Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes 2/16/00

 CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Robertson convened the meeting at 7:33pm.  
 
ROLL CALL
Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers
Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor
Wernet, Mayor Robertson, Law Director Hurst, and Manager
Hickman.

CITIZENS COMMENTS
(See attached list for those signing the register.)

At 7:34pm, there being no unsolicited Comments, Mayor
Robertson proceeded to the scheduled session between
Village Council and the Township Trustees in re possible
water and sewer (W&S) extensions into the Township.  
Council members present were joined by Trustees Jim Havens,
Eric Jones, and Lyle King.  Mayor Robertson placed a 45-
minute limit on the discussion.

Township Trustees –
Vice Mayor Wernet began by stating that this Council viewed
W&S extensions as a possibility, contrary to previous
Village policy.  The issue of criteria is central to the
discussion, however—i.e., would there be general criteria
that would apply to every application presented, or would
Council consider applications on a case-by-case basis?

Councilmember Moore asked the Trustees why they had felt it
was important to enact their resolution.  Trustee Havens
responded that, after the Keny annexation and its attendant
chaos, the Trustees had brainstormed for some tools with
which to face future community development.  They wanted a
multi-faceted approach that would give them feasible, low-
risk “tools” to maintain the integrity of the Township.  
They needed to raise money to purchase open space and felt
it was imperative that they participate in the Community
Master Plan (i.e., “be at the table” to be able to
investigate extending W&S in appropriate circumstances).   
The Trustees feel that reacting on a case-by-case basis
(i.e., having the current round of discussions because of
Kendal) leaves the Township in a very vulnerable position
vis à vis developers.   The Keny experience has shown that
developers who feel they don’t have a good opportunity to
develop in the Township will do an end-run into a community
that won’t hassle them.

Vice Mayor Wernet suggested that the strongest argument for
selective extension is fending off annexation (perhaps
combined with regulations on density at Township
borderlines).  Council-member Moore confirmed that Council
had attempted to do just that, in the context of the Master
Plan.  Councilmember Crais asked if other council members
felt that a set policy on W&S extensions would offer an
effective instrument to protect the vulnerability of
Township areas.  Councilmembers Moore and Wernet answered
in the affirmative, with Vice Mayor Wernet emphasizing that
the Master Plan was generally meant to protect boundary
areas.  Council-member Lucier asked how extensions that are
some distance from current lines would be paid for;
Councilmember Moore replied that the criteria specified
that the developer would pay.  Councilmember Lucier then
asked why Keny would have preferred Granville W&S to
Newark’s. Vice Mayor Wernet replied that access to W&S was
not the controlling factor; Keny chose Newark because of
their housing-density regulations.  Trustee Havens noted
that they also would have preferred the Township to the
Village, given that there are fewer “hoops” in the
Township.  Councilmember Moore noted that the lack of a
policy on W&S extensions meant there was no “framework” for
discussions with Keny; the currently proposed policy is an
attempt to craft a policy that allows for Village input
even though Township zoning regulations would still apply.

Mayor Robertson asked if such Village-Township agreements
had worked in other communities.  Trustee Havens said they
were often used for township development.  Mayor Robertson
asked if they were used for the same reason, i.e., to fend
off annexation.  Trustee Havens said he wasn’t sure if that
was the case.  

Councilmember Crais asked why the Township didn’t want
explicit criteria.  Trustee Havens responded by referencing
the Master Plan, saying that, at a minimum, it should work
to fend off possible annexation.  In a broader sense,
Trustee Havens noted that it would be “terrific” if the
Township could be filled with “intact uses” consistent with
the Master Plan.  In short, the Town-ship is going to
develop and thinking only in terms of W&S extension is self-
limiting.  We have an opportunity to plan Township
development in a way that will be beneficial to the greater
community and knowing in advance what uses we’ll have is a
preferable situation to waiting to see what might come up.

Trustee Jones pointed out that the Township policy was
authored through evolving discussion.  Trustee Havens
agreed, noting that intensive discussions had been held
with Kendal represen-tatives about concrete criteria; Rob
Drake and then-Councilmembers Lyn Robertson, Bill Wernet,
Lisa Minklei also offered suggestions on basic concerns in
the attempt to draft a policy that would be both protective
and acceptable to the community.  Trustee Havens responded
that the Trustees had tried to include as many concerns
heard in that process as possible.  

Vice Mayor Wernet noted that Council had been informally
advised that there may be legal risk in having too specific
a policy, something he felt was a legitimate concern.    
Trustee Havens replied that “a policy is a policy;” Council
would still have the ultimate “say.”  In other words,
people still have to go through the application process and
get an answer from the Village or the Township.  Vice Mayor
Wernet said we seemed to be reinventing the wheel (i.e.,
the Master Plan would appear to be adequate to address the
kinds of development we’re imagining).  Trustee Havens
disagreed.

Councilmember McGowan believed that a majority of people in
the Village and the Township might like to see a policy but
wondered what would happen with rezoning issues.  Trustee
Havens responded that rezoning will be an issue regardless,
but the Township “doesn’t intend to create a new satellite
with each extension.”  Councilmember Bellman asked if a
zoning change was needed for Kendal; Trustee Havens
responded in the affirmative.  Councilmember Lucier asked
what the Master Plan was for that space; Mayor Robertson
noted it was agricultural.  Trustee Havens stated that the
Kendal application would, in fact, be denied as “not
consistent” if we followed the Master Plan. Vice Mayor
Wernet asked if the Trustees were recommending we deny
Kendal’s application.  Trustee Havens said they were not;
rather they were recommending that Council set up a process
to debate if it’s consistent with the Master Plan.  Mayor
Robertson asked what would make it consistent; Trustee
Havens replied that he didn’t “want to argue their
application.”

Mayor Robertson, based on what she has learned from her
attendance at conservation conferences, noted that
extending water is not as critical an issue as extending
sewer, at least in terms of promoting growth.  Given that
fact, she suggested looking at them separately.

Councilmember Moore asked, in terms of the service
agreement, if the Township would object to restrictions or
provisions (e.g., limiting density beyond Township
regulations, requiring more green space, and/or limiting
provision of W&S to specific use with no possibility of
change.  Trustee Havens responded that the Trustees’ intent
was to get Village input at an early stage since the
Village is obviously concerned that W&S extension is a
potentially powerful tool of growth.

Councilmember Lucier, revisiting the issue of Village
limitations and restrictions, asked if that wouldn’t
undermine the argument that someone interested in
development along the Village-Township border would rather
work with the Village (i.e., why would a developer prefer
that to being annexed into a community with less strict
requirements?).  Trustee Havens replied that Keny was
reasonably flexible in their goals but felt locked into a
situation they couldn’t retract from.  If they had had the
ability to choose an alternative they would have done so
(i.e., a stated policy might have kept them in Granville).  
Also, the Township could offer them the absence of an
income tax.  Councilmember Lucier asked if the absence of
Granville police in the Township might also be a positive
consideration.  Trustee Havens said, “Sure.  Some people
want police, some don’t.”  In any case, the Trustees would
like to be able to compete and have the discus-sion in the
first place.

Councilmember Bellman felt that, in the Keny situation,
access to Village W&S would have had no impact.  Granville
water and sewer lines were too far away, making cost a real
issue, and it was simply cheaper to go to Newark.  
Councilmember Bellman also feels we do have a policy: we
don’t extend W&S as a rule but we would make exceptions in
certain situations (i.e., to counter an annexation threat,
when supplying a W&S extension would keep the property in
the Township).  We obviously can’t anticipate every
situation, so it’s better to judge each circumstance
discretely, as the Village’s use of “ad hoc” was intended
to suggest.  Trustee Havens reiterated the Township’s need
for a published policy in lieu of saying that “everybody
knows” what the policy is.  Councilmember Bellman said
Council and the Trustees agree on that point; we’re working
to reach agreement on how detailed the policy should be.  
The bottom line, in his opinion, is that the Village
shouldn’t do a W&S extension without a compelling reason,
e.g., to control Township development.

Vice Mayor Wernet said he was comfortable with the policy
in the comprehensive plan that addressed annexation issues
and risks.  He also stated there were advantages and
disadvan-tages to having a more detailed policy.  Trustee
Havens said the Trustees were trying to put themselves in
Council’s shoes (i.e., represent Council’s probable
positions) as they negotiated annexation issues.  For
example, as a measure to protect the Granville schools,
they might negotiate some kind of payment in lieu of real
estate taxes.  Other considerations might include gauging
the impact of development on the Village infrastructure.

Mayor Robertson felt it wasn’t clear that the kind of
policy under discussion would actually produce good
results.   If the two entities of Village and Township
agree that they want as little development as possible,
perhaps it’s time to revisit the merger question.  Trustee
Havens felt a merger would “take on its own particular
life” and be unpredictable.  He expressed a pressing need
for a policy that could be “consistent with merger” but
would stand on its own.  Mayor Robertson thought a policy
based on the comprehensive plan could well go along with a  
merger.  Trustee Havens agreed but emphasized that a merger
would be a multi-year process and the Trustees feel a
selective-extension policy is needed now.

Vice Mayor Wernet felt that the Township government had
limited capacity to fend off annex-ations, and even the pro-
merger residents of the Township worry that the State of
Ohio might change the rules.  Trustee Havens asked if the
availability of W&S in one area of the Township might mean
that “government” could say it had to be made available to
other areas.  Vice Mayor Wernet wondered if the selective
extension policy under discussion is even a successful tool
since water could be gotten from other places.  He noted
that while selective extension may help control development
in certain cases, it certainly didn’t for Keny and might
not with respect to other water districts.  Trustee Havens
said it wasn’t a panacea, just one of a group of tools to
assist in this process.  Vice Mayor Wernet reiterated Mayor
Robertson’s statement that there might be advantages to a
merger.  Trustee Havens, while acknowledging that there are
advan-tages and disadvantage to merger, maintained that the
issue of merger is neither consistent nor inconsistent with
the proposal.  Councilmember Lucier, commenting that a re-
evaluation process that takes 5-7 years is too long, asked
if we could try this process with the Kendal proposal to
see how it works.
Mayor Robertson noted that 45 minutes had passed and
extended the discussion for another 10-15 minutes.)

Councilmember Bellman stated that we do need a policy but
we also need a document  that would detail procedure.  
Councilmember Moore agreed that we were confusing policy
and process, the latter of which would detail criteria to
follow once Council decided if an extension were to be
granted.   She also stated that Council was in a reactive
mode again, losing sight of the fact that part of its job
is to be proactive, especially about accomplishing a
comprehensive plan.  Given that there are times when a W&S
extension to certain areas would promote the kind of
development Council wants, Council’s job now is to use the
W&S extension issue as a tool to promote desirable goals as
opposed to allowing the desirable development to occur in
other municipalities.  Vice Mayor Wernet agreed, noting
that the futures of the Village and the Township
are “heavily intertwined,” particularly in terms of the
schools.

Mayor Robertson said she would be comfortable with a policy
that said Council would actively consider extension under
two conditions: 1) extension would fend off annexation, and
2) the applicant’s project fits the comprehensive plan and
would benefit the community greatly.  Only if those two
criteria are met would Council then move to consider
ancillary criteria.  Trustee Jones noted that criteria
presented by the Trustees were an attempt to anticipate
Council’s concerns in the hopes Council would embrace such
a policy.

Mayor Robertson asked for clarification on whether or not
Council and Trustees had reached agreement on having a
process and needing to articulate a policy.  Councilmember
Bellman said he had no problem with selective extension to
prevent annexations and/or encourage the “right kind” of
development, but wondered exactly what constituted
the “right kind,” for example, on the Route 16 corridor or
in Union Township.  Councilmember Crais was also supportive
of having a clear policy and had no problem with
forestalling annexation, but wanted more time to consider
the issue of projects having to be consonant with master
plan.  Trustee Havens reiterated that the Trustees needed a
written policy (an “objective statement”) for anyone who
approaches them.

Mayor Robertson made the point that “we” in the Village are
also part of the Township; we need to stop talking “us”
and “them.”  Trustee Havens felt this discussion was an
attempt to bridge those issues.  Vice Mayor Wernet noted
that we need to provide more objective criteria and as
clear a process as possible in relation to development in
the Village.  We are now more complex to deal with than
Newark, but the process continues to be improved.  He also
believes we should strive for uniformity between Village
and Township and is therefore encouraged by this
conversation.  Mayor Robertson thought perhaps we had
created a new “we,” and Vice Mayor Wernet wondered if it
might make sense to meet every couple of months in joint
session (in-stead of only meeting together when things are
broken).  Trustee Havens also thought this to be a good
idea and asked Township Clerk Norm Kennedy to communicate
with Council’s scheduler to find a time that won’t
interfere with the Trustees’ required times and dates of
meetings.  Mayor Robertson, noting general enthusiasm for
this idea, encouraged both bodies to spend a month or so
thinking about consensus.  Council and the Trustees will
set a meeting for April (either the 2nd or 4th Wednesday,
the Trustees’ regular meeting date), during which a joint
meeting, followed by separate sessions to allow for
conducting regular business, would be held.

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens Comments at 8:42pm and
Council took a brief break.  Mayor Robertson reconvened the
meeting at 8:47pm.

OLD BUSINESS
There was no Old Business.
 
NEW BUSINESS
Resolution No. 00-05, A Resolution Of Appreciation To James
Siegel For More than Sixteen Years Of Dedicated Service to
The Granville Tree And Landscape Commission was introduced
and read in full by Vice Mayor Wernet.  Second by
Councilmember McGowan.  Motion carried.  Resolution No. 00-
05 is adopted.

Resolution No. 00-06, A Resolution To Appointment A Member
To Fill A Vacancy On The Granville Tree And Landscape
Commission was introduced and read in full by Council-
member Lucier.  Second by Councilmember Moore.  Motion
carried.  Resolution No. 00-06 is adopted.

Resolution No. 00-07, A Resolution To Award The South Main
Street Improvements As Per Specifications, To Layton
Excavating, Inc. And To Authorize The Village Manager To
Enter Into An Agreement Therefor was introduced and read in
full by Vice Mayor Wernet.  Seconded by Councilmember
Lucier.

DISCUSSION:
Council engaged in an extended discussion of Manager
Hickman’s memo supporting his decision in favor of Layton
Excavating, Inc. (Layton).  Southeastern Ohio Construction
Company (SOC) was the low bidder, by $12,465.  Manager
Hickman reported that reference checks on SOC revealed that
they are on a cash basis with a number of suppliers and
that they “do good work but require close supervision.”  
Having worked previously with Layton, Manager Hickman was
persuaded that the unpredictability of SOC (i.e., whether
they had the ability to complete the job on time and on
budget) outweighed their lower bid.

Law Director Hurst was asked if he was aware of any case
law that would support awarding a bid to the second-lowest
bidder simply because the organization seeking the bids had
a) never worked with the low bidder and b) obtained
references that were less than satisfac-tory.  Law Director
Hurst replied there is no case law to his knowledge, but
strongly advised Council of the necessity to reference
Manager Hickman’s attachments to the memo (i.e., his
documented reference-check phone calls, made prior to the
drafting of the memo) since the memo in and of itself is
misleading.  Mayor Robertson noted that the Charter
language does specify accepting the “lowest and best” bid.  
Vice Mayor Wernet felt it was significant that SOC is on a
cash basis, stating, “They’re right on the edge and that
does impact their reliability.”  

Manager Hickman, at the request of several council members,
reviewed the bid process, as follows: bids were opened
31January 2000, at 2:00 p.m.; all bids were then sent to
the engineer to be reviewed for surety bonds, etc.; the
engineer made reference-check phone calls, keeping in mind
that substantial work on a main entrance artery requires a
depend-able contractor.  The reference-check results
attached to the memo were only two pages out of several,
and SOC did get some satisfactory references for smaller
jobs.  Councilmember Crais asked Manager Hickman if there
were any negative references on Layton; there were not.

Councilmember Bellman asked Manager Hickman if approval at
this meeting was critical or if there might be time to
redraft the memo.  Manager Hickman responded that he wanted
Council to feel comfortable with this bid and would
therefore be willing to wait two weeks before approval.  He
cautioned Council to be aware that the construction
schedule would also be delayed by two weeks, pushing us up
against July 4th.

Councilmember Bellman felt that SOC’s record was indeed an
issue.  Vice Mayor Wernet, on the other hand, was
comfortable with their record and stated that Manager
Hickman had made a deliberate best-business judgment based
on one bidder with a uniformly good references versus one
who received mixed reactions.  He recommended holding off
the decision only if there were strong opposition.  
Councilmember Bellman suggested that Manager Hickman retain
the audio recording of this meeting to document Council’s
due deliberation of the decision.

Councilmember Moore asked Manager Hickman if a bidder’s
credit with suppliers was one of the decision criteria;
Manager Hickman did not know the answer without having the
written criteria at hand.  Vice Mayor Wernet asked if it
should be a mandatory criteria and Councilmember Moore
asked if Council should make it so at this meeting.  Law
Director Hurst noted that, as long as we require a surety
bond (and we do), bidder credit with suppliers should not
make a difference.  Checking such credit would also slow
down the bid process substantially.

Vice Mayor Wernet noted that SOC seemed to have a record of
having delays.  Council-member McGowan asked if Layton had
ever been slow in completing a project; Manager Hickman
responded that they had, on the Spellman Street project.  
END OF DISCUSSION.

Mayor Robertson ascertained via a straw vote that all
council members were ready to vote on the Resolution and
called for the vote at 9:13pm.  The vote was five (5) ayes—
Council-members Bellman, Crais, and Lucier; Mayor
Robertson, and Vice Mayor Wernet; two (2) nays—
Councilmembers McGowan and Moore. Motion carried.  
Resolution No 00-07 is adopted.

MAYOR’S REPORT
The Mayor’s Court Report for the month of November was
presented for review.  Mayor Robertson directed the clerk
to file the report.  A copy of said report is attached as
part of these minutes.
 
MANAGER’S REPORT
The Manager’s Report for the month of November was
presented for review.   Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to
accept the Manager’s report as presented.  Second by
Council-member Crais.  Motion carried.  Mayor Robertson
directed the clerk to file the report.  A copy of said
report is attached as part of these minutes.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of 2
February 2000 were presented for review.  Vice Mayor Wernet
made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Council-
member Lucier second.  Motion carried.    

COMMITTEE REPORTS
Streets, Sidewalks & Utilities (Vice Mayor Wernet)
·    Discussed the paving and curb rework on West
Broadway and decided to pursue it.
·    Discussed costs associated with new roads (i.e.,
Fern Hill, Victoria Drive, Newark-Granville Road, Jones
Road); recommended to Manger Hickman that we bring forward
to Council the issue of Jones Road, the surface of which is
beginning to degrade.  Manager Hickman, noting the balance
of need and the relatively low amount of money required to
fix the problem, has begun the process of  seeking design
work, to be followed by a bid process and the appropriation
of the necessary funds.
·    Discussed the Cherry Street Viaduct work in process.
·    Discussed the truck scales.
·    Asked Vice Mayor Wernet to schedule a Committee
meeting with Council to discuss a “proactive concept”—
recommendations about a potential “boulevarding” of Cherry
Valley Road.  They feel such an improvement could attract
positive development.
·    Asked for a “significantly announced and promoted
public meeting” to discuss the “boulevarding” of East
Broadway.
Councilmembers Crais and Bellman both brought up the need
to look at Council’s ability to maximize local control over
state routes.  This issue is to be revisited; Manager
Hickman and Law Director Hurst will discuss it in the
interim.  

Street Light Commission (Councilmember McGowan)
This Committee needs to meet; Councilmember McGowan will
schedule it.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier)
·    Conducted the usual business (i.e., approval of
fences, etc.).
·    Looked at the final plat for The Colony At Bryn
Du.  Residents of Bryn Du Woods spoke to ask that the
Village put a mil levy on the ballot to purchase that land
from Bob Kent instead of having it be developed.  They also
asked the Planning Commission to table the discussion of
final plat approval.  The Commission declined, stating that
it was outside their powers to do so.  Councilmember Lucier
reported that, because the adver-tisement in the Sentinel
announcing the meeting didn’t get published,
representatives of Bob Kent and Southgate Corporation (the
developer) concurred with the Committee that they would
continue with the discussion but postpone the vote until 28
February 2000 so there could be adequate public notice.  
Councilmember Lucier also informed Council that there is
increasing community sentiment on this levy issue (i.e.,
Manager Hickman and several members of council have already
been contacted about having a special election in May).  A
discussion of the nature of The Colony at Bryn Du followed
(e.g., was it a retirement community or not? would it add
children to the schools district or not? Children or not?)
which revealed some dissatisfaction on the part of a number
of council members.

Law Director Hurst reminded Council that the development
plan and preliminary plat had been approved in 1994, with
restrictive covenants adopted separately by council.  Any
requests for changes must come back to Council after
approval by the Planning Commission.  At this time, they
are seeking a variance on setbacks and lot sizes.  Law
Director Hurst said he was told that the only deviation
from the final plat-plan approval is that one lot was
reversed in terms of its axis.  If there are no other
significant changes, the PUD structure allows for the
Planning Commission to proceed.  If there are signifi-cant
changes, we should not have arrived at the point of final
plat approval.  Vice Mayor Wernet, expressing a concern
about the footage of a house and its lot, recommended that
Law Director Hurst look into the matter.  Law Director
Hurst said changing the size of the house can be
accomplished without changing the final plat plan, but
restrictive covenants cannot be amended without returning
to Council.  Councilmember Moore noted that road changes
had forced lot changes with respect to site locations; the
developer also wanted to change the setbacks to bring the
houses closer to road, thereby creating more of a sense of
community; she also thought they wanted to make the houses
smaller.  Law Director Hurst said that lot dimensions are
on both the preliminary and final plats; Village staff has
indicated to him that there are no changes.  He does not
know if specific location on the lot and size of structure
are addressed in restrictive covenants; if they are, there
can be no change without an amendment to the ordinance that
approved them in the first place.  He did say that final
plats don’t usually position structures on the lots; that
is usually done by restrictive convenants, which are
binding.  Law Director Hurst agreed that we need to take a
hard look at this.

Mayor Robertson asked if there were any sentiment toward
the idea of a ballot issue.  Councilmember Moore thought it
was at least worth getting more information from the people
who initiated this request.  Councilmember Crais asked if
Law Director Hurst should speak to Keith Myers about some
of these issues.  Councilmember Lucier thought that was not
necessary since Kathryn Wimberger is in attendance at
Planning Commission meetings and the Commission, itself,
understands the rules.   Mayor Robertson wondered who would
bear the cost (approximately $2,000) of a special
election.  Councilmember Moore would like to have the
appropriate administrative person take a look at whether
the final plat plan is consistent with what was originally
approved.  Law Director Hurst said the “appropriate person:
would be the planner or the  engineer; Manager Hickman said
they would work on it.  Councilmember Moore said she would
contact the Homeowners Association to get more
information.  

Councilmember Lucier concluded her report by informing
Council that the members of the Planning Commission were
feeling overwhelmed in their efforts to comply with legal
requirements (e.g., Findings of Fact) recommended by Law
Director Hurst.  They feel the Village Code is poorly
written, unclear, and hard to work with; they would be most
appreciative if Council could develop specific criteria
that would relate to almost all their applications.  Design
standards could be integrated into the Code at the same
time, per the request of Keith Myers.  As to specific
questions, they would like to know if the exact curb and
gutter requirement for the Village are part of the
construction code or specified elsewhere.  They would also
like to have a dedicated zoning inspector.   Manager
Hickman reported that he had taken a presentation to the
personnel committee on spreading out job requirements.  
Vice Mayor Wernet suggested that Council will need to think
about the best approach for this, including the possibility
of a legislative committee.

Economic Development Committee (Councilmember Crais)
The Committee is meeting with GPBA.

Joint Committee with Newark City Council (Mayor Robertson)
Mayor Robertson reported on the proposed Mutual Resolution
with Newark.  She met with Craig Baldwin last Friday, at
which time two changes were made in the Newark text of the
resolution so that it exactly matches the text sent forward
by Council.  Newark City Council will meet on 22 February
2000 to consider the matter.
 
OTHER
Councilmember McGowan asked about the resignation of the
Village Prosecutor.  Manager Hickman said it was “time to
get a new prosecutor and we’ve done that.”

Councilmember Crais reported receiving a letter from The
Reader’s Garden expressing interest in the empty space in
the Village building.  Manager Hickman said the ad had
appeared twice in the Sentinel and letters had been sent as
well, specifying a February 18th deadline.  He will bring
the responses to Council.

Councilmember Bellman said he was not happy with the
misrepresentations by M/I Homes (e.g., their development
being listed as “Granville” rather than “Newark”), and
wondered if Council wanted to add their collective voice to
the debate.  Vice Mayor Wernet reported he had spoken with
Doug Barno, who said that M/I has agreed to clarify that
they mean Granville Schools and will stop advertising it as
simply “Granville.”  There was some discussion (though no
conclusions) about whether or not Council could prevent
outsiders from misrepresenting the community.

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
Next Village Council meeting - March 1, 2000

ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Crais made a motion to adjourn the meeting at
10:03pm.  Councilmember Lucier second.  Meeting adjourned.

 

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.