construction.
Don Lewis, 2284 Burg Street. After citing his experience on previous W&S study commissions (for Owens-Corning and Alexandria), he encouraged Council to request input from the County Health Department. Re deed restrictions, he urged that Council require annual inspections for W&S and move to centralization of the water situation. He also urged checking with the State to see if there are any plans for future changes in requirements or consolidation of resources.
Alden Stilson, 177 Glen Carin Lane. He was impressed with the School Board’s plans, and pleased that the Board’s counsel had given us reason to believe that the situation re W&S taps may not be as dire as we thought. He asked for written documentation on that opinion (“since we live in a time when strange things happen in courts.”) He said he couldn’t understand why the Board was not impressed by the Watts site since it is served by three roads and the bike path and could be accessed from adjacent Township land. He also said the proximity of that land to Newark-Granville Road would make it relatively easy to develop good bus transport access. The Watts location would also negate the need for W&S extension as well as the new connecting road to Loudon Street. He said he represented a newly formed Group to Protect the Comprehensive Plan—a subcommittee of which would be happy to work with the Board on taking another look at the Watts property. The Group has submitted notes and questions to Council from their formation meeting of December 3, 2000, including requests for information from the School Board.
Elaine Kent, 240 Glen Carin Lane. She noted that the beauty of the Township is its vastness, and expressed concerns about safety issues for elementary-age children (i.e., would Granville or the County Sheriff cover the area), worrying about the time it’s taken in the past to get a response from the Sheriff’s office.
Monica Grafeo, 235 Bryn Du Drive. She spoke to the CP issue of “neighborhood” that keeps coming up, echoing Mr. Metzger’s statement that the reference was included to tell the next big developer that land must be reserved for “local” schools, whether or not a building is ever built on it. She asserted that “no one wants to see large- scale development on Burg Street” since it’s the rural character that has drawn a lot of residents to Granville. She continued by saying that there is a limited choice of land, especially since the 22 acres needed now won’t last very long and the strategic- and facility-planning committees have ascertained that “one identity” be maintained without satellites.
Scott Schulten, 120 Trem Pell. He stated that he was thrilled with level of education here and said he didn’t just give his vote to members of the School Board, he gave them his trust to make decisions in the best interests of the Village and/or the School Board, the Township and/or the Village, and all the students. He said he would hope that Council would trust that the School Board has done its homework and realize that no matter what location is chosen, it won’t get 100% approval.
Jackie O’Keefe, 4 Samson Place. She asked about the possibility of some other public-service entity coming into the Township and saying, “We want W&S. You gave it to the School Board and now you have to give it to us.”
Jim King, 2276 Hankinson Road. He said Council was “between a dog and a fire hydrant.” He echoed Mr. Schulten’s sense of trust and high opinion of the way in which the School Board handles its fiduciary responsibility. He also echoed the earlier observation that the CP’s conditional use in Township agricultural districts includes school buildings. He urged Council to join the School Board is taking the long view (i.e., by buying more land than 22 acres).
Nellie Pallagi, 80 Glen Carin Lane. She supported the comments made by Mr. Kaplan, cited an Advocate article on the development dilemma, and cautioned against potential loopholes that might result in Granville becoming another Pataskala.
Carol Goland, 843 Burg Street. She stated that while she appreciates the fact that the School Board is under pressure to respond to the growing school population, she worries about a crisis mentality (i.e., stick to the timeline, make the deal, break ground). She urged everyone to take the time to do it right, to sort out the contradictory information (e.g., traffic impacts and transportation considerations). She expressed distaste at the idea that her children, who are intermediate students, might be on the same bus as high school students. She thought clustered bus runs would also work with the Reese site, which she asked Council to reconsider
Kathy Smith, 44 Trinity Court. She stated she was comfortable with the School Board’s decision. The upper end of the Reese property backs up to her property, meaning the school traffic would be using the same roads she uses. The site is simply unsuitable topography for a school. She said she is careful to avoid Jones Road during bad weather. Having the school(s) up there would mean having children walking to and from the area—another dangerous situation. She thought putting the schools in close proximity to one another is a wise idea. She also trusts her elected officials. Peak-time traffic is inevitable, regardless of the site, and having land available for future use is a wise move.
Tom Harvey, 804 Burg Street. He said he has faith in the School Board to make tough decisions, feels they’ve done their homework, and echoed Mr. Schulten’s remarks. Larry Sargent, 907 Newark Road. He agrees with Mr. Harvey, and said the School Board had asked for and received a lot of information from townspeople, had addressed the issues about which most of us are concerned, and has done a reasonable job of investigating sites.
Gary Yaekle, 65 Denison Drive. He agreed that the School Board had been elected to make hard decisions, said they now have an opportunity to buy a major piece of land and take it out of circulation, and that the Watts farm is not a good site due to poor ingress and egress considerations. Rochelle Steinberg, 425 E. College Street. She said she had no idea whether board has done its homework or whose information is correct. She said she wanted to remind Council that neighbors had asked for help when the School Board dealing with the old middle-school issue because they felt the School Board was being disingenuous in their communications those neighbors. She challenged the Council to listen, research, talk to their attorneys, and do their homework to see if information is accurate before they make any decisions.
Richard Salvage, 73 Berline Court. He spoke in support of the School Board, especially in the matter of trust. The Board members “worked hard, were passionate, and finished with an answer they could all support.” Even so, they cannot resolve how to keep this out of somebody’s back yard. He added that he is convinced that the Village can provide W&S without sacrificing security. He stated that everyone in the room has benefited from our schools. “The only question here tonight is, “Are the schools going to get the support from Village Council?” He added that Council has an obligation to support the schools and should do it soon.
Jim Havens, chair of Granville Township Trustees. He said the Trustees have had a close working relationship with the School District and had a high degree of trust and confidence in their decision-making process. He felt the W&S decision was an opportunity to develop a policy and should be a community-interest debate, not a “zip code” debate. He added that the Township Trustees were prepared to be cooperative and were willing to grant easements to facilitate the extension of W&S, assuming that the School District sticks with this site. They have already filed a Scenic Byways application because they see an opportunity to take the bike path over the W&S excavation area, linking these things together. Such an open-space preservation project could also be a barrier to future expansion. [Mayor Robertson asked for a copy of the application.]
Lori Green, 445 Burg Street. She asked how much the W&S extension would cost and where the money would come from? [Mr. Smith reiterated that the School Board would pay.]
Mayor Robertson closed this portion of Citizens’ Comments at 8:42pm, then asked for comments from members of Council.
Council questions: Councilmember Crais said, given that past estimates of enrollment growth have been less than accurate, he has concerns about tonight’s numbers. He asked how the Board had arrived at those figures and what was the worst-case scenario. [Ms. Lowery acknowledged that projections (showing declining enrollments and not including Keny) had been wrong before she got here). She hired national experts, who have been accurate almost 90% of the time, to produce low, moderate, and high estimates for enrollment projections. The figures being used tonight are based on the moderate estimates and go out ten years. She offered to leave copies with Council.] Mayor Robertson asked for projections showing all three levels. [Ron Sheldon, 278 Llanberis Drive - School Board. He added that the earlier projections showed declining enrollments because they were based on solely on live-birth presentation scenarios. Mr. Harf said that 95% of new kids last year moved into existing houses. Ms. Lowery noted that projections nationwide are usually based on .82 children per household; Granville has to use a much higher figure.] Councilmember Crais asked if the Board had discussed possible limits on built space on proposed site to avoid “educational sprawl.” If not, would they entertain that idea? [Ms. Lowery responded that their enrollment projections indicate the need for an intermediate school. Since they don’t want “competing” schools—one on the south, one on the north— they intended to build an intermediate school for 600 students, with capacity to add another 200 students without altering the building. Mr. Sheldon added that research shows their optimal number in any given building to be in the range of 500-600 students. He said that what Councilmember Crais is asking, in terms of limits on built space, may run counter to that especially since the aim is to keep class size at 25 maximum.]
Vice Mayor Wernet asked what might be the maximum population on that piece of land, in order to help “size” water needs. [Mr. Sheldon said it would be about 1000, if a second building were built In 6-8 years. Melissa Obenauf said they don’t really know what actual enrollments will be or what “the face of education” will look like (e.g., distance learning). We therefore have to think outside the box.]
Councilmember McGowan urged that we look at the big picture, 2-to-25 years out. He hoped that the School Board has looked at issues from the viewpoint of having one high school, one middle school, etc. Council would address the process issues for a W&S extension if they have some assurance that the site won’t change.
Councilmember Crais asked for more information, in writing, re the various models for splitting into multiple schools. He wondered when that might happen and asked if the possible growth indicated for that land might have any impact on the legal-agreement issues that had been discussed earlier. [Mr. Smith said he would prepare a plan for Council’s Counsel and discuss it with him.] Mayor Robertson said the more information Council could have in writing, the better. [Mr. Smith asked if Council would prepare a first reading.] Mayor Robertson responded that Council had not yet decided how to proceed.
Councilmember Bellman asked the architect what square- footage was being considered. [He responded that it was a total of approximately 77,000 square feet at this point, though that is still subject to change.] Councilmember Bellman asked if that was the square footage of impervious surfaces. [The architect said that parking and roads were not yet laid out and therefore he was unable to answer.] Councilmember Crais noted that information like this is very important to this community. [The architect did say that they were working with a single-story building.]
Bob Pell, 80 Glen Carin Lane. He stated that the Burg/New Burg intersection is a disaster and will have to be rebuilt, and wondered who would pay?
Mayor Robertson spoke on behalf of a number of citizens who had expressed concerns to her that the School Board is “in cahoots” with Kendal. [Mr. Harf said that was not true and that the W&S decision is the Village’s to make since they still control the water.
Bob Pell, 80 Glen Carin Lane. He stated the mile between Burg and Loudon Streets would become a drag strip and asked how that might be controlled. [Mr. Harf suggested a winding road with bumper strips, controlled access, etc.] Mark Parris, 251 Bryn Du Drive. He urged Council to exercise great caution in any extension of water due to challenges that will inevitably occur. Also wondered who might buy the property that had been considered by Kendal and asked if we would rather have a school, a retirement community, or several hundred houses.
Mayor Robertson closed Citizens’ Comments on this issue at 10:47pm and requested that all promised materials be forwarded promptly. [Council took a brief break at this point, during which Councilmember Bellman excused himself.]
PUBLIC HEARINGS (10:58pm) A public hearing was held on Ordinance No. 24-00, An Ordinance Amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing for Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses. No one appeared to speak for or against the Ordinance. Mayor Robertson closed the hearing at 10:58pm.
(10:58pm) A public hearing was held on the 2001 Budget. No one appeared to speak for or against the 2001 Budget. Mayor Robertson closed the hearing at 10:59pm.
OLD BUSINESS (10:59pm) 2001 Budget, Staff Presentation Seth Dorman, Molly Roberts, and Manager Hickman presented a Power Point presentation on the proposed budget. Members of Council asked questions of all three presenters, then expressed their appreciation for the presentation itself and the work that had gone into its presentation.
NEW BUSINESS ( 11:31pm) Ordinance No. 25-00, An Ordinance To Make Appropriations For Current Expenses And Other Expenditures Of The Village Of Granville, State Of Ohio, During The Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2000, was introduced by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Crais. Mayor Robertson set the public hearing for December 20, 2000.
(11:32pm) Resolution No. 00-44, To Award The Bid For The Purchase Of Water Treatment Chemicals was introduced by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember McGowan. A voice vote on the resolution yielded six (6) affirmative votes. The motion passed.
(11:33pm) Resolution No. 00-46, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Submit An Application For Transportation Enhancement Program (TE) Funds, was introduced by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Lucier. Manager Hickman clarified that this was for an extension of the bike lane from Cherry Valley Road east to the Welsh Hills School, along the north side of Newark- Granville Road. A voice vote yielded six (6) affirmative votes. The motion passed.
OLD BUSINESS (11:35pm) Ordinance No. 24-00, An Ordinance Amend Ordinance No. 43-99 Providing for Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2000 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses, was re-introduced by Councilmember Crais. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. There was no discussion. A roll-call vote yielded six (6) ayes: Councilmembers Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson. Ordinance No. 24-00 is adopted.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES (11:37pm) The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of November 15, 2000, were presented for review. The following amendments were requested: 1) Councilmember Lucier, p. 2 – change “six ago” to “six months ago.” 2) Vice Mayor Wernet, p.2 – change “Mr. Erhard said we could.” To “Mr. Erhard said we would.” 3) Mayor Robertson, p. 4 – change “Charged Manager Hickman to proceed…” to “Recommended Manager Hickman proceed….” Vice Mayor Wernet moved to approve the Minutes as amended; second by Councilmember Crais. Motion passed.
COMMITTEE REPORTS (11:40pm) All reports, save the Planning Commission, were postponed to the next meeting due to the lateness of the hour.
Economic Development Committee (Councilmembers Crais, Moore; Mayor Robertson). Finance Committee (Councilmember Moore). Newark-Granville Joint Committee (Councilmember Bellman, Mayor Robertson). Personnel Committee (Councilmember McGowan). Rec Commission (Councilmember McGowan). Street Light Committee (Councilmember McGowan). Streets & Sidewalks Committee (Councilmembers Bellman, Crais; Vice Mayor Wernet). Tree and Landscape Committee (Councilmember Moore) Union Cemetery Board (Councilmember Lucier).
Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier). Reported that the Commission had heard a new application from the Presbyterian Church contractor, asking that the Commission approve the alley as built. The Commission declined to do so. The construction firm will submit a new application.
MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS Next Village Council meeting – December 20, 2000
ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Moore made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:45pm. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Meeting adjourned.