VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE
August 1, 2007
CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Hartfield at 7:30 pm)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those responding to the roll call were Council members Barsky, Mershon, O’Keefe, McGowan, Tegtmeyer, Mayor Hartfield; Manager Holycross, and Law Director Crites.
Council member Barsky made a motion to excuse Vice Mayor Herman. Second by Council member O’Keefe. Motion carried (6-0).
APPROVAL OF AGENDA (7:33 pm)
Council member Barsky moved accept the agenda as presented. Second by Council member McGowan. Motion carried (6-0).
CITIZENS COMMENTS (7:33 pm)
Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, recognized and commended Council member Mershon for climbing Mt. Washington.
James Yonkers, Yonkers Towing Services, stated that he believes they were the lowest bidder for the recent towing bid. He has employees who are upset they did not receive the contract. Manager Holycross stated that the police chief reviewed the contract and made his recommendation based on the past history of types of cars towed. Chief Mason plugged the bid figures into a spreadsheet to determine the final overall costs. Manager Holycross went on to say that he would be happy to meet with Mr. Yonkers to discuss the matter.
Janet Worth, 2020 Burg Street, stated that she sent information relating to the deer problem to the LSSU Committee for review. She stated that she sent the same packet of information to the Village on July 14, 2006, and resubmitted it again on July 25, 2007. Ms. Worth stated that she is disappointed to learn that the committee never received the information. Council acknowledged the receipt of Ms. Worth’s information. Manager Holycross explained that it was passed on to Council, but after the LSSU Committee meeting due to an oversight. Ms. Worth explained that the information she sent depicts more humane alternatives to dealing with the deer problem. She explained that she believes this is a confinement issue for the deer and that egress corridors need to be established to get the deer away from confined areas.
Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, stated that Ms. Wood had phoned her since she was the “only lone deer person” at the LSSU Committee meeting. Ms. Sellitto stated that she felt the only side given at this meeting depicted how to kill the deer. She was troubled that Ms. Worth’s information was not presented and that there was no discussion of safety. Ms. Sellitto stated that she has another matter that she has been trying to get an answer for relating to an animal trap set up by a neighbor next to her bird feeder. Ms. Sellitto stated that Section 500.11 of the Code states that you cannot hunt or trap in the Village. She stated that if it is illegal to trap in the Village, her neighbor should not be allowed to do it. Manager Holycross stated that he is aware of this situation. He has asked the Law Director to review the matter. He stated that their initial review shows that the state law overrides the local ordinance referred to by Ms. Sellitto. Ms. Sellitto asked if this means that hunting is allowed in the Village. Manager Holycross stated that he is doing some additional research and will get back with Ms. Sellitto. Ms. Sellitto stated that she would like to see a copy of the state law.
Council member Mershon stated that he attended the LSSU Committee meeting where the deer problem was discussed. He stated that the presentation provided by Manager Holycross was very thorough and ranged from ideas from trapping to shooting. He stated that he feels there is a sense by the community that something needs to be done quickly. He feels confident that Council will investigate a variety of ways to deal with the deer problem.
Ms. Sellito questioned if there are really forty deer in the yards of homes located in Fern Hill as stated at the LSSU Committee meeting. Mayor Hartfield stated that what those residents meant was there is a large herd of deer traveling through the area on a daily basis.
Ms. Worth inquired if there has ever been an official count for deer located in the urban area. Mayor Hartfield stated that they have nothing official, but some have estimated the number of deer seen at any one given time. Ms. Worth asked if the information she submitted depicting “humane alternatives” will be given to the public. Council member Tegtmeyer questioned what venue Ms. Worth was referring to. She stated that she is welcome to submit whatever she would like to the local papers. Ms. Worth explained that she thought it was unfair that the committee did not share her information. Council member Mershon stated that there were non lethal alternatives shared at the committee meeting and that these alternatives will be considered when trying to come up with a deer management program. Mayor Hartfield stated that they discussed bow hunting as being the most prevalent program used by communities to alleviate deer problems. Ms. Worth asked if the committee has made a final decision. Council stated that they are still in the process of reviewing alternatives.
Mayor Hartfield closed Citizens’ Comments at 8:00 pm.
PRESENTATION OF RECYCLING PROPOSAL
John Peckskamp, Big O Refuse, stated that approximately 20% of the households serviced in Granville by Big O Refuse recycle and that this number has not significantly changed in the past three years. He stated that Big O currently offers a la carte recycling services. However, to help the Village with their efforts in recycling, beginning in October, 2007 they are proposing a flat rate that would include recycling services. Mr. Peckskamp stated that the recycling program will remain voluntary. Big O will offer weekly pickup at no additional charge to the customer. He stated that 96 gallon totes will be given to customers who request them. They estimate this program could eliminate 50% of the trash volume. Mr. Peckskamp explained that they plan to role this service out to other customers as they determine how successful the program is in Granville. He explained that Big O hopes to get the word out by sending out mailings and advertising on cable television. He stated that their prices will still be lower than their competitors. Mr. Peckskamp stated that Big O will track weekly tonnage rates to see the progression of the recycling area and relay those figures back to the Village. He stated that today there is no reason not to recycle. Recycling in the past, often resulted in materials ending up in the landfills anyway. He explained that this issue is no longer the case. Today plastic, aluminum cans, and newspapers are all recyclable. Mr. Peckskamp stated that the customer will not have to separate materials. A different truck will haul the recyclable materials to a facility in Columbus, while all other materials are transferred to a landfill in New Lexington. He indicated that paper products are sent by rail to paper mills for re-use, while aluminum cans go to a scrap metal facility. Mr. Peckskamp stated that there are no good alternatives for recycling glass at this time, but there are often fluctuations in the glass market which could change recycling opportunities. Council member McGowan asked if recyclable materials will be picked up the same day as regular trash and what the monthly cost will be to the customer. Mr. Peckskamp stated that it will be picked up the same day and their price will be fixed – often being up to $5 less than their competitors recycling program. He was not able to provide the exact monthly fee. Council member Tegtmeyer suggested that when Big O sends out their mailings, they should use recycled paper. Mr. Peckskamp stated that they currently only use recycled supplies. She also asked if there has been any headway made in protecting landfills or “are we just creating more stuff as a whole?” Mr. Peckskamp stated that there really has been little progress in protecting landfills in the last five years. Council member O’Keefe explained how Gambier recycles. She stated that this option brought forth by Big O is very convenient and we need to keep in mind how trash fills-up landfills and can contaminate our water tables. Council member O’Keefe also stated that as she researched recycling programs for Granville, she has learned many things including what should not go in the trash such as: nail polish, nail polish remover, and batteries. She also stated that Big O came forward with this proposal after her initial contact while researching possible recycling programs. Council member O’Keefe did not, nor did Council, request for them to do this service nor is Council endorsing Big O. Big O has come forward to present this proposal to the Village. She also commended George Wales for his efforts in researching recycling options. Council member Tegtmeyer asked if the 20% of people estimated to be recycling in Granville included those utilizing the recycling program at Denison. Mr. Peckskamp stated that his estimation did not include any recycling at Denison University. Mr. George Wales, who was seated in the audience, questioned if the Columbus recycling facility would welcome visitors. Mr. Peckskamp affirmed visitors would be welcomed. Grossman Industries, Inc. is located on Jackson Pike north of the Interstate 270.
Mayor Hartfield and Councilmember O’Keefe recused themselves from discussion of Resolution No. 07-11.
Resolution No. 07-11, A Resolution (Previously Tabled on March 7, 2007) to Authorize the Partial and Temporary Closure of West College Street from Mulberry Street to Plum Street for the Renovation and Expansion of Cleveland Hall was removed from the table by Council member Barsky. Second by Council member Tegtmeyer. Motion to remove from the table carried 4 -0. Council member Barsky made a motion to reintroduce Resolution No. 07-11, second by Council member Tegtmeyer. Motion to reintroduce carried 4-0.
Discussion: Council member Barsky questioned Section1a and asked who polices this issue. Manager Holycross stated that the agreement can be reviewed and canceled at any time if necessary. Council member Mershon later made a motion to amend Section 1a.
Council member Barsky made a motion for a friendly amendment to modify Section 1d to strike the word “one” and insert ”the west end of the block” so that the sentence ends as follows:
“two parking spaces shall be maintained for public use on West College Street.”
Council discussed that this change would mean a net gain of one permit parking space – from what was originally discussed.
Council member Mershon made a motion for a friendly amendment to Section 2 – striking “reserves the right” and “circumstances warrant modification” and inserting “Village Manager” and “or revoke” as follows:
“Section 2. The Village Council or Village Manager may modify or revoke this approval or these conditions at any time, but in any case this approval and related conditions will be reviewed at the end of October 2007 or as circumstances warrant modification.”
Council member Barsky questioned Section 1f. She stated that the parking situation set up with the contractors for the library proved to be ineffective. She asked if this situation would be any different with this project. A representative from Denison University, Art Chonko, stated that they plan to use Denison’s heating plant facility for parking and car pool the workers to and from the construction site. He added that this stipulation was put into the contract with the contractor. Council member Barsky suggested having the contractor workers register their vehicles. Law Director Crites stated that this could be done. Mr. Chonko stated that this would be difficult because there may be 80-90 workers during peak construction. Council member Barsky stated that she does not want to see another situation like the library project. The Village has many more residents near College Street. There should be rigorous enforcement for any violations. Council member Barsky inquired as to the one way direction for West College Street. Mr. Chonko responded an east to west direction. Council member Mershon asked if Denison would reimburse the costs of any damage to streets, curbs, etc. Mr. Chonko stated that they would make sure any damage is repaired to the existing condition.
Council member Mershon noted that Section 1a requires Denison University to appear before Village Council at a particular time. He questioned if this clause should be modified. Council member Mershon made a motion to amend Section 1a to read “until the earlier of (1) when construction and renovation of Cleveland Hall has progressed to the point where construction materials, vehicles, and equipment can be moved from the street or (2) to July 31, 2008.”
Second by Council member Tegtmeyer. Motion to amend carried 4-0.
Mr. Chonko asked if the October review would be with full Council or the Village Manager. It was stated that it would be with Manager Holycross. Council member Barsky asked what bearing, if any, this would have on the Cleveland Hall appeal. Law Director Crites stated none.
Resolution No. 07-11 was adopted as amended. Motion carried 4-0.
(Mayor Hartfield and Councilmember O’Keefe rejoined the Council meeting at 8:35pm).
Ordinance No. 09-07, An Ordinance to Revise the Codified Ordinances by Adopting Current Replacement Pages was introduced by Council member O’Keefe. Second by Council member Barsky.
Mayor Hartfield set the public hearing for Ordinance No. 09-07 for August 15, 2007.
Ordinance No. 10-07, An Ordinance to Amend Sections 351.03 and 351.05 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Regulate and Provide a Penalty for Parking Outside of Marked Spaces was on Council’s agenda but NOT introduced. Law Director Crites stated that he and the staff needed to do some additional research and review.
Ordinance No. 11-07, An Ordinance to Amend Section 33.03(b)(3) of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville to Establish a 35 MPH Speed Limit on James Road was introduced by Council member McGowan. Second by Council member Barsky.
Mayor Hartfield set the public hearing for Ordinance No. 11-07 for August 15, 2007.
Resolution No. 07-44, A Resolution to Fill a Vacancy on the Granville Arts Commission was introduced by Council member Barsky. Second by Council member O’Keefe.
Discussion: The Granville Recreation Commission recommended appointing Dick Kinsley to the vacancy on the Granville Arts Commission.
Resolution No. 07-44 is adopted. Motion carried 6-0.
Resolution No. 07-45, A Resolution Authorizing the Village Manager to Enter into a Contract with the Licking County Board of Commissioners for Reimbursement of Legal Counsel for Indigent Defendants for the Village of Granville, Licking County, Ohio was introduced by Council member McGowan. Second by Council member Mershon.
Discussion: Manager Holycross explained that the Resolution is an agreement with Licking County for the reimbursement of funds. He stated that the current agreement was no longer offered, that a new agreement had to be updated. Law Director Crites explained that the agreement calls for the proper appropriation of funding to the Village for cases that require that appointment of counsel for indigent defendants. The Village is responsible to pay for those indigents who request legal counsel. He stated that there is a fund that money goes into 90 days after a case is closed which reimburses the Village.
Council member Barsky made a friendly amendment to amend the ‘Contract for Legal Representation of Indigent Persons’ in the third paragraph – strike the words “the Village’s” in the second sentence.
Resolution No. 07-45 is adopted as amended. Motion carried 6-0.
UPDATE ON RIVER ROAD PROJECT
(Mayor Hartfield recused herself from discussions of the River Road project at 8:35pm. Council member McGowan presided over the discussion.)
Manager Holycross explained that there would be a complete report by the staff and consultants at a future Council work session. He stated that he would like to find a date for the work session this evening. He also stated that he hopes to have additional information to Council after his August 2nd meeting with ODOT (Ohio Department of Transportation). Manager Holycrosss introduced Allison Terry as the new Village Planner. Ms. Terry would be going over the Executive Summary with Council.
Draft Executive Summary – River Road Study
1. Apart from purely financial considerations, future development in the Study Area makes an important statement about the Granville Community. This area is one of Granville’s front doors” and this is an opportunity to create a positive first impression of Granville. The existence of the State Routes in this area further reinforces the role of this area as a community gateway.
Some basic matters that generally surface when discussing gateway issues include the need to create a strong and clear identity with regard to specific architectural elements, landscape treatments, gateway signage, traffic safety, and functional considerations. Beyond this, in those communities that have a distinctive community character, look, and feel (as Granville does), gateway design can help provide a true sense of arrival and reinforce authentic community identity and a sense of place.
2. There are at least three major alternative architectural themes that could be chosen as the foundation for a gateway design:
a. New England theme – Granville has an authentic “New England” look and feel, which is derived from the fact that this area was settled by New Englanders and Welsh immigrants. With more than 100 properties on the National Register of Historic Places, these roots are very evident and protected. While this “New England” character is evident and strong in the heart of the community, it is not as clearly stated at some community entrances, including the study area. Appropriate development at this location could strengthen the “New England” community image and identity. In terms of gateway design, this image of Granville can be developed and reinforced with specific architectural treatments of buildings, building massing, setbacks, and landscaping. For instance, the New England theme would most likely have established "build-to" lines, requiring that a certain percentage of the buildings would be built at this setback line. This could also create the ability to achieve higher densities on the property, creating a more "pedestrian" feel because of the massing of the buildings along the roadways.
b. Rural Vernacular theme – Granville is a rural community in many ways and features such as large agricultural fields, open spaces, woodlots, and grain silos reinforce this image and character. Of course, suburban-scale development in nearby areas and the less thematic development in urban centers to the east detract from this image somewhat. In terms of gateway design, this image of Granville can be developed and reinforced with more rural-inspired architectural treatments and building massing. A concept plan developed by Metropolitan Partners may take the gateway in this direction. This type of concept would most likely have larger "minimum" setbacks rather than "build-to" lines. For instance, a building would be required to have a minimum of a 100 foot setback from the right-of-way of South Main Street. This would mean that the buildings could not be located closer than 100 feet to the right-of-way, but does not stipulate where they have to be placed on the lot otherwise. A minimum setback scenario could significantly decrease the amount of density that can occur on a parcel of land, creating a more "suburban" feel because there would be a range of setbacks for each parcel along a roadway, rather than a consistent line of buildings.
c. Environmental Character – Because of features such as Raccoon Creek running along the southern edge of Granville, area woodlots, and gently sloping terrain, there is an image of natural beauty and environmental emphasis in Granville. This image can be advanced and reinforced with generous landscaping and extensive use of more natural materials. This image could also be reinforced with the addition of language that addresses minimum setbacks to significant water features - Raccoon Creek, Hudson Lake & "Kessler" Lake. This language could be in the form of riparian corridor setbacks along the perimeter of these natural features to prevent the disturbance and/or destruction of the areas immediately adjacent to them.
This intersection was analyzed for two conditions: (1) traditional intersection under signal control; and (2) modern roundabout. The intersection will operate at a good level of service for both conditions. While the intersection would initially have more residual capacity (more vehicles can travel north-south on Main Street) under signal control than a one-lane roundabout, the roundabout could be expanded to two lanes (within the same external footprint) wherein the capacity of the roundabout would exceed that of the signalized intersection long term.
(Diagrams indicating the approximate locations of the traffic signal and roundabout will be presented in the final report)
c. South Main Street would only need to be widened to provide left turn lanes under the traffic signal scenario.
d. South Main Street would only need to be widened immediately surrounding the roundabout in that scenario.
d. If this corridor is not annexed into the Village, the Ohio Department of Transportation would be responsible for access permits and would likely apply its access management criteria as specified in the State Access Management Manual.
e. If the corridor is annexed into the Village, the Village can apply its own standards regarding site access – however, any traffic signal installations will need to be approved by ODOT.
f. The Village Staff will be meeting with ODOT, District 5, on Thursday, August 2nd to further discuss and refine the access management issues related to the South Main Street Corridor. As a part of this discussion Staff will be requesting additional information from ODOT regarding the potential access management scenarios for the South Main Street corridor based on the following concepts:
1. Annexation of the eastern portion of South Main Street and coordination with
ODOT regarding the western half of the right-of-way.
2. Annexation of the east and west portions of South Main Street and any approval process through ODOT for access management.
3. No annexation by the Village, and some portion of development occurring
anyway - and how ODOT will address this from an access management
3. Upon annexation of the Study Area, Granville captures only a small amount of new tax revenue (probably less than $11,000) given the existing level of development in the area. Since the positive fiscal impacts of annexation are small until new development begins to occur, it may be in the Village’s interests to see development activity proceed quickly after land is annexed.
4. The factors that impact tax revenues the most include the future mix of land uses, the density of the development, and the timing of development.
The mix of land uses at build-out is ultimately dependent upon applicable zoning and the development approval process. For the purposes of this study, condominiums, office buildings, retail businesses, restaurants, and service-related uses were assumed to be likely development prospects for the River Road area.
The density of land use can have a significant impact on the future tax revenue that is generated from the development. The more intensely a parcel is developed, the greater the tax proceeds since there are more employees, more real estate value, and more business activity.
The timing of the development has potentially the largest impact on cumulative revenue received, yet is the hardest to predict given the uncertainty of market forces and land use economics over an extended period of time. Timing is especially difficult to predict since local real estate markets are impacted so significantly by regional and national development trends, economic cycles, and interest rates. Therefore, the study developed revenue projections based upon 5-, 10-, and 15-year build-out scenarios. Both actual and present value revenue streams vary by millions depending upon whether build-out occurs over 5 years or more.
5. Water and sewer tap fees associated with new development will generate a considerable sum of money, but these funds are actually “capacity charges” and are intended to reimburse the capital costs associated with the construction of the water and sewer plants. These are one-time fees charged to users as they connect to the system, but are not an ongoing revenue stream and should not be considered as a means to offset the costs of extending infrastructure improvements.
6. How rapidly development occurs is a key consideration that could make a difference of more than $1 million (when a 5-year build-out is compared to a 15-year build-out). The study area is fragmented into relatively small lots and parcels with different owners and that fragmentation poses additional challenges for unified and consistent development. Often, the benefits of working together toward a common unified development plan are blurred by individual interests. This could be overcome by collectively working with a professional to further develop a conceptual land use plan for the whole area. A subsequent step could include developing a “Request for Proposal” to be circulated to potential developers capable of constructing such a project. A multi-state or even national distribution list for a “Request for Proposal” may be in order.
In situations like this, where ownership is fragmented, extra private or public incentives are often justified to help assure that the full potential of the area is achieved. Such incentives can include development agreements or special zoning districts. If the Village of Granville were to participate financially in extending infrastructure to serve the River Road area, it would be wise to consider some type of formal development agreement that would bind property owners to certain requirements in exchange for such public participation.
8. Village leaders are being asked to participate in financing a portion of the infrastructure costs for development of the River Road area. The Granville Village Engineer has estimated that the total direct infrastructure costs for the entire River Road development would be approximately $2.73 to $2.76 million for two phases of work. Other indirect costs (the construction of a roundabout or signalized intersection, road widening on South Main Street to accommodate the roundabout or intersection, and improvements to the sewer lift station) are estimated to be another $844,000 to $1,001,000.
It is understood that the property owners are requesting that 70% of the infrastructure costs be borne by the Village of Granville. Based upon the estimates provided by the Village Engineer that request translates into a public cost of about $1.92 million for the direct costs alone. It should also be noted that public support of private development in such a manner is not a common practice among Ohio communities. Typically, private development interests fund the public infrastructure, making existing or new parcels of land more accessible, functional and valuable.
An analysis of the proposed development in the River Road area suggests that the new revenue to be realized by the Village (through property tax and income tax revenues) would be approximately $1.6 million over the next 15 years assuming that the full build-out would occur over that 15-year period.
9. The creation of a tax increment financing (TIF) mechanism and a special assessment district would be the preferred method for the funding of the needed infrastructure in the Study Area. Through the TIF, the Village would be able to redirect property tax revenue generated from development in the Study Area (as it occurs) to cover associated infrastructure costs. In doing so, however, it should be noted that the Granville Schools would not receive the full benefit of the additional property taxes that would result from the new development in the River Road area until the expiration of the TIF period. A portion of those new tax revenues would be redirected to cover the infrastructure costs.
The land use, traffic and financial considerations presented by the consultants have helped reinforce to Staff that there are clear and compelling reasons for the Village of Granville and Council to continue to be engaged with property owners in development of the study area to its full potential. The simplified process from this point forward for the River Road area would include: pursuing annexation, working with property owners to create a more detailed land use plan, developing and enacting new zoning, and taking the necessary steps to provide indirect financial support through a TIF.
Jack Thornborough stated that there are two bridges located within a ¼ mile of each other – Cherry Street and Main Street. He feels these bridges will need to be replaced at some point as they are at least 40 years old. He suggested that perhaps one intersection could be made incorporating the two exits. Mr. Thornborough suggested that the Village’s conversation with ODOT should include discussion about this possibility, rather than just focusing on only the Main Street Bridge. Council member McGowan stated that he has had a conversation with an employee at ODOT regarding these bridges. He was told that ODOT would like to get rid of the Cherry Street exit, but they do not have the funds to do this at this time.
Ms. Terry explained that diagrams will be available at the work session. Council member McGowan asked if the roundabout cost estimation includes acquiring necessary right-of- ways. Manager Holycross stated that they have not had any conversations with the landowners. Council member McGowan asked if he could speak with them so they can estimate this cost. Manager Holycross agreed to speak with the landowners. Ms. Terry explained that Jerry Turner’s cost estimation shows the roundabout costing less than a turn signal. She stated that they have been assured the roundabout can handle semi-truck traffic. She added that there could be something in the middle of the roundabout that could serve as the gateway to the Village. Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Turner indicated that the turn signal option would require widening the Raccoon Creek Bridge. Council member O’Keefe asked if the cost to maintain the road had been included. Manager Holycross stated that they can estimate these costs. Council member McGowan asked if the Village would be responsible for the Route 37 overpass if annexation were to happen. Manager Holycross stated that this would become a Village responsibility and, if the Village were to become a city, the Village would automatically be responsible for maintenance even without the annexation. Council member O’Keefe reiterated the information regarding typical infrastructure costs are normally incurred by the developer. She was referring to page 4 – “Typically, private development interests fund the public infrastructure, making existing or new parcels of land more accessible, functional and valuable.” Council member Mershon asked if there have been any conversations with the schools regarding a proposed TIF. Manager Holycross stated that this discussion has not yet happened, but they intend to have that conversation with the district when appropriate. Council member Mershon asked if the cost savings could be identified with a full intersection. Manager Holycross stated that they will address how this issue might be staged. Council member Barsky questioned when they should have the final report. Manager Holycross stated that by the end of the week he hopes to have it ready and that much of the information is waiting on the meeting with ODOT. He stated that there could be more flexibility with more stages for development. Council member Tegtmeyer asked what they would be doing during the work session. Manager Holycross answered that they will be looking at the details of the annexation and provide all the supporting data. He stated that it will also be an opportunity for the consultants to respond to any questions. He hopes that significant progress can be made during the work session. Council member Mershon stated that he will welcome seeing some numbers and data. Council member Tegtmeyer asked if there is anything regarding walkability in the final report. Manager Holycross stated that this is part of the conceptual plan. Council member McGowan questioned what they were referring to in the report as peak hours. Ms. Terry stated that she believes Doyle Clear’s report is referring to the hours of 7-9am and 4-6pm.
Mayor Hartfield rejoined and presided over the meeting at 9:20pm.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
Regularly Scheduled Meeting of July 11, 2007.
Council member Mershon moved to approve the minutes as amended. Second by Council member McGowan. Motion to approve carried 6-0.
MAYOR’S COURT REPORT – June
The Mayor’s Court Report for the month of June was presented for review.
Discussion: Council member Barsky noted the increase in Criminal Complaints Processed under the heading ‘Drug Abuse/Possession/Paraphernalia’ from 3 during the month of May to 13 in the month of June. She stated that this should not be related to Denison students since most are not here in the month of June. Council member Barsky stated that it is often hard to find trends when viewing the data month to month. Manager Holycross agreed that there was an increase. Mayor Hartifield stated that the increase is a result of officers being vigilant. She stated that she has noticed a considerably high number of criminal incidents. She stated that there seemed to be some let up last year after the Denison students were done for the year, but that does not seem to be the case this year.
Council member Barsky moved to accept the June report, second by Council member O’Keefe. Motion carried 6-0.
Mayor Hartfield instructed the report be filed with the Clerk. A copy of the said report is included as part of these minutes.
MANAGER’S REPORT – June
The Manager’s Report for the month of June was presented for review.
Council member Mershon moved to accept the June report, second by Council member O’Keefe. Motion carried 6-0.
Mayor Hartfield instructed the report be filed with the Clerk. A copy of said report is included as part of these minutes.
Economic, Finance, Personnel Committee (EFP) – (Herman, Mershon, Tegtmeyer)
Granville Foundation – (Tegtmeyer)
Light, Safety, Sts/Sidewalks, Utility Committee (LSSU) – (Hartfield, Herman, McGowan)
Mayor Hartfield stated that Manager Holycross gave an excellent and thorough presentation to the committee regarding the deer situation. She suggested that all of Council review the PowerPoint presentation that outlines numerous suggestions on how to handle the problem with the deer. Council member Mershon suggested that Manager Holycross and staff continue the research and review process to give Council a recommendation. Council member O’Keefe brought up the recommendation by Ms. Woods during Citizens’ Comments to move the deer out of the urban areas. Manager Holycross stated that studies show that deer habitat is richer in an urban environment then a woodland environment. Deer’s range area is also limited. He stated that in an urban environment the deer are safe from predators with few incentives for them to move. Council member Mershon stated that he is not complaining about any of the solutions brought forward to Council, and assumes that they will be looking at a number of possible solutions. Council member Mershon stated that he recalled Vice Mayor Herman inquiring on the number of deer in the area. He feels it would be easier and beneficial to gather information that can be quantified – such as the number of traffic accidents related to deer. Council member Barsky stated that the number of deer harvested through hunting could be relatively small. She stated that she recalls one study saying that random harvesting is not as effective as removing an entire herd. Mayor Hartfield asked that the 52 page documentation provided by Manager Holycross be made available to anyone who is interested. Manager Holycross stated that he does have access to it online and he would be happy to provide a paper copy to anyone interested in reading the information.
Planning Commission – (O’Keefe)
The meeting minutes were available in Council’s packets.
Planning & Zoning Committee – (Barsky, Mershon, O’Keefe)
Council member Barsky stated that they continued discussions regarding the River Road annexation.
Comprehensive Plan – (Barsky)
Recreation Commission – (McGowan)
Senior Committee – (O’Keefe)
Tree & Landscape Commission (Barsky)
Mayor Hartfield inquired about some on Main Street that appear to be thinning at the top. She asked if this is due to a lack of water. Manager Holycross stated that he would ask Service Director Terry Hopkins.
Council member O’Keefe asked if the committee discussed the mulching of trees and the other issue raised by Louise Denny at the last Council meeting. Council member Barsky stated that it is on their agenda to discuss at a future meeting.
Union Cemetery (Mershon)
OTHER COUNCIL MATTERS
Mayor Hartfield asked about the berm along Burg Street. Manager Holycross stated that work on the berm has not been completed. Council member O’Keefe stated that there is some gravel that is being washed away at a worksite near her home. Manager Holycross stated that he believes the contractor has not yet finished work in this area.
Manager Holycross stated that it would be helpful to have any information/comments Council has regarding the upcoming liquor control permit hearing for Dan Rogers.
Council member McGowan inquired about the erosion issue along the south side of the bike path past the cemetery. Manager Holycross stated that he has had discussions with Terry Hopkins about this and it is very close to the line dividing the Village’s responsibility and the County’s.
Mayor Hartfield stated that the hill going down the bike path at the end of South Pearl Street has a fence that is broken.
Council discussed the need to select a time for the River Road annexation work session. The work session will be August 15, 2007 at 5:30pm in Council Chambers.
Council acknowledged that an appeal was filed on July 19th regarding the Cleveland Hall renovation at Denison University. Law Director Crites stated that the transcript is being prepared to go to the Court of Common Pleas.
Council acknowledged the receipt of information provided by the Community Transit Board.
Council discussed the Legislative Bulletin distributed by the Ohio Municipal League regarding Mayor’s Court. Council member O’Keefe asked if there was anything that could be done. Mayor Hartfield stated that she believes that there are a few municipalities that have gone to the extreme. She believes that those municipalities should be addressed, rather than everyone. Law Director Crites stated that he had attended a seminar last week regarding this matter and it appears to have reasonable support for passage. Council member O’Keefe suggested contacting out local representatives. Council member Mershon suggested asking the Ohio Municipal League the best way to show their concern. Council member Barsky asked Manager Holycross to let Council know what the Ohio Municipal League suggests.
Council member Barsky noted the public workshop regarding the Comprehensive Plan on August 7th at 7:00pm at Granville Intermediate School.
ADJOURNMENT (9:55 pm)
Council member McGowan moved to adjourn. Second by Council member Barsky. Motion carried, 6-0. Meeting adjourned.