Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes 9/18/02

 VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE COUNCIL MINUTES September 18, 2002 

CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor McGowan at 7:31pm) 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 

ROLL CALL Those responding to the Roll Call were Mayor McGowan, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers Hartfield, Main, Robertson, and Crais; Manager Hickman, Law Director Crites. 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Crais moved to approve the agenda as printed. Seconded by Councilmember Robertson. 

CITIZENS’ COMMENTS (7:34 pm)

{Councilmember Bellman arrived at 7:34pm}

Skip Hayes (address unknown) uses the intersection at Cherry Valley Road and Route 16 everyday and it is a disaster at least for Cherry Valley road traffic. Some of the suggestions to improve may work. He pleaded that Council move carefully to see if the intersection corrections will actually facilitate better movement of traffic.

Ben Rader, 39 Briarwood Drive, has received email from Councilmember Crais about the proposed improvements and subsequently reviewed notes he had taken when he was on Council at a time when their was discussion about a grassy medium and some gutters, egress and ingress off Cherry Valley Road. He said times have changed since those meetings. At the time, Council was looking at development of Faeckler’s and the Reese farm. Council watched that area develop and thought that there would be a lot more development of the area, but that has not transpired. Rader believes the plan that Council is considering today with the money from the state would work—but cautioned Council to not proceed with the boulevard approach which he says could be put off until the future. The other problem he sees with the discussions Council had in 1997 was that there was not much public input at the time. 

Lori Weaver, 207 Wicklow Drive, spoke to the Speedway/SuperAmerica issue. Weaver said she does not have all the facts and came to listen to the facts. She asked whether or not a convenience store was part of the proposal and if so, how many hours each day would it be open? She said she is not anti- development but is for smart development. She is also concerned about the Cherry Valley Road issue. She believes with four traffic lanes coming from Columbus someday it could be like a truck stop there. The area is loud already and the impact traffic at a gas station on existing traffic would be tremendous. She asked Council to carefully consider what is allowed to be built there at this time and would appreciate getting all of the information out to the community before deciding if Speedway/SuperAmerica is the way to go.

Bill Moore, 111 Bantree Street, rose to echo remarks of others and said he was attending Council to educate himself. He asked Council to use good care because of the good real estate in the area and urged Council to seriously think about the traffic issues. Moore said he has no problem getting gas in Granville and believes a new station will only bring more transits to the area.

John Cort, 1632 Newark-Granville Road, thanked the Planning Commission for turning down the proposal for Speedway/SuperAmerica. He said the residents on Granville Road are seriously impacted by what happens there. Old timers remember that Route 16 used to be the bypass but what has happened because the intersection is so bad is that people are bypassing the bypass and coming through the village to get to the other side to go on to Columbus. There are lots of families with small children that live on Newark-Granville Road and more traffic will be dangerous to them. In 1993, Cort said Council is on record maintaining Granville Road as a residential road. Cort said the Mayor at that time said if the village has to put a stoplight it would do so, but the village would keep it as a residential road. Cort said he hopes this Council will confirm the decision made most recently by the Planning Commission. 

Richard Salvage, 73 Berline Court, introduced himself as Chair of the Planning Commission. He said the Commission did not make a recommendation and has no right to approve or disapprove this application. What the Commission did was try to make a recommendation, but it was not done. He told Council that the Commission had several meetings with the applicant and tried to get through all the issues. The end Findings of Facts is what the Commission brings to Council tonight and he came to answer any questions members might have about what happened at the Planning Commission meetings.

Jeannette Pyle, 132 South Pearl Street, stated she was not here to talk about the things others had mentioned. She is worried about other projects that have happened in the past such as the sidewalk by the golf course. She said not too long ago this was constructed and then was torn up and reconstructed. She wanted to know why such projects aren’t done right the first time. She asked about the changes in the parking spaces in the village that are much too narrow now, creating another problem. She brought up the issue of the stolen signs and said it seems like there is not enough planning. She is also concerned that the benches are not permanently set yet and expressed her fears about potential vandalism of the benches. She asked about the trees planted on South Main Street across from Granville Lumber and why they weren’t watered and allowed to die. She thought Council should have also thought to plan a watering schedule along with the planting schedule. She asked about the cost of the speed bumps and asked how much they cost the village to install.

Village Manager Hickman responded that the speed bumps cost $10,000 each to install.

Pyle asked the village to consider installing rubber temporary speed bumps similar to those she has seen in coastal towns. Pyle cautioned Council that there is not an endless supply of money and urged Council to be careful in spending money and be careful with planning the projects. Pyle asked if a private citizen purchased signs for the bike path on Main Street?

Village Manager Hickman responded no, but said the village did have an individual that would do so but it has not happened yet.

Vice Mayor Moore responded to Pyle’s questions about the trees and said that they were watered.

Councilmember Hartfield told Pyle that she was not the only one who noticed the need to widen the parking spaces in the village and assured her that the village was in the process of fixing that.

Mayor McGowan closed Citizens’ Comments at 8:46pm. 

PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REVIEW HEARING (8:47pm) Speedway/SuperAmerica Court Reporter Marilyn Murphy Houck was present to transcribe the proceedings of this hearing. Please see her transcript for a verbatim record of the hearing.

Vice Mayor Moore recused herself from the issue.

Law Director Crites advised Council that Chapter 1171 of the Granville Codified Ordinances required a public hearing on the Planned Commercial District development plan submitted by Speedway/SuperAmerica. Law Director Crites further advised Council that the development plan was before the Council on a 2-2 vote of the Granville Planning Commission with no recommendation and that it was arguable whether the 2-2 vote constituted an action by the Planning Commission under Chapter 1171. Accordingly Law Director Crites had consulted with Jeffrey Brown, Attorney for Speedway SuperAmerica, and acquired a waiver of procedural deficiencies, if any, associated with the 2- 2vote and no recommendation, so that the application could be heard at this time by Council. Councilmember Bellman raised a concern about waiving any procedural deficiencies stating that, as for himself, he reserved the procedural issue because normally he likes to see a decision from the Planning Commission on an application such as this before proceeding. After noting Councilmember Bellman’s & Crais’s concerns, and noting no other objections to the procedure, the Council agreed to proceed with the hearing as laid out by Law Director Crites.

Law Director Crites introduced, on behalf of the Village, an exhibit book containing 10 exhibits. Mr. Jeff Brown, Legal Counsel for Speedway/SuperAmerica, had three witnesses to bring before Council and the Village had one. 

The Court Reporter swore in all witnesses at 7:52pm. Mr. Brown, attorney for the applicant, entered his appearance and sought Council’s approval of his client’s development plan. 

Jonathan Wocher, a land use planner with the firm McBride Dale Clarion, representing Speedway/SuperAmerica, testified about the project that he had worked on since the beginning of 2000 and stated he had attended most of the Planning Commission meetings. He discussed the building, land and traffic issues at the site and the changes Speedway/SuperAmerica had made to accommodate the wishes of the Planning Commission. 

Discussion/questions followed (see transcript).

In response to a question asked by Councilmember Crais, John Stevens, a representative of Marathon National Petroleum, said if beer is to be sold at the location, it would have to go through the regular permit process.

Doyle Clear, Parsons Transportation Groups, Columbus, Ohio, testified that he was a traffic consultant hired by the Village to look at the traffic study submitted by Speedway/SuperAmerica. Clear found errors in the traffic volume data and believes that Speedway/SuperAmerica made no effort to mitigate the increase in traffic, which their development will create. He described the changes that would need to be made to mitigate the traffic problems.

Discussion and questions followed by Council, representatives from Speedway/SuperAmerica and Mr. Clear.

Jeff Brown of Speedway asked if he could ask the Chair of the Planning Commission a question?

Law Director Crites responded that he could.

Richard Salvage, Chair of the Granville Planning Commission, was sworn in at 9:35pm

Discussion and questions, which included Mr. Salvage took place. 

Law Director Crites recommended a 5-minute break at the request of the court reporter.

Mayor McGowan asked for a recess of Council at 9:35pm.

Mayor McGowan reconvened the meeting at 9:45pm.

Jeff Brown of Speedway/SuperAmerica told Council that he thought Speedway/SuperAmerica had complied with all of the requests made by the Planning Commission, but learned tonight during the testimony of Mr. Clear about the need for dual left lanes northbound and westbound. Mr. Brown further advised that his client would agree to those improvements if Council so required. Brown said they did not think they were necessary, but since Clear, the village traffic consultant, thinks additional improvements are needed, while they may not agree, in order to move forward, his client will agree to them. According to Mr. Brown, what his client has done is try to solve all the problems that they have been faced with from the architecture of the building, the landscaping, set backs to the building materials, his client is attempting to go the extra mile in terms of the traffic improvements. In consideration of his client’s agreement to these additional improvements, he then asked Mr. Clear to consider the inclusion of these extra improvements on traffic flow. 

Mr. Clear said again from the standpoint of mitigating the impact, which is what traffic engineer’s typically do, he thinks his recommendations of dual westbound left turn lanes and dual northbound left turn lanes will mitigate the traffic problems at SR 16 and Cherry Valley Road. 

Mr. Brown asked Mr. Clear about the planned development providing adequate ingress/egress? Do we, with these changes, provide adequate in/egress?

Mr. Clear responded that the site plan provides the best ingress and egress that can be developed given the location of SuperAmerica.

Mr. Brown asked again if it would be adequate? Mr. Clear responded yes.

Mayor McGowan asked Council if they had additional questions of the witnesses.

Councilmember Bellman asked Mr. Clear whether he was conditioning his statement that there was adequate ingress and egress.

Mr. Clear said that with SuperAmerica and Bob Evans Drive being so close to SR 16 it does not allow the creation of an ideal access situation. Given the constraint on the development of the site plan, he again said that he believes Speedway/SuperAmerica had developed the best site access system that can be developed. Councilmember Bellman asked if it was not true that the site plan’s ingress and egress is not really adequate, but merely the best they can do with the site they have. Mr. Clear said essentially yes.

Mr. Brown again asked Mr. Clear if considering the circumstance and the condition of the property and the improvements which his client had agreed to, whether he would consider the ingress and egress to be adequate?

Mr. Clear responded that it still comes back to the situation where the intersection of Bob Evans and the SuperAmerica Way’s close proximity to SR 16 during certain time frames is going to be problem some in movements to and from the site. For the majority hours of the day, it (what has been proposed) is adequate. It is the best site access system you can put there if you are going to serve development in the southwest quadrant.

Councilmember Crais asked Mr. Salvage whether or not the Planning Commission discussed the Comprehensive Plan when they discussed the project.

Salvage said the Planning Commission looked at it, but did not find any specific items in the Comprehensive Plan that they could address in this Planned Development.

Village Manager Hickman asked Clear if the new alignment of the road along the south side would align with what the Village is planning to do on the north side. Clear said yes.

Hickman asked if there were additional southbound movement, would the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) allow the Village to put in another lane there.

Clear responded that the village would have to approach ODOT but thinks the median will allow it. Right now the calculation is that the left turn lane must be 700 ft. long. It might be more acceptable to make it shorter but make it 2 left turn lanes. But it will have to be approached at the ODOT District Office.

Mayor McGowan asked Council if there were further questions.

Discussion and questions followed about traffic in and around the intersection of Cherry Valley Road and SR 16.

Law Director Crites said that without other questions, the public hearing could close at 9:53pm.

Mayor McGowan reopened the meeting at 9:55pm and informed Council they could vote, discuss it, or put it on the agenda at the next meeting. 

Brown indicated he would need the court reporter to stay.

Law Director Crites said Council could do that. To approve the development plan will require that an Ordinance be introduced and approved. The village charter nor do the Codified Ordinances specifically address the procedure to disapprove a development plan, but if it is the pleasure of this body to disapprove the plan, Law Director Crites suggested that a resolution disapproving could be prepared. Law Director Crites also stated that he believes that Council is required to adopt findings of fact if its decision is to reject the plan. In light of that, he said he did not know if any action could be taken tonight, as a Resolution or Ordinance needs to be prepared. He emphasized that he was not suggesting Council take either course, that he was only identifying their options.

Councilmember Main asked what was Council going to discuss. Are we going to have an ordinance to discuss or a resolution or are we just going to talk about?

Mr. Crites responded that it was not his decision to make. He said he would prepare both but needed some direction from Council.

Mayor McGowan said Council could decide now if there are strong feelings or contact Mr. Crites next week.

Councilmember Bellman said he didn’t think there was an option. He thought Council would have to introduce an ordinance—that these issues must be mandated handled by an ordinance.

Mr. Crites responded that technically the Charter only requires that a development plan be approved by Ordinance.

Councilmember Bellman asked what would be the case if Council was not taking a vote tonight and asked then, if Council needs to do an ordinance to approve or disapprove.

Councilmember Robertson said that she thought Crites meant that Council would need a resolution not an ordinance. 

Law Director Crites said he could prepare an ordinance to approve and a resolution to disapprove. He informed Councilmembers that they could introduce both if they wanted to do so. In the alternative, Council can just introduce an Ordinance to approve the development plan, and then can go ahead and vote it up or vote it down after the public hearing. You will need to adopt findings of fact, if you disapprove the plan.

Mayor McGowan responded that an Ordinance will be introduced and a public hearing will be held at the following meeting.

Mr. Brown asked if Speedway/SuperAmerica would need to be at that meeting if it is only introduced?

Law Director Crites said that the Ordinance will only be introduced at the next meeting, but it is possible that during public participation there may be some questions. If you feel you would like to be here, you are certainly invited.

Councilmember Crais asked if an expedited copy could be prepared.

Crites responded yes. Mayor McGowan concluded the public hearing at 10:02 pm 

PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance No. 13-02, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 39-01 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2002 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses. 

No one appeared to speak for or against the Ordinance.

Mayor McGowan closed the public hearing at 10:02pm. 

NEW BUSINESS (10:03pm)

Resolution No. 02-31, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Seek Bids For Fern Hill Storm Sewer Improvements.

Introduced by Councilmember Hartfield; second by Vice Mayor Moore. Motion carried, 7-0. Resolution No. 02-31 is adopted. 

Resolution No. 02-32, A Resolution To Authorize The Village Manager To Seek Bids For North Cherry Valley Road/State Route 16 Intersection Improvements.

Introduced by Councilmember Hartfield; seconded by Councilmember Main. 

Village Manager Hickman brought drawings to the attention of Council.

Discussion: 

Councilmember Hartfield said she thought there had been some questions laid out concerning what will happen out there and why it is not a conclusive project. The grant money expires in July. This particular project will not deter any particular phase from occurring down the road. This does not preclude access roads or a boulevard from being put in. The problem now is that there are property purchases, easements, costs, storm sewer issues, and gutter issues, all kinds of cans of worms that have not been addressed in any shape or manner. There are resident access issues that need to be addressed on the north side of the road. Hartfield would like to see the actual residents there spoken to directly about this rather than forcing them to live with Council’s decision. 

Councilmember Robertson asked what was being specified in this Resolution—is it the plan that we were shown last week? Village Manager Hickman said it was. This is what I would take to ODOT for their approval. It addresses stacking to Galway.

Robertson asked if this could be seen as Phase I if Council makes those other changes? She asked if the other changes could be made to that plan. Hickman responded that is how he would approach it. Clear said the curbs on the north lane will never have to be moved. That part would stay constant and from that point forward the plan would fit in. He restated it does fit into a long-range plan. Robertson asked if a median fit into that, would it suffice as Phase I. Manager Hickman responded yes, as it was extended. Other in/egress issues can be faced later. Robertson asked if the plan would have to be altered significantly and expensively if these other issues are addressed. Hickman responded that it would not.

Vice Mayor Moore said a median would mean Council would have to build these other roads.

Councilmember Bellman said that’s both true and not true. Some earlier designs allow a median and still allow access to Wendy’s and to Eastgate. It allowed a stacking lane if you turn into Westgate and a stacking lane if you turn to Wendy’s. It would be a mistake to say we would have to have a median now. Bellman recommended Council proceed easily and promptly with changes to Cherry Valley Road and Wendy’s and give them full access that was not anticipated when BZBA did their study of the area years ago. That would mean that Council could close off Wendy’s to full access yet leave full access to Westgate. Simultaneously, Council should have a resolution to look at a Westgate access to see if this could be a complete median all the way down.

Councilmember Crais asked if the author of the Resolution would be sympathetic to another section specifying these improvements constitute the first phase.

Councilmember Hartfield responded she was fine with that. She said she doesn’t feel adversely about that. The perception to the public has been given that this is what were doing and nothing else is being done. To show the public that that isn’t the case is fine.

Councilmember Crais asked about additional language specifying what other phases might include. Councilmember Hartfield said it should be limited to what those phases are but she is not sure how Council could do that. Her concern is even though with the Wendy’s access, if Council is talking about access roads, Council does not know the cost. What if they come back with an inordinate amount? It’s a nice idea, but what if it comes back as 1 ½ Million? Crais asked Manager Hickman whether or not this would be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan as this is right now? Hickman responded that the Comprehensive Plan of 1998 says there should be a boulevard from Cherry Valley Road to Newark-Granville Road. Crais suggested that the proposals outlined are substantially similar to the sorts of roads you see on suburban sprawl. He asked Hickman, as Village Manager if he felt that this type of road is very distinctive or is it similar to types of roads that typify suburban sprawl? Hickman responded that the proposal is what he had to work with right now.

Councilmember Bellman asked Hickman if he was choosing not to answer the question. Hickman said that was his answer. But said if Council wants this road off Galway and it takes right-of-way acquisition to do it, is Council willing to trade acquiring that property to put in the road? Does Council have $150,000 in spending to do that? I think that is about what it would cost.

Councilmember Bellman asked if the costs could be charged to other lots that might be developed there because they would be required to build them anyway? Hickman responded that giving the Village the right-of-way has a value. Bellman said if they are required to build it they should pay for it. The future front on Cherry Valley Road might offset the Village’s cost and investment. Hickman said it was a fair chance that would be the case for them to have that access.

Councilmember Moore suggested to add to the Resolution that the Village Manager have engineering proposals prepared showing these potential phases completed, along with discussions with the property owners about the potential phases and options for acquisitions of the property.

Mayor McGowan asked Vice Mayor Moore if she wanted this included into the Resolution being considered or another? Vice Mayor Moore responded in the current Resolution and asked if there were any takers. Mayor McGowan asked what would it mean if the Village Manager comes back with a bid and we don’t have that information. Vice Mayor Moore said that is precisely why Council needs to get more detailed information and need to hear from property owners, get public input, etc. Let’s get going on it.

Councilmember Main cautioned that a lot of public input would be necessary, as Council doesn’t know how the neighbors feel about these access roads.

Manager Hickman informed Council that he had already talked to many of the residents and that most are very pleased. He said he was only aware of one that would have difficulty with access.

Vice Mayor Moore said that the proposal being considered is only one phase, but what Council is looking at down the road is the whole thing with access roads along the way. Council does not have the engineering work done on those things, nor does Council have costs for land acquisition. There haven’t been any good discussions on all the potential improvements. The Manager’s plan doesn’t prohibit Council from doing anything else, but we need to consider it in the whole.

Councilmember Main said he would be more comfortable if Council separated the issue and not muddy up the Resolution and get bids with an amendment to start the ball rolling for engineering studies on the other things. Let’s separate the issues into two Resolutions rather than bulking it into one.

Vice Mayor Moore asked if she could do it by motion and not part of the Resolution. Law Director Crites responded yes, she could. It can then be reduced to writing that’s adopted at the next meeting. Then we have a history of it. It would be adopted as a Resolution.

Councilmember Robertson said she wanted to see this attended to before Council proceeded on the Resolution. She asked that Council table this Resolution.

Law Director Crites reminded Council there could only be one issue on the floor at one time.

Councilmember Bellman said in this Resolution we are only talking about Galway to SR 16. Tonight we are actually talking about building one small portion. If we are going to build it then this is the time to build in the median. It makes no sense to have to dig up what we do later to put in the median, if that is what we want to do. We can easily incorporate the median proposal tonight. Later we can put more focus on the other portions. The only way we will get the full benefit of the stacking lanes is to eliminate all the conflicts to SR 16. We will clog up the advantages in places where we want traffic to go straight and not worry about any other conflicts. We have to get Wendy’s out of the equation and talk about an access road. He said that it then makes no sense to build this thing and tear it out later. That is what the Comprehensive Plan came up with in 1998. 

Manager Hickman asked the traffic analyst to address the median.

Doyle Clear said the median will be there and it is being designed, essentially, the way things are going the cross section of the road on the north side, what the manager proposed in terms of roadway improvements are the exact same cross sections we have in the long term plan. The long-term plan has the median in the middle as soon as we can resolve Westgate Drive and Wendy’s. The reason we are going this way is that we are under pressure with funding deadlines. The way Jerry Turner is designing that, when we get rid of the left turn to Wendy’s and Westgate, this median can be dropped in and it would not mean tearing it back up, but putting in grass and curbs, etc. We know that the Comprehensive Plan called for this and what is wanted to do in terms of access management and beautification. 

Councilmember Bellman said the 1997 drawing from Jerry Turner shows something different with a median now. Clear said the reason we didn’t do this is because we were trying to make the intersection work better and force some right-of-way issues right now. Bellman said it could be done with less right-of-way if you put the median in now. Clear said when the 1997 drawing was done by Jerry Turner, it was done without traffic engineering information, it was only civil engineering. This would back up traffic past Galway. The long lane will become the left turn lane, a long through lane and a long right through lane. If traffic volumes and capacity are put to it, it will not be as functional as you think. Ultimately, we will have that – the drawing in 1997 will not accomplish it. Until you get rid of Westgate, you don’t solve anything. In the long term the left turn lane, where you want to put the median, would interfere with the turn lane we hope to get and that is required by the Ohio manual.

Councilmember Crais said that he realized this proposal was designed for the peak traffic periods where there is a lot of stacking, but he asked what about the slow periods of the day. Will the design encourage higher vehicular speeds? Clear responded that he did not think so. He asked about turning Newark-Granville Road into a bypass of the bypass—could this encourage traffic to cut up that way? Clear said no, primarily this will assist Village residents in getting access to SR 16.

Councilmember Robertson moved to table Resolution No. 02- 32, Councilmember Hartfield second. Motion carried.

Vice Mayor Moore made a motion to authorize the Village Manager to proceed in having complete engineering proposals prepared for Cherry Valley Road and SR 16, including medians, access roads at Galway and across Galway, and all associated costs for all potential phases of road completion, along with discussions with the property owners about the potential phases and options for acquisitions of the property. Seconded by Councilmember Main. The motion passes without objection.

Councilmember Robertson moved to remove Resolution No. 02- 98 from the table. Councilmember Main second.

Motion carried, 5 yes, 2 no (Crais, Bellman). Resolution No. 02-32 is adopted. 

Resolution No. 02-33, A Resolution Accepting The Amounts And Rates As Determined By The Budget Commission And Authorizing The Necessary Tax Levies And Certifying Them To The County Auditor. 

Introduced by Vice Mayor Moore; seconded by Councilmember Crais. 

Discussion: None. Motion carried, 7-0. Resolution No. 02-33 is adopted. 

OLD BUSINESS (10:42pm)

Ordinance No. 13-02, An Ordinance To Amend Ordinance No. 39-01 Providing For Adjustments Of The Annual Budget For The Fiscal Year 2002 And Revising Sums For Operating Expenses. 

Re-introduced by Councilmember Main; seconded by Councilmember Hartfield.

Discussion: Manager Hickman said there are a couple areas of community service involving the buzzards, if passed; the village will begin buzzard mitigation. Vice Mayor Moore asked about the varmint removal. Hickman responded there have been more varmints in town this year than he can remember in past. The village is removing varmints village-wide which was started it a couple years ago as a public service. This has blossomed into a big business. Granville now has a set of criteria to limit individuals to a certain number of varmint removals per year. Moore asked under what circumstances does the village pay for this. Hickman responded if there is a call about a skunk or raccoon, a pest control company is called to go out and trap the varmint. Sometimes Hickman has discovered multiple calls for the same address and the village has stopped that practice. Distemper is one of the reasons the village became involved in the first place. Granville has had a lot of skunks. It is council’s preference on whether or not we continue to perform this as a public service.

Mayor McGowan asked if Council could decide to continue to pay for this and continue the practice this year, but discuss it in the next budget. Hickman said the resolution would cover varmint removal for the rest of the year. It can be discontinued later. He asked if Council was ok with the buzzards?

Ordinance carried 7 yes, 0 no votes, no opposition. Ordinance No. 13-02 is adopted.

MINUTES (10:55pm)

Mayor McGowan moved that all further business be postponed until the next Council meeting with the exception of pressing comments. Seconded by Councilmember Hartfield.

Vice Mayor Moore said she was walking 5 miles in support of breast cancer research and asked for sponsors.

Mayor McGowan reminded Council that GBPA has a breakfast tomorrow morning. 

COMMITTEE REPORTS Economic Development Committee (Crais, Moore, Robertson) No report. 

Finance Liaison (Moore) No report.

Granville Foundation (Main) No report.

JEDD (Bellman, Crais) No report.

Newark/Granville Committee (Bellman, Main) No report. 

 Personnel (Hartfield, McGowan, Robertson) No report.

Planning (Main) Main alerted Council they might get calls arising from the last meeting when a discussion was had with the folks from Springhill Baptist Church about some changes they want to make with their parking lot, etc. There were some complications because of the church location being in a PUD that will take longer to get through. Main said he had already talked to some Council members earlier and the proposal may need to come through Council for approval. The folks at Springhill want to do the improvements before the weather changes, but he cautioned that there could be time constraints making this difficult.

Recreation Commission (McGowan) No report.

Senior Citizen Committee (Moore, Robertson) No report.

Street Light Committee (McGowan) No report. Streets/Sidewalks/Utilities Committee (Bellman, Hartfield, McGowan) No report.

Tree & Landscape Committee (Moore) No report.

Union Cemetery Board (Main) No report. 

MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS 23 Sep 2002 7:30pm Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT At 11:31pm, Councilmember Crais moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Councilmember Robertson. Motion carried, 7-0. Meeting adjourned.

 

Submitted by Susan Dean-Byrnes 

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.