Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes 8/8/01 (Joint Meeting with Township)

 JOINT MEETING GRANVILLE VILLAGE COUNCIL & GRANVILLE TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES August 8, 2001 

CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Robertson at 7:39pm)

ROLL CALL (7:39pm) Those responding to the Roll Call for Village Council were Councilmembers Bellman, Crais, McGowan, and Moore; Vice Mayor Wernet, Mayor Robertson; Manager Hickman, Law Director Crites. Those responding to the Roll Call for the Township Trustees were Trustees Havens, Jones, and King; Clerk Kennedy. Councilmember Crais moved to excuse Councilmember Lucier; second by Vice Mayor Wernet. Motion carried.

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS None

KENDAL Water/Sewer Service/JEDD Discussion (NOTE: The three agenda items were discussed as a single entity.)

Trustee Havens began by asking whether Council was considering water-and-sewer as a coupled entity or would move on water alone. He also wondered if Council had any other assumptions or conditions for granting a tap, the knowledge of which would help frame the current discussion. The consensus among Council members was that they would consider water separately and in a time frame that would not cause delays for Kendal. They also agreed they would consider sewer in the context of a JEDD or CEDA, moving along a parallel track with the water decision. (While agreeing to these two points, Councilmember McGowan renewed his objection to providing these services for a private entity but not for the Granville schools.)

Many members of Council addressed the selective annexation issue. The gist of their remarks was that the provision/extension of water-and-sewer, accompanied by annexation, was—and is—viewed as a way to influence the kind of growth that happens in the Township, as well as to fend off hostile annexation. The JEDD/CEDA concept now being explored allows the pro-annexation members to incorporate most of their concerns into an agreement to provide water, and perhaps sewer, in a non-annexation situation. That, combined with the fact that Kendal represents the kind of development the entire community would support (i.e., no negative impact on either the Township or the Village or the schools).

Interest was expressed by Councilmember Crais is creating a structure or process that would facilitate joint participation in infrastructure planning, then determine how to make equitable allocations of costs for development of infrastructure and subsequent provision of services. 

Trustee Havens stated that the Trustees are very interested in talking but want to make sure the school district is well represented in any JEDD discussions. He also wants to have community input on other components (e.g., income tax, estate tax, densities, set-backs, etc.). Couuncilmember Bellman asked if the Trustees would make a public commitment to spend their estate tax receipts on green space. Trustee Havens responded that he’d like to see the Village do the same, as well as report what it has done with past estate tax receipts. He then emphasized that the Trustees feel very strongly that, having had to spend $200,000 of their estate tax funds to defend the Keny case, it’s risky to establish such a policy. Councilmember Moore agreed, stating that local governments need flexibility to do their budgets on an annual basis. However, she does want to ensure an equitable sharing of the impact on Village expenditures for such services as police coverage and traffic impacts due to Kendal’s location. Mayor Robertson noted that the Township and the Village function differently but each needs the other to be effective.

There was brief rehash of the old tax debate, with Councilmember Bellman asserting that Village residents are taxed twice and Trustee Havens responding that the assumption is “absolutely false.” Mayor Robertson asked that this be put on the agenda for the next joint meeting. Manager Hickman and Clerk Kennedy will “bring all the evidence” so this issue can be settled.

Mayor Robertson asked if everyone was willing to follow the pattern outlined earlier by Trustee Havens for negotiating the terms of an agreement with Kendal, wherein designated representatives of the Township Trustees, the Village Council, the School Board, and Kendal—each empowered to make decisions on behalf of his or her respective entity— sit down and create a draft. 

 START HEREfrom sewer. Havens: is Council seeing w&s coupled or will they move on water alone? Wernet: for himself, willing to move on water as a separate issue with a parallel path for sewer. Doesn’t want to delay water component.

Havens: other assumptions? That would help frame the discussion. Conditions for a tap that must be agreed to by the twp? Helpful to know what they are.

Moore: haven’t heard anyone say we’re only give waterif we have a JEDD. Rather, go ahead and provide water and then form a JEDD etc. to look at sewer, water price, etc.

Bellman: normally want only village to get water; otherwise annex. over last few years JEDD discussions indicate we could accomplish same goals as annexation would accomplish w/o annexation. Considering a JEDD on a trial basis. Kendal has some unique circumstances that would allow him to consider extending w/o a JEDD as long as same goals could be accomplished here.

Moore: would be incorporated in contract in the works.

McGowan: in favor of granting water, then seeing about sewer. Tough to answer private enterprise v school question.

Bellman: talk about Kendal only.

Havens: earlier joint meetings indicated no possible supply w/o annexation. Change?

Wernet: this is not really an extension; water line is there already. Second, only water, not sewer. Third, big difference between allowing a larger tap to be added in an area zoned w/ twp’s most dense residential zoning and in an area that has a long expectation of more intensive growth. Latter is a good place to put water.

Moore: there was an impression left of not being in favor of giving water w/o annexation. Selective extension is her choice; JEDD concept is interesting to explore because that and a CEDA allow the pro-annexation people to incorporate some of those things into the agreement to give water in a non-annexation situation.

Wernet: refer back to conversations held by rader, minklei, havens, and wernet had three or four years ago – selective extension fending off hostile annexation. Continues to be the case. It makes perfect sense in this instance. Whether or not it’s inside a JEDD we should pursue it here.

Robertson: return to reasons of previous councils and this council for not extending – they are to in some way have an influence on the kind of growth that happens in the twp. That should still be the goal. Want to have an effect – managing, limiting. Etc. JEDD-like agreements would help. Water to Kendal is not an extension as we’ve used that term before. It’s a way to affect growth. This is the kind the community supports, won’t have a negative impact on village or twp, on the schools, etc.

Havens: unable to forge a policy over the last three or four years. Annexation seems to no longer be a bar. Effect on growth – specific areas? Income-tax component? (Yes, also estate tax component).

Wernet: increase green space funding available. Concerned that if we extend sewer w/o a JEDD we expose ourselves to the same potential set of risks as before. That’s another JEDD benefit.

Moore: densities, set-backs – may be already covered by twp zoning ordinances. We just want to be sure.

Crais: mechanism by which we can jointly participate in planning – infrastructural development. Citizenshave a clear concern w/ infrastructure development. We’re tyring to develop creative approaches to create a structure and a process and a way of conversing and making decisions around these issues. Not simply a revenue issue but of joint planning.

Wernet: given that everyone views Kendal as a significant contributor to the community, this seems a likely istance to experiment with a JEDD>

Crais: was referring to the JEDD concept.

Moore: infrastructure includes what?

Crais: maintain distinction between extension and the village paying for infrastructural development and the provision of services. Kendal water issue is a provisioning as opposed to an infrastructural development.

Jones: what do youmean?

Crais: lineis there – no new one being built..no new infrastructure needed. Kendal must pay for piping.

Moore: clearly expanding service area though.

Wernet: agree. Not an extension but still doesn’t make sense in every case.

Bellman: this use has been identified as helpful to locating a senior population. Also want to make sure we don’t approve one thing and the use changes and we get something we wouldn’t have approved in the first place. No inadvertent uses. This particular development has no significant adverse effect on the village where some others might.

Robertson: what do trustees think?

Jones: we’ve done everything we can to provide a place for Kendal and we’d like to see water provided. (Jedd?) no particular necessity from where they stand but willoing to listen to council about it. Want water w/ or w/o it.

Crais: discussed JEDD among yourselves?; much imput on twp resident?

Havens: earlier selective extension policy we tried to work through contains virtually everything in the JEDD. We three have been extremely interested in this; tried to think of any possible thing to do, including parnerwith with village to prtect the community. Constant process. Keny, thornwood..jedd idea discussed with those. Various joint vehicles being discussed re comprehensive planitself as well. Want to do anythingwe can do to protect the community.

Robertson: understand that what happened a couple of years ago about a joint policy fell apart because that council couldn’t see any way that would assure they wouldn’t be causing a lot of development. Cautious about that. This JEDD contract concept, limited to commercial development, not fuel residential development, sits more easily. Would like to set aside that fact that we couldn’t get anywhere a couple of years ago and move on – entertain these ideas that we didn’t have back then. Now have safe ways to partner.

Havens: problem with the process is when youlook at land development on a case by case basis, (school, Kendal) you invite the inability to set more broad policy . also a timing issue since Kendal needs a decision tonight.

Robertson: remember to separate the water and sewer. Water w/o a jedd; sewer w/ it. Willing to talk about it?

Crais: two initiatives moving forward, one faster than the other.

Havens: very interested in talking, but want to be sure we hear from the school district in the JEDD discussion. Other requirements impact the schools more thanthe township trustees. Also don’t want to delay Kendal. Want to hear from community at large on other components (income tax, estate tax, densities).

Wernet: agree with having school board involved. Tere wasn’t enough communication at the time between the various governmental units. Should occur now.

Havens: as long as financial terms are acceptable to Kendal and w&s contracts are mutually agreed upon, trustees would be happy to sit down and talk. Good partners but poor subordinates.

Werent: all three entities should be equal – no subordinates, no superios.

Havens: important point! Heard a lot of communication about teps’s role and what it’s done. Re estate taxes – they’ve all spent for land and open space; to defend the schools in the keny case. Defensive because we don’t want to be controlled; we’ve done a good job in the past. Why would anybody feel the need to watch us, or mistrust us – not an engine of growth, not pro-developer. We could partner in a trusting relationship. This council has established a wonderful reputation in chasing out developers – it’s a tough place! But there has been no mutual trust between twp and village. We don’t need to be watched.

Crais: predisposition is that most of developable land is in twp. That generates anxiety (Havens: for us, too.) and drives a lot of the conversatin. Programmatically, any suggestions about how to put together a process by which various bodies would move forward/

Havens: would typically pass a resolution for one of them to negotiate a template form: one-on-one. Once that was done, they would take it back and et input with the understanding that there is a majority consensus behind the person doing the negotiating. Once draft is presented and tentatively approved and input from school system and private proerty owners, etc., if it has support then act on it.

Jones: partly since we’re a three member board, as soon as there’s two people there’s a problem.

Bellman: re estate tax, it woujld be a comfort to make a public commitment to spend the money on green space.

Havens: would like village to tell us what village has done with its own estate tax money. Both entities receive estate tax; both should publicly acknowledge. Twp has spent more than their estate tax revenues on green space. It is risky to establish a policy – who would have ever foreseen the keny case, which took $200,000 in defense from estate tax funds?

McGowan: re estate tax, twp has done a good job.

Jones: 1200acres annexation east of town in 1989 before Newark could get it – twp did that, not the village. Estate taxes from there now go to the village. Don’t let this fall apart over the estate tax!

Robertson; village is part of twp, we always need to remember that. Tempting to say here’s what we’ve done, what have you dne? Village has done what it ought to do – created and maintained a good center for the community; good infrastructure. Don’t see why we can’t understand that the twp functions differently from the village. They each need the other. Village happy to set aside money for green space. Village voters keep approving twp measures for that. Don’t see anyh conflict in what twp has done compared to what villagehas done.

Moore: would never ask twp trustees to commit to dedicqating estate taxes to green space. Local govts need flexibility to do their budgets on an annual basis; determine where resources need to go at the time. Her interest in estate/income taxes relates to potential impact on village expenditures as a result of having Kendal out there – traffic, policing, -- financial impacts. Want some sharing of the effects.

Havens: that’s fair.

Wernet: satisfied with concept of current intent re the estate taxes issue. Don’t want to hamstring the twp with a regulation. Council has not geled on this issue of pigeonhole the money or the money resource represented by water & sewer. We’re all in the same boat.

Havens: bellman wants a public statmenet of a policy that already exists.

Bellman: assuming eveying goes into one unrestricted fund, nthen is spent on green space etc. village people taxed twice are in that fund as well (into greenspace fund and general twp fund as well). Willing to commit estate tax money for Kendal to green space acquisiton without a blanket commitment?

Havens: assumption is absolutely false. Money is collected into specific funds. Village residents pay for rec commission, specific levy deposited into an isolated account and turned over to rec commission board. Primariy village people. Residents also for fire protection, 501c3 board, independent. General statement about village taxes leaking into open space fund is not accurate. The $1M they spent does not come from village taxpayers. Very important distinction! Villagers have representation in the areas where they pay money. Open space funds – committees of village and twp residents make recommendations. Have gone out of their way to seek input on expending that money. First purchase was in the village. To suggest you need a commitment implies you don’t already have one and we haven’t welcomed you into the process.

Wenret: to hickman: additional monies beyond what havens mentioned? Norm: approximately $25000 .3 mils. 

Robertson: this keeps coming back. Let’s put it on the agenda for the next joint meeting. bring all “evidence” so we can settle it. Either we should just let it go or put it on the next agenda. Want closure on tonight’s agenda: there has been a suggestion to establish a dialog re a Kendal JEDD – one trustee, one Councilmember, one school board rep, one Kendal rep. Go forward?

Havens: yes also Jones and King

Robertson: all council OK. Yes.

Jones: what happens to jump,murr, havens, wernet committee? Does it dovetail into this new group?

Wernet: parallel path

Havens: right, murr would be a resource.

Moore; thanked trustees for attending.

twp will work with Kendal with al due speed once agreement has been reached with council on water. Sewer discussion will continue in the interim. Kennedy: dcould move date up if committee is ready prior to 10/17. Kendal rep: haven’t brought up sewer because they thought it was feasible. Interest is same as with water; mwould much prefer to have municipal sewer. Have same financial constraints though and need to know as reapdily as possible. JEDD – Discussion 

NEXT MEETING The next Joint Meeting was set for the regular Council- meeting date of October 17th (continuing the pattern of alternating between the regular meeting dates of each group).

ADJOURNMENT Councilmember McGowan moved to adjourn at 8:41pm. 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.