Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes 1/3/01

 VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE
COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
January 3, 2001
Burke Hall at Denison University


CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Robertson at 7:33pm)

ATTENDANCE RECORD (7:33pm)
The Deputy Clerk here certifies that those attending were
Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, Lucier, McGowan, and Moore;
Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson, Manager Hickman, and
Law Director Crites.  

SWEARING-IN OF NEW LAW DIRECTOR (7.33pm)
Mayor Robertson conducted the swearing-in ceremony for new
Law Director Michael Crites and welcomed him to Council.

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (opened by Mayor Robertson at 7:35pm)
Granville School Board’s Request for Water and Sewer
Extension
Kitty Consolo, 18 Samson Place. Ms. Consolo, speaking as a
trustee of Citizens to Protect the Comprehensive Plan,
emphasized that the group is not against schools in their
backyard; rather, they are concerned that developers could
gain access to adjacent land, contrary to the 1998
Comprehensive Plan. She said the question is not if we will
grow, but how. She also stated that the retirement
community’s option on the Burg Street property is still
active, then urged Council to uphold the 1998 Comprehen-
sive Plan and vote “no” to prevent us from
becoming “another metropolitan suburb of the city of
Columbus.” She is convinced that this request from the
school board poses too great a cost to us as a community
and said other options exist that do not pose this threat.
Finally, she urged Council to “save the Granville we all
know and love and uphold the document that expresses the
sentiments of a majority of the citizens.” [Note: Ms.
Consolo gave Manager Hickman a letter from a hydrologist.]
 
Eloise DeZwarte, 338 East College Street. Urged Council not
to extend water and sewer outside the Village limits and
stated that the School Board should build inside the
Village or be annexed to the Village if they want Village
services.

Diarmud McSweeney, 2020 Burg Street. Mr. McSweeney, who
lives right across Burg Street from the proposed site,
stated he built there because he enjoys the view,
especially to the west. He cautioned that not only his view
but also the character of the entire northwest quadrant
would be changed by the construction of a “commercial
building” on this acreage. He listed a number of objections
to the site-selection process (e.g., the committee was
advised by a single realtor-developer; there were only a
limited number of citizens were involved; and, while eleven
sites were vetted, the list did not include an addition to
the existing campus). He questioned the methods by which
each successive site was eliminated from contention and
charged the School Board with a lack of due diligence and
thoroughness in this process. He expressed no faith in the
bus-route study, felt the sub-committees’ work was “not
very deep and the conclusions are therefore suspect,” and
stated that “this community deserves more.” He maintained
that the proposed costs for water and sewer lines, roads,
and the widening of Loudon Street would virtually double
the stated cost-per-acre of the Van Winkle property. He
expressed skepticism that Council could get an ironclad
assurance that no one else could tap into water and sewer
lines once they were installed. Finally, he requested the
School Board appoint a “blue ribbon” task force of
businesspeople, realtors, teachers, parents, etc. to look
into all possible sites (both currently and not yet
available).
 
Carl Frazier, 554 North Pearl Street. Mr. Frazier spoke in
support of the School Board’s site-selection process and
their decision. He noted that we have two private water
lines running out of the Village now—one to Owens-Corning,
one to Alexandria. No other taps are permitted on those
lines and the same would apply if a line were extended from
the present school to the new school. He urged Council to
approve the extension.
 
Jackie O’Keefe, 4 Samson Place. Ms. O’Keefe stated that the
mark of a quality community is planning and Granville has a
good Comprehensive Plan, jointly adopted by the Village and
the Township. She added that another mark of quality is our
schools, then wondered if we could really plan for the side
effects that will result if we take water and sewer to the
Van Winkle property (i.e., funding the inevitable legal
challenges from other developers will ask for the same
resources). She also wondered if would could be certain
that future Councils would comply with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan to preserve the character of our
community.

Dave Klauder, Burg & Thornwood. Mr. Klauder noted that he
approved the buying of property today, for tomorrow, but he
urged Council to deny the extension request.
 
Bob Hill, 209 West Broadway. Mr. Hill stated that even
though people don’t sometimes agree with the conclusions,
the School Board did have a plan, a rationale, and a
process. He also noted that the Van Winkle property had
been openly for sale and could have been purchased by
anyone for green space or for houses. The fact that we want
to use it for education is a hallmark of this community. He
stated he would have to defer to legal opinions and actions
to develop a document that would provide needed protection
against unwanted development. He felt that leaving the
property in the Township would help guarantee that other
developments won’t ensue, citing the recent growth along
Newark-Granville Road. He urged Council to support the
extension request.

Don Lewis, 2284 Burg Street. Mr. Lewis also lives across
Burg Street from the Van Winkle property. He stated that we
could only be assured of non-growth in that area if the
water and sewer lines aren’t there. Mr. Lewis also relayed
comments from former resident, Lee Larson, who has deep
concerns about the ramifications of extension of utilities
general. Mr. Lewis reported that he had been working with
the Licking County Planning Commission and had discovered
more than $1 million of needed expenditures not accounted
for in the School Board’s figures. He also said there were
two potential Township projects pending, one at Spring
Valley Pool and one near the intersection of Route 16 and
Silver Street. Finally, he reported that Kendal, “despite
their assurances that Burg is no longer an option,” just
put down $80,000 to renew their option on that property.
 
Rodger Kessler, 71 Donald Ross Drive. Mr. Kessler dismissed
the previous statement by Mayor Robertson that she (and
Council) had only learned of the School Board’s property
plans at the December 6, 1999 Council meeting, saying
that “everyone” knew they were out of land when they
developed the elementary-school additional and moved the
athletic fields. He stated he was “totally shocked” that
everybody seemed to be surprised at the December 6th
meeting. He encouraged Council to approve the extension.
 
Alden Stilson, 177 Glyn Caryn Lane. Mr. Stilson urged
caution on the part of Council, noting that water and sewer
lines are the lifeblood of both the schools and high-
density development. A delay for the School Board would
be “serious, but not catastrophic.” Conversely, the results
of extension will be irretrievable and possibly
catastrophic, in that they may well be the means by which
high-density development sweeps from one end of that
corridor to the other—a conclusion would be contrary to the
stated desired of the School Board and everyone in this
community. He also asked Council to “take its time, even
though time is of the essence, and said we might have to
opportunity to “repent at leisure for a very long time to
come.” Mr. Stilson noted that legal minds disagree about
the possibility of an “ironclad” document and suggested
that the School Board and the Village that we try to get an
opinion from the Ohio Attorney General before we “launch
forth and discover to our sorrow that the ‘ironclad
agreement’ is pretty much like a sieve.”

Abram Kaplan, 843 Burg Street. Mr. Kaplan encouraged
Council, the School Board, and the community to take
advantage of the large body of literature on development
patterns before making the same mistakes that have created
our suburban nation. He stated that the three immediate
causes of urban-margin development—schools, roads, and the
availability of water and sewer—could potentially converge
here. He urged against approval of the extension request.

Monica Grafeo, 235 Bryn Du Drive. Ms. Grafeo agreed that no
agreement is ironclad in our litigious society, but felt
the Village had a precedent on our side with the two water
lines already extended. She urged a measured response to
the School Board’s “scare tactics” and asked Council to
approve the extension.
Phil Wince, 2350 West Broadway. Mr. Wince asked a series of
questions about the two water lines already extended: 1)
Have there ever been any taps? [There have not]; 2) Have
there been any requests? [There have, one 35-or-so- years
ago, one last year; both were turned down]; and 3) Were the
rejections legally challenged? [They were not]. 4) Has the
Village had sought a publishable outside legal opinion on
whether an ironclad agreement could be structured? [Vice
Mayor Wernet responded that Council was getting “multiple
opinions” but, despite being repeatedly pressed by Mr.
Wince, declined to abrogate attorney-client privilege and
reveal any details due to the ongoing discussions between
the parties. Councilmember Moore did respond to Mr. Wince’s
concern that Council might be relying solely on the
conclusions of the School Board’s attorney. She stated that
Law Director Crites is doing his own reviews and research
and providing his own views and opinions, some of which are
privileged communications.] Mayor Robertson added that
Council and the School Board have the same interest in the
end—the community. She stated that we have a problem to be
solved, that she is hopeful we can reach a creative
resolution rather that being pitted against each other, and
asked all present to bear with Council while they gather
and consider information.
 
John Crecca, 1550 Welsh Hills Road. Mr. Crecca, challenging
the assertion that there had been no taps on either of the
previously extended water lines, cited the 1970s Burt Ridge
Road tap, [Manager Hickman concurred and said that tap had
been done for “humanitarian” reasons—the Burt Ridge
residents had been coping with massive well contaminations.]

Constance Barsky, 221 East Elm Street. Ms. Barsky, speaking
as a member of the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee,
stated that more information needs to be gathered and
shared before Council could make a decision. She disagreed
with representations at an earlier Council meeting that the
Plan’s preference for  “neighborhood” schools could be
accommodated by designating the entire community as a
single neighborhood. She urged Council to take steps to
institute the annual reviews recommended in Appendix D of
the Plan Review document, stating we might be in a better
position today if that had been done on a regular basis.
Finally, she stated that Council should not feel “under the
gun” about the timing issues on the table.

Charlie Metzger, Maplewood Drive. Mr. Metzger reiterated
his statements at earlier Council meetings that the issue
of neighborhood schools had not been addressed by the
Comprehensive Plan Review Committee since they didn’t have
the time to do so.
 
Sandy Jackson, 764 Burg Street. Ms. Jackson stated that we
all need to remember that there are good and thoughtful
people on both sides of this issue. She acknowledged she
can’t address the issue of whether an agreement could
be “ironclad” or not, but as for the green space concerns,
she stated that “her” green space wasn’t any more important
than anyone else’s and if the new school needed to be on
her end of town, so be it.

Don Lewis, 2284 Burg Street. Mr. Lewis felt it was
important for Council to find out what other kinds of
overriding safety issues or “hardship” situations (i.e.,
like that of Burt Ridge Road) could negate legal agreements
and force us to allow a tie-in.

Laurel Kennedy, 758 New Burg Street. Ms Kennedy expressed
concern at what she called an “education mitosis,” where
our schools get larger and larger, then we split up the
students and send them to separate campuses. She wondered
if that is the best education policy and maintained that we
need small, neighborhood schools. She worried especially
about a school that no one could walk to—a fundamental
change in the nature of our school system.

Mayor Robertson closed Citizens' Comments at 8:45pm.

PUBLIC HEARING (8:45pm)
None

NEW BUSINESS (8:46pm)
Resolution No. 01-01, a Resolution to Direct the Village
Manager To Enter into Negotiations with the Granville
Exempted Village School Superintendent Regarding the
Granville Board of Education Request for the Extension of
Water and Sewer Services, was introduced and read in full
by Vice Mayor Wernet. Second by Councilmember Crais.

Discussion:
Vice Mayor Wernet began the discussion by explaining that
the goal of this Resolution is to set a framework to allow
us to work through the issues involved and reach a decision
that maximizes the overall benefit to the community. It is
meant to illustrate that Council is firmly committed to
working with all involved to come to a decision that will
be beneficial, in as timely a fashion as possible.

Councilmember Moore objected to the manner in which this
resolution was put on the Agenda—with no opportunity for
prior review and no previous notice on distributed agendas—
and stated that it was contrary to how we normally proceed.
Councilmember McGowan agreed with Moore, adding that it was
also important that issues be publicized in the paper in
advance of being discussed by Council. Vice Mayor Wernet
responded that he believes this resolution is a reiteration
of what was talked about at the most recent council meeting
and therefore he didn’t see it as a problem. His goal is to
reset the stage, to say we need to pull together, and avoid
the divisiveness we’ve had before. He stated that, in
presenting this resolution, he was motivated by discussions
that occurred in the past couple of days and apologized for
the delay in getting this to Council. He continued by
saying that the finest part of Granville is the willingness
to work together to resolve things and that was what he
intended to say with this resolution. He related that the
Mayor had been told that if Council did not do what the
School Board wanted, the School Board would sue, and
said, “We cannot have that!” He is trying to forestall a
referendum petition or the like and quoted Justice
Frankfurter, who said, “Justice must satisfy the appearance
of justice.” Vice Mayor Wernet said he feels very strongly
that as a community we must stay together and work
together; otherwise we’ll be divided and we’ll be
conquered. He emphasized that this doesn’t mean merger,
doesn’t mean total agreement, but does mean we must work
together.

Councilmember Moore asked if Vice Mayor Wernet had shared
this resolution with the School Board. He said he has not,
beyond emphasizing that we need to dedicate a significant
portion of this and subsequent meetings to dealing with
this, given the need for all deliberate speed.
Councilmember Crais noted that Sections 1-3 of the
resolution are constructive, providing a methodology and a
clearer timetable to the work we need to accomplish on this
issue.  Mayor Robertson said having a framework makes a lot
of sense, given that this is the first meeting at which
Council has been able to devote very much time to the issue
and members of Council have yet to discuss this among
themselves.

Councilmember Bellman agreed that Vice Mayor Wernet’s goals
here are good ones but said his immediate reaction was
concern with the “whereases,” in that they might later be
construed as potential findings that are incomplete or not
exactly what we intended. He said he would prefer a
single “whereas” that simply says the school board asked
and Council is looking at it.  As to form, Council hasn’t
yet had a chance to discuss approaches and issues and how
they might want to deal with everything. Until they do,
Councilmember Bellman suggested, they might not want to
choose a negotiator or specify who it might be.

Councilmember Lucier expressed her concern about possible
mixed messages—not so much as to who would be the
negotiator but as to how we could offer to negotiate
without having decided what direction we want to take. She
stated, “This probably is a divisive issue but none of us
should occupy the positions of school board members or
village council members or anything else if we can’t
address difficult issues in a straightforward manner.” She
said she wouldn’t vote against it but didn’t really see a
lot of merit in it.
Vice Mayor Wernet reiterated his goal of saying that we
want to move forward in an expeditious manner to develop a
solution that will fairly incorporate the interests of all
stakeholders. He offered a motion to delete all the whereas
and add a new section that would read, “Granville Village
Council wishes to develop a solution that will fairly
incorporate the wishes of all stakeholders in a manner as
expeditious as reasonably possible.” There was no second;
the proposed amendment is moot. Councilmember Bellman then
offered some different alternative language, with which
Vice Mayor Wernet agreed. However, he elected not to pursue
that line of thought.

Vice Mayor Wernet moved to table the resolution.
Councilmember Crais, having seconded the resolution,
concurred. A voice vote on the motion-to-table Resolution
No. 01-01yielded seven (7) affirmative votes. The Motion
passed.

Ordinance No. 01-01, An Ordinance Authorizing the Village
of Granville to Extend Water and Sewer Service to the
Granville Exempted Village School District’s New School
Site and Authorizing the Village to Sell Its Surplus
Utilities, was introduce by title only by Councilmember
Moore (who also expressed appreciation for all the
Citizens’ Comments made earlier in the meeting). Second by
Councilmember McGowan. Mayor Robertson set the Public
Hearing on this ordinance for January 17, 2000.

Granville School’s Request for Water and Sewer Extension--
Council Discussion
Councilmember Lucier, citing the various earlier references
to precedent, clarified that Council passed an ordinance in
1984 establishing a policy that water and sewer service
would not be extended outside the corporate limits of the
Village—a policy that, to her knowledge, has not been
waived in the intervening 16 or 17 years. Council is now
being asked to waive that long-established and long-upheld
policy, a request that raises the question for her of why
annexation has not been considered in lieu of extension as
the first avenue of getting water and sewer to an
unincorporated area.

Councilmember Bellman pointed out the importance of other
sections of the Compre-hensive Plan besides the previous
references to neighborhood schools, i.e., the ones
referring to preservation of open space, strategies
addressing the problems of shaping and controlling growth,
and specific land uses. He emphasized that the
Comprehensive Plan sets a high priority on protecting
agricultural land, leading him to agree that annexation is
an issue, even a necessity. He feels a need to protect the
Comprehen-sive Plan since it was unanimously approved.
Since it does not address school sites, he believes we
should therefore maintain the goals it was specific about
(i.e., agricultural land). He urged that Council consider a
wide range of issues—anticipated densities of the various
allowable uses, future traffic-volume projections, bike-
path connections, and storm-water retention, to name a few.
He also suggested that the Planning Commission should be
looking at this proposal. He then described a typical
community density pattern of a central population
concentration banded by less developed land. He stated that
if Granville is going to protect itself, we have to avoid
the big mistake made around Columbus, where communities not
only changed uses but also changed densities (e.g., putting
a Wendy’s on agricultural land and leaving as little as 15%
of the land in green space). If we encourage proper
planning, the building(s) could be clustered to maximize
the green space. Vice Mayor Wernet noted that the
Comprehensive Plan gives density incentives to promote
public green spaces.

Councilmember Crais also agreed with Councilmember Lucier
re annexation. Speaking in support of Councilmember
Bellman’s density concerns, he noted that Ordinance 01-01
states that its intention is to preserve a unique rural
atmosphere in the Village and Township and said he has
serious questions about whether or not having up to three
schools on that land would indeed preserve that “unique
rural atmosphere.” He also expressed concerns about the
design of the schools and the “suburbanization” of
Granville’s educational system, and expressed “grave
concern” about the extension of water and sewer in the
absence of annexation.

Mayor Robertson noted, with reference to the water
extensions granted to Owens-Corning and Alexandria, that
it’s not really the availability of water that drives
development. It’s the fact that it takes five acres of land
to have a septic system—hence the density of one house per
five acres and the lack of enthusiasm about tapping into a
water line. She is very concerned about future demands that
might be made on extended lines and stated that if Council
extended both sewer and water to any one place in the
Township that would set a precedent for requests for
extension elsewhere. In short, she is also interested in
exploring annexation.

Councilmember Moore agreed with Ms. Barksy that it is
indeed time to review the Comprehensive plan, noted that
Councilmember Bellman had proposed it be included on the
agenda for the joint meeting with the Township Trustees,
and stated that Council “will pursue it.” Re the extension
request, she maintained that the Village has been
absolutely right over the years to guard sewer and water
very carefully. That policy has served us well. However, if
ever there is a unique circumstance or a special need, our
schools may be it. They are a key part of the community
that has excelled over time—something that is both a
blessing and a curse. To maintain their high standards of
quality, they have to solve the problems of modular
classrooms and overcrowding. Councilmember Moore stated
that, despite the questions about the manner in which the
site was selected, she is comfortable that the School Board
members did their best to follow their own criteria and is
not prepared to second-guess them on that decision. As for
annexation, she thinks it is something Council should take
a look at, though she cautioned Council to not heed the
model of Columbus (i.e., “We’ll give you water if you
annex.”). She is also reluctant to extend our boundaries
out any further since others may request annexation. We
could preserve our rights to annex in the future but should
be very careful about this. Re the Comprehensive Plan and
open space, she hopes Council could address some of their
thoughts about preserving parts of this parcel as permanent
green space even though it may put some limitations on the
ability of the school board to use that land for other
purposes in the future. She agreed that agricultural zoning
does permit schools as a limited use, that there are indeed
traffic issues to consider, and that a bike-path extension
is particularly appropriate for a facility that will be
used by students and young people. Responding to
Councilmember Bellman’s comments on density issues, she
pointed out that there is a difference between putting a
school building on a piece of land and putting up however
many houses the zoning permits (i.e., the houses would
contain people with kids that would add to the school
population).

Councilmember McGowan agreed with most of Councilmember
Moore’s statements. He added that the Issue in front of
Council is whether we will provide water and sewer
regardless of what site the School Board picks. He stated
that we can’t control growth; but we must maintain and
manage it, which means looking out 25 years or so when we
make decisions. For example, the School Board strategic
plan says we’ll have an additional 1,000 students over a
period of time. He affirmed that site selection is the
decision of the community and the School Board, and said he
would be hard-pressed to refuse water and sewer to the
school.

Vice Mayor Wernet agreed with Councilmember Moore’s
contention that this was a special case since it involved
the schools. He also felt Councilmember McGowan was right
to proposed looking so far forward. As for annexation, he
noted that the Village had provided some services for the
original high-school building on Burg Street before the
land was annexed into the Village. Since 1983, however,
Council has maintained a policy of not extending services,
for good reason. He thinks annexation would be the best
approach but we also need to address the time
considerations presented by the School Board. He proposed a
plan whereby the School Board could undertake to reach an
agreement with property owners involved in an annexation
while the Village simultaneously would start construction
and plan to turn on the services when the annexation
process is complete. As for possible tap-ins by other
within the annexed land, it’s a matter of balancing the
risks. Annexation, at least, is a known risk.

Mayor Robertson stated that she also is not willing to
comment on the School Board’s decision but must remain
focused on the fact that this all comes down to the
question of whether the requested extension fits with the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that six of the
seven Council members said they would like to investigate
annexation. That means gathering more information in terms
of annexation’s effects to better weigh the pros and cons
(e.g., how much would we annex? are we then responsible for
road repairs and maintenance? does the traffic problem
become a Village problem? what costs would be incurred?
what about police protection? would the tax base support
the increased cost?)  Councilmember Crais emphasize that
the point here is simply that annexation needs to be put in
the pot. Councilmember Lucier noted that while annexation
has obviously been in the minds of  Council’s members, it
doesn’t appear to have been an approach particularly
examined by the School Board. Councilmember Moore suggested
we might also want to examine a future annexation (where we
put in the agreement that we may in the future want to
annex the school, and the school would have to comply if it
is determined to be a strategically good idea).
Councilmember Bellman pointed out that the land under
discussion is not contiguous to the Village and wondered
what properties would be included. He suggested that, if
the annexation included land that also had potential for
development, we should negotiate with the property owners
up front to try to find other advantageous alternatives
besides “x” number of houses per acre. Vice Mayor Wernet
spoke to the issue of costs, saying he sees positives and
negatives and feels things would probably balance out.
Councilmember Bellman remarked that Granville is an example
of one of the strangest municipalities around, in that we
seem to have more of a “township” mentality than a “city”
one—that is, our political constituents are not growth-
hungry. He emphasized that annexation is a privilege, not a
right.

Mayor Robertson stated, for the record, Council’s
conclusion that they would like to explore annexation with
the School Board.

Steve Smith of Schottenstein, Zox and Dunn, attorney for
the School Board, responded. He noted that he would be
meeting with staff and the School Board to discuss
annexation issues, agreed that there are positive and
negative points to be considered, and stated that he had
some concerns about the delayed-annexation proposal. He
added that he plans to respond officially at Council’s next
meeting and will work with Mr. Crites and the School Board
in the interim. He concluded by thanking Council for their
time.
 
End of Council’s discussion (10:00pm).  

Council took a brief break and reconvened at 10:14pm.

OLD BUSINESS
None

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES (10:14pm)  
The following corrections were requested: 1) Councilmember
Moore, page 2, “A1-4-F, Program 251, Tornado Sirens” –
change “Councilmember Moore asked about sirens on the
eastern edge of the village” to “Councilmember Moore
expressed a desire to have sirens…;” 2) Councilmember
Lucier, page 2, same section – add to the 1st sentence,
after “…in the school offices and site a siren where it
would reach more Village homes.” 3) Vice Mayor Wernet, page
2, same section – change the last word in this section
to “selected.” 4) Mayor Robertson, page 1, “Citizens’
Comments” by Kathy Lowery – insert a parenthetical note
after “…further development in the Burg Street area. (NOTE:
Later in the meeting, Mr. Crites clarified that he had not
been involved in drafting any ordinance.) 5) Mayor
Robertson, page 6, “A1-6-A, Program 250, Street
Construction” – in the last sentence of this section,
change “people” to “owners likely to be affected.”   6)
Mayor Robertson, page 10, “Other,” first entry – end the
4th sentence with “…JEDD discussion.”, then insert the
following: “She and Mr. Havens came to an agreement on
agenda items; as he needed to leave their meeting before
they could agree on a working document, she offered to fax
him a draft for his review. She.…” 7) Mayor Robertson, page
11, 6th paragraph under “Other” – adjust wording to
read, “Councilmember Lucier formally welcomed him to
Council; Manager Hickman suggested he be sworn in….” 8)
Mayor Robertson, page 11, 7th paragraph under “Other” –
change “joint public meeting prior to” to “joint public
meeting after…. 9) Vice Mayor Wernet made a motion to
accept the minutes as amended; second by Councilmember
Moore. The motion carried.

COMMITTEE REPORTS (10:23m)
Development Committee (Councilmember Crais).  
Meeting on Tuesday.
 
Finance Committee (Councilmember Moore).  
No report.
 
Newark-Granville Joint Committee (Mayor Robertson)
No report.

Personnel Committee (Councilmember McGowan).  
No report.

Planning Commission (Councilmember Lucier).   
No report.

Rec Commission (Councilmember McGowan).   
No report.

Street Light Committee (Councilmember McGowan).   
No report.

Streets, Sidewalks & Utilities Committee (for Vice Mayor
Wernet).
No report.


Tree & Landscape Committee (Councilmember Moore).
No report.

Union Cemetery Board (Councilmember Lucier).  
No report.

OTHER (10:24pm)
Mayor Robertson brought up the January 24th meeting with
the Township Trustees, reporting that, after agreeing to
the date, the Trustees had planned a meeting with their
employees for that night. They are now proposing a meeting
on either of two Wednesday nights, February 14th or 28th.
She suggested we counter with the fifth Wednesday, January
31st. She also reported that the agenda that has come back
to her from Mr. Havens does not include discussing a
regular joint-meeting time. Vice Mayor Wernet noted that
the front-page article in the Sentinel would indicate that
it was not an inadvertent omission. It seems the trustees
do not want to do joint meetings at this point in time,
preferring to wait and see if there are projects that might
benefit both entities. Mayor Robertson stated that Council
has shown it is willing to make a good-faith effort to
create a relationship and we would like to have one meeting
to try and work toward that. If the Trustees are not
willing to talk about that, we see no point in meeting at
all. Councilmember Lucier suggested the two groups meet as
soon as possible and just bring the issue up. Mayor
Robertson noted that the list of agenda items was returned
to her today—three weeks since her last meeting with Jim
Havens. She will check it against what she proposed and
report back. She asked Manager Hickman to check on possible
meeting times on both January 31st and February 28th.

Vice Mayor Wernet noted that another article in this week’s
Sentinel, discussing the use of Village funds for acquiring
parklands, etc., made it sound like we’re not contributing
much to that effort. We need to ask them to clarify that
Village taxpayers pay into the Open Space Fund just as
Township taxpayers do. The Village also provides about 45%
of the general revenue for the Township to conduct its
business.

Manager Hickman reminded Council members that they need to
appoint a Planning Commission member, a BZBA member, and 7
members for the Charter Review Committee—all at the January
17th meeting. Since we are bound by the 1/17 date and since
the notice did not appear in this week’s Sentinel,
Councilmember Bellman suggested utilizing the Advocate.
Mayor Robertson suggested notices in the Library as well.
Manager Hickman also reported that Richard Salvage will be
the Charter Review representative from the School Board.
Councilmember Moore noted that the Tree & Landscape
Commission also needs a new chair; this will happen on
January 17th as well.

Councilmember Moore announced that the Greenspace Levy
Committee would be meeting at 7:30pm on January 15th.
 
Councilmember Bellman moved that Council go into Executive
Session to discuss litigation matters. Second by Vice Mayor
Wernet. Mr. Crites informed Council that Executive Sessions
need to be listed on the agenda and advertised in an
advance. If an emergency need exists, the meeting agenda
must be amended at the outset of the meeting. Councilmember
Bellman withdrew the motion.

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS
January 17, 2001 – second January Village Council meeting
(at St. Edward’s Church, in the Education Building.

ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember McGowan made a motion to adjourn the meeting
at 10:40pm. Second by Vice Mayor Wernet. 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.