Granville Community Calendar

Council Minutes March 18, 2009

VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE

COUNCIL MINUTES

March 18, 2009

 

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

 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

 

            The pledge was led by Boy Scout Troop 4051.

 

ROLL CALL

            Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers McGowan, Mershon, O’Keefe, Tegtmeyer, Vice Mayor Herman, Mayor Hartfield, Manager Holycross, and Law Director Crites.

 

Councilmember McGowan made a motion to excuse Councilmember Barsky.  Second by Vice Mayor Herman.  Motion carried (6-0).

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Councilmember McGowan moved to approve the agenda as presented.  Second by Councilmember O’Keefe.  Motion carried (6-0).   

 

CITIZEN COMMENTS (7:33 pm)

 

Barbara Franks, 123 South Prospect Street and 210 East Maple Street, requested that Council review the commercial business fee to file for a variance.  The fee for seeking a parking variance for her business would be $500 plus the cost for mailings and publication, which could be an additional $200.  Ms. Franks felt the fees were a financial hardship for small business owners.  Council should be friendlier to small businesses by addressing this issue.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

Ordinance No. 02-09, An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1177.01, 1177.03, 1177.04, 1177.05, 1177.06, 1177.07, 1177.08 of the Codified Ordinances to Revise the Regulations Related to Flood Hazards

 

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, questioned changing the free board level

above the flood hazard zone from 1.5 feet to 2 feet.  He indicated that previously the level was enforced at a 3 foot level.  Planner Terry indicated that in researching this issue, the Village Engineer and the previous Village Planner enforced a 1.5 feet free board level.  There was not a specific flood hazard standard above base flood level specific in the Code.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that the drop in the base flood elevation based on the maps that FEMA adopted several years ago was being addressed by this ordinance.  He indicated that there was not an above base flood elevation level previously.  The Village adopted FEMA’s recommendation two or three years ago.  The ordinance presented was updating those recommendations.

 

As there were no additional comments, Mayor Hartfield closed the public hearing on Ordinance No. 02-09.

 

Ordinance No. 03-09, An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1189.01,1189.09, 1189.10, 1189.11 of the Codified Ordinances to Revise the Regulations Pertaining to Temporary, Exempt, and Prohibited Signs

 

Dan Rodgers, 210 East Maple Street, asked if signs on his work truck would prohibit him from parking his truck on the street (1189.10(a)(9)).  He felt this language was too restrictive.  He placed the name of his business on his truck to advertise his services.  He felt this ordinance would prohibit him from parking on the street while working on a job.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that this language appeared in two different sections of this ordinance, which prohibited these signs in one section and exempted these signs in another section. 

 

Mr. Rodgers expressed his concern that Council was attempting to remove the uniqueness of the community.  He felt this ordinance was overloading the residents and businesses with unnecessary restrictions.

 

Barbara Franks, 123 South Prospect Street, had several issues to address regarding the update to the sign ordinance.

 

10. 1189.11(t)(18) – Ms. Franks questioned the reason for not allowing sandwich board signs on the corner, not in front of a business, to advertise a business on North or South Prospect Street.

 

Brice Corder, 215 South Mulberry Street, expressed concern about residents not

being able to use rope lighting to decorate for parties at home (1189.11(p).  He questioned if that language applied to using lights as decorations for parties and events at the Bryn Du Mansion.  Mr. Corder also questioned how the restrictions on the use of color on signs would affect businesses with window displays.  He indicated that many business owners were confused about the legislation.

 

            Maggie Barno, Executive Director of the Granville Area Chamber of Commerce, stated, that on behalf of the Chamber, support for sign laws that maintain a consistent look to Granville.  However, she indicated that the Chamber expressed many concerns about how this ordinance might affect local businesses that use window decals, sandwich board signs, flags and television advertising.  She indicated that many business owners were unclear how this legislation would affect their existing signage and future signage.  The Chamber asked that the Village assist in educating local business owners about the legislation.  The Chamber also asked Council to grandfather existing signage.

 

Mayor Hartfield suggested that Council move to continue the public hearing on this ordinance to allow local business owners to seek additional information about this legislation.

 

Councilmember McGowan moved to continue the public hearing on Ordinance 03-09.  Second by Councilmember Mershon.  Motion passed (6-0).  Mayor Hartfield scheduled an additional public hearing for Ordinance 03-09 for April 1, 2009.

 

Ordinance No. 04-09, An Ordinance to Provide One-Time Issuance of Four $20 Vouchers to Each Resident or Business that has a Water Meter Located in the Village as of May 1, 2009

 

            Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, spoke in support of Councilmember McGowan’s proposal.  He indicated that Councilmember McGowan had made a compelling case.  The Village has the extra funds available.  Mr. Cauchon indicated that he felt Council should support the effort even if only in the amount of $40 vouchers.  The program would support local businesses and should be given a try.

 

            Maggie Barno, Executive Director of the Granville Area Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber was in support of this ordinance.  The Chamber believed this program would be a boost for the local economy, local businesses would see an increase in activity, and encourage residents to shop locally.  The Chamber encouraged Council to pass this ordinance.

 

            Brice Corder, 215 South Mulberry Street, indicated that he was in support of this ordinance as it would benefit local businesses.  He stated that local businesses have seen a drop in “pick-up traffic” and this ordinance could benefit a lot of people.

 

Mayor Hartfield indicated that Council would continue the public hearing on this ordinance to allow Councilmember Barsky to be present to participate in the review of the ordinance.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe moved to continue the public hearing on Ordinance 04-09 until April 1, 2009.  Second by Councilmember Tegtmeyer.  Motion passed (6-0).  Mayor Hartfield scheduled an additional public hearing for Ordinance 04-09 for April 1, 2009.  Councilmember McGowan asked Council if everyone would be present at the next Council meeting.  Councilmember indicated in the affirmative.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

Ordinance No. 02-09, An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1177.01, 1177.03, 1177.04, 1177.05, 1177.06, 1177.07, 1177.08 of the Codified Ordinances to Revise the Regulations Related to Flood Hazards was introduced by Vice Mayor Herman.  Second by Councilmember McGowan.

 

Discussion:

 

Councilmember Mershon questioned section 1177.06(b)(8) regarding the inability to develop parcels without sufficient area on the parcel outside of any flood area.  He indicated the language required that a site had to have a minimum buildable area outside the natural (non-filled) 1% chance annual floodplain.  He thought, historically, the Village permitted the developer to create buildable area, where part of your parcel was still flood plain, but required the developer to retain water in such a way that it drained no faster from your land than it would in its natural state.  He questioned if the purpose of this language was to prevent this type of retention/detention type of construction.  Planner Terry responded that the objective of this language was to ensure that subdivisions, including infrastructure, were created and designed to minimize risk of damage to property and potential loss of life from flooding, and to minimize the disturbance of floodplain riparian zones as communicated by ODNR, who used the FEMA standards.  Councilmember Mershon asked Planner Terry, if it was her understanding that a developer could not construct in a flood plain area by filling if sufficient area in the non-flood area was not available.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that he believed this language made parcels that were part flood plain / part non-flood plain unbuildable.  Planner Terry indicated that the language’s intent was to encourage developers to take the natural features, flood plain and topography of an area into account when platting a subdivision.  Councilmember Mershon wanted to make sure Council understood that leaving this language would be making a policy decision.  He indicated that this language would require a developer to build all of their development outside the flood plain.  There would be no building permitted in the flood plain.  Councilmember Tegtmeyer indicated that the language required development to build around Mother Nature, not attempt to make Mother Nature adapt.  Planner Terry indicated that this language dealt with only platted subdivisions.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that previously, during the decisions regarding River Road annexation, Planner Terry suggested that parcels be combined for effective development of parcels.  He expressed concern that in combining those parcels, the result would constitute a subdivision.

 

Councilmember Mershon additionally questioned sections 1177.06(b)(9) and 1177.06(c)(8) requiring that all streets and roadways be located at or above the base flood elevation.  He indicated support for section 1177.06(b)(9), which required all newly created roads to be above base flood elevation.  However, he questioned whether it was possible to require each residential site, as outlined in section 1177.06(c)(8), to have direct access to a walkway, driveway, or roadway at or above base flood elevation where there were existing roads such as Old River Road.  He expressed concern that this language would prohibit residential construction.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the purpose was to provide safe passage for people during an emergency.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that the Village would then need to bring all roadways into compliance.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if it would be the responsibility of the municipality to make those types of road improvements for the safety of the community.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that there were multiple locations were flooding occurs on roadways currently throughout the Village – West Broadway, South Main Street.  Vice Mayor Herman indicated that amending this language was reasonable.  Councilmember Mershon recommended striking section 1177.06(c)(8).  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if language could be included that would not apply to existing roadways.

 

Councilmember Mershon made a motion to amend Ordinance No. 02-09 section 1177.06(c)(8) to read “Each new residential site shall have direct access to a public roadway or direct access to a walkway/driveway whose surface elevation is not less than the flood protection elevation and such escape route shall lead directly out of the flood plain area.  Second by Vice Mayor Herman.

 

Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote on the amendment to Ordinance No. 02-09:  Mershon – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Tegtmeyer – yes; McGowan – yes; Herman – yes; Hartfield – yes.  The amendment to Ordinance No. 02-09 passed 6-0.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe questioned what was and who defined a minimum buildable area.  Planner Terry indicated, that when a subdivision was platted, all of the building set-backs were included as part of the plat, which determined the buildable area for each home.  This information was reviewed as part of the development plan approval process. 

 

Councilmember Mershon indicated that he understood the need to strengthen some of the provisions of the existing flood hazard ordinance and the need to increase the free board area.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that the Planning Commission had reviewed this ordinance and made appropriate changes.

 

Councilmember Tegtmeyer and O’Keefe thanked the Planning Commission, Village Manager Holycross and Planner Terry for their work on this ordinance.

 

Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote on the amended Ordinance No. 01-09: O’Keefe – yes; Tegtmeyer – yes; McGowan – yes; Mershon – yes; Herman – yes; Hartfield – yes. Ordinance No. 02-09 passed 6-0.

 

Ordinance No. 03-09, An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1189.01,1189.09, 1189.10, 1189.11 of the Codified Ordinances to Revise the Regulations Pertaining to Temporary, Exempt, and Prohibited Signs was introduced by Councilmember McGowan.  Second by Councilmember Mershon.

 

Discussion:

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked Planner Terry to describe the general purpose for updating the sign ordinance.  Planner Terry indicated that initially changes to the temporary sign portion of the code were requested.  Review of the temporary sign code led to review of the entire sign code. The goal was to allow businesses to secure temporary signs more quickly as well as provide local organizations a quicker turn around time for approving advertising for time sensitive events.  Currently all signage had to be approved by the Planning Commission, which can take a month to complete the review process.  Most communities allow temporary signs to be approved administratively, allowing for a faster process.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that the intent was to be helpful, not a hindrance.  Councilmember Mershon thanked staff for developing language in many portions of the legislation that make it more convenient for the public.  Planner Terry advised Council that the next step should be to look at the fees associated with sign applications, as some of the fees may be excessive. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe addressed the issue of signage on work vehicles.  She indicated that the intent of the language was to discourage individuals from parking a vehicle and using it as a permanent sign.  Planner Terry indicated that the language does not to refer to work vehicles with the business advertised on the door or van panel.  Planner Terry indicated that the language could be clarified.  Councilmember Mershon requested that the language reflect more specifically its intent. 

 

Councilmember Tegtmeyer asked about the fees that were mentioned earlier in the evening.  Planner Terry indicated that the fees discussed were for commercial applicants requesting a variance for lot coverage, structure size, set-backs, or parking.  The fee is $500 plus the cost of mailing and advertising for a commercial applicant. Planner Terry indicated that the fee for a residential variance was $100.  Those fees were updated by Council in 2005.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked how those fees compared to other municipalities.  Planner Terry indicated that Pataskala and New Albany both have fees of $500 for commercial applicants.  Council would like the Village Planner to research fees in other communities. 

 

Planner Terry provided Council with a suggested revision to 1189.11(i) regarding the prohibition of flags.  She indicated that “and flags” language should be removed from ordinance.

 

Planner Terry also provided Council with added language to section 1189.10(w), which allowed for electronic screens for window displays.  Councilmember McGowan suggested that a forty-two inch screen seemed very large.  Planner Terry indicated that the forty-two inch screen size was the size screen currently in use by a local business owner.  Councilmember Mershon questioned why scrolling text images were prohibited.  Planner Terry indicated that Council could include scrolling text as part of the ordinance if they wanted.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she did not consider window displays in various businesses as part of the business’ overall sign package.  She asked if colors were limited as part of those window displays.  Planner Terry indicated that the use of color in window displays was not prohibited.  Councilmember Mershon suggested that window displays had been included as part of the definition of a sign and were regulated as a sign.  Planner Terry indicated that the Village does not regulate window displays at this point.  Councilmember Tegtmeyer suggested that the regulation regarding electronic screens as part of a window display could be a critical question.   Councilmember Mershon indicated that if the code was not regulating window displays, that language should be included to clarify that issue as part of the ordinance.  Planner Terry indicated that she had not been regulating window displays unless a sign was attached to the window.  The regulation of electronic screens on a pedestrian scale was less of a problem than the regulation of large electronic billboards.  Mayor Hartfield suggested specific language be drafted as to what constitutes a window display.  Vice Mayor Herman indicated that Council was in support of regulations effecting public safety issues.  Council’s intent was to allow for artist design for displays at a pedestrian level.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe questioned whether light pollution issues should be included in this ordinance.  Planner Terry indicated that light pollution would best be handled through a dark sky ordinance.

Councilmember Mershon had several questions regarding various sections of the ordinance.

 

  1. Section 1189.09 regarding temporary signs advertising going out of business signs and how they should be regulated.  He wondered if those signs should be included with a limitation as to how long those signs should be permitted. 

 

  1. Section 1189.09(c) should allow for more than one temporary sign for a multi-business property.   Although the language allows for the Village Planner to authorize additional signs. 

 

  1. Questioned if garage sale signs in section 1189.09(d) would be required to be designed by a graphic artist.  Planner Terry indicated that regulating garage sale signs was not the intention of this section.  Planner Terry was not sure if there were any regulations regarding garage sale signs.

 

  1. Whether the word “visible” should be the test for signs in section 1189.10(a)(10).  He suggested language indicating that a sign cannot be read from adjacent property may be more consistent with other language in the ordinance.

 

  1. Section 1189.10(a)(11) should allow the Village Manager to authorize signage on any governmental property, not just the median banner area.

 

  1. Questioned if Council wanted vacated businesses, especially in the downtown area, to remove all signage as directed in section 1189.11(t).  Removal of all signage may cause the building to look more abandoned than leaving the signage or allowing the signage to remain as long as six months.

 

  1. Questioned if section 1189.11(u) prohibited on street signs for any business.  Manager Holycross indicated that this section does not restrict sandwich board signs.  Those signs are approved by the Planning Commission and regulated by another section of the code.  Manager Holycross suggested that perhaps this language could be improved.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that the sandwich board signs currently being used have been approved.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that this language could be read as prohibiting such signs. 

 

Vice Mayor Herman suggested that additional language be included regarding section 1189.11(t) and non-conforming signs.  He suggested adding language specific to non-conforming signs only.   Councilmember Mershon indicated that his concern was removing signage, but leaving the sign’s structure.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked for a clarification regarding the language restricting balloons.  Planner Terry indicated that the balloons mentioned in section 1189.11(e) referred to large, advertising balloons and inflatables that require a sizable attaching device.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe moved to table Ordinance No. 03-09.  Second by Councilmember McGowan.  Motion passed (6-0).  Mayor Hartfield tabled Ordinance No. 03-09 until April 1, 2009.  The public hearing for Ordinance No. 03-09 was also continued to the April 1, 2009 meeting.

 

Ordinance No. 04-09, An Ordinance to Provide One-Time Issuance of Four $20 Vouchers to Each Resident or Business that has a Water Meter Located in the Village as of May 1, 2009 was introduced by Councilmember McGowan.  Second by Vice Mayor Herman.

 

Discussion:

 

Councilmember McGowan indicated that his intention was to give something back to the residents during these tough economic times.  He indicated that he listened to Council’s concerns regarding designing legislation that would ensure the money be spent locally and the development of a voucher type program.  He indicated he would welcome any friendly amendments to increase or decrease the amount of the credit or how and where the vouchers could be used.

 

Vice Mayor Herman questioned the language in section 2(b).  He wondered if the language indicated that a voucher could only be used once or how the merchant would handle taking the voucher.  Councilmember McGowan indicated that it would be up to the policy design.  Vice Mayor Herman expressed concern about the administration of this program.  He hoped that the program could be streamlined as much as possible.  Councilmember McGowan indicated that he hoped staff could make recommendations on how the program should be implemented.  Manager Holycross indicated that it would be up to the individual merchant on how to handle specific purchases for less than the $20 amount.  The merchant would be responsible for turning the voucher into the Village for reimbursement.  Councilmember Mershon commented that this program would be more administratively complex.  He questioned Vice Mayor Herman as to if his concern was if the proposal was more administratively difficult for the Village or the merchant.  Vice Mayor Herman indicated that the proposal should be simple for both the Village and the merchant.  Councilmember Mershon commented that if the voucher program was administratively difficult for a merchant, they could choose not to participate.  Businesses or individuals could choose to give their vouchers to a local organization like the Granville Fellowship or Robbins Hunter Museum, and that organization could turn the vouchers in for funding.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if staff could estimate the cost of the administration of this proposal.  Manager Holycross indicated that staff would attempt to estimate the cost. 

 

Mayor Hartfield asked Chamber Director Barno if the Chamber had polled its membership regarding support for this legislation.  Director Barno indicated that its members were not polled, the recommendation for support of this ordinance came from a committee.  Councilmember McGowan indicated that he had spoken with Greg Ross of the Granville Market and Chuck Whitman of Whit’s Frozen Custard, and both expressed willingness to participate in the program.  Mayor Hartfield expressed her concern regarding the administrative issues for the business owners.  She acknowledged her previous suggestion of a voucher type program in the past.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that she had spoken with business owners who were not interested in participating in this program.  Councilmember Mershon stated that if the program were too troublesome for a business, they could choose not to participate. 

 

Councilmember McGowan advised that he was open to making any adjustments that might better meet Council’s concerns.  Councilmember Mershon indicated that he knew the intent of the legislation was to stimulate the local economy, but he would be willing to see local residents donate their vouchers to a group like Kiwanis to be used toward the fireworks display.

 

Mayor Hartfield stated that she understood the intent of the proposal.  She expressed concern for the future needs of the Village economically.  She indicated that she was uncertain that there would be a multiplier affect for local businesses.  She expressed concern that the affect would not be what was intended.  Councilmember McGowan indicated that his intent was twofold:  to give money back to the taxpayer and provide a stimulus to the local business.  He stated that with the lower bid results from the street improvement project, there were more funds available in the Village general fund to cover the cost of this proposal.  Councilmember McGowan indicated that the proposal would make the residents feel good about being able to get something back and emphasize the need to spend the funds locally.  Councilmember O’Keefe expressed her appreciation of Councilmember McGowan’s altruism.  However, she expressed concerns she had received from residents and her own concerns regarding potential, future budgetary issues. 

 

Councilmember Tegtmeyer moved to table the discussion of Ordinance No. 04-09 until the April 1, 2009 Council meeting.  Second by Councilmember McGowan.   Mayor Hartfield advised that the public hearing for Ordinance No. 04-09 will also be continued to the April 1, 2009 meeting.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Ordinance No. 05-09, An Ordinance to Appropriate Funds for the Pedestrian Bridge Over Raccoon Creek and Authorizing the Village Manager to Enter into a Contract for the Project was introduced by Councilmember McGowan.  Second by Councilmember O’Keefe.

 

Mayor Hartfield set the public hearing for Ordinance No. 05-09 for April 1, 2009.

 

Discussion:

 

Manager Holycross asked Councilmembers to submit questions or requests for additional information to staff prior to the next meeting.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that Council did receive additional information regarding this ordinance earlier that day.

 

Mayor Hartfield asked if the Village had to build the adjoining pathways at the time of construction.  Manager Holycross indicated that it would advantageous to complete all of this construction simultaneously.  Councilmember Mershon agreed that it made sense to complete the pathway along with the pedestrian bridge construction.

 

Resolution No. 09-23, A Resolution to Authorize the Village Manager to Apply For, Accept, and Enter into an Agreement with the Ohio Water Pollution Control Loan Fund for the Planning, Design, and Construction of Improvements at the Granville Wastewater Plant; and Designating a Dedicated Repayment Source for the Loan was moved for approval by Councilmember McGowan.  Second by Councilmember Tegtmeyer.

 

Discussion:

 

Councilmember Mershon asked the term (length) of repayment of the loan.  Manager Holycross indicated up to twenty years.  He indicated that all discussions had been based on a twenty year loan repayment plan.  Manager Holycross indicated that Brian Coghlan of Bird & Bull was available to answer any questions.

 

Mr. Coghlan provided an overview of these two projects.  These projects were nominated for consideration during the fall of 2008.  The projects were for an ultraviolet disinfection system, which would replace a current sodium hypochloride and de-chlorination system.  This change in systems was being initiated as a health and safety issue in regard to eliminating wastewater discharge into Raccoon Creek.  The current system was more than twenty years old and required an annual purchase of chemicals.  The UV system had been used successfully for the past twenty years.  The other application was for the replacement of air piping due to a large number of leaks in the current system. 

 

Mr. Coghlan indicated that the loan was fixed for twenty years at 3.64% currently for the construction loan.  The planning and design loan would be for five years as short term money, but when the construction loan was approved that loan rolls into the final loan.  Councilmember Tegtmeyer asked if there was an urgency as the interest rate could vary from this quoted amount.  Mr. Coghlan indicated that the percentage rate had not varied much in years past. 

 

Mr. Coghlan indicated that a project schedule was submitted with the application.  The State would like the project to remain on schedule.  Mr. Coghlan indicated that this application project was in the top ten of all the applications submitted statewide.  The improvements being made should last more than the twenty year loan.  As part of this application, there was also a requirement for a planning and evaluation process requiring a full system evaluation of the wastewater treatment plant.  This plan document will include any deficiencies in the system, and the Village may come back at a later date to request funding for any those projects listed on this evaluation plan.

 

Councilmember Mershon asked if there were more energy requirements for the UV system than the chlorination system.  Mr. Coghlan indicated that the Wastewater Treatment Plant had an on-site generator, which was adequate for this new system.  He indicated that he could not give an estimate of energy costs until the system was evaluated.  Councilmember Mershon asked if there were any additional capital costs.  Mr. Coghlan indicated that there were none.  Councilmember Tegtmeyer asked if the Village could expect a reduction of costs in general.  Mr. Coghlan anticipated an overall reduction of costs.  Councilmember Tegtmeyer asked if these improvements would happen in 2009.  Mr. Coghlan indicated in the affirmative.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the new air piping system would eliminate the odor from the plant.  Mr. Coghlan indicated that these new pipes would not likely affect the odor; however, there were plans to address that issue, which emanates from the collection system process.  The air piping treats the middle portion of the filtration process and does not impact that issue.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked about the issue of increased controls on phosphorus removal.  Mr. Coghlan indicated that reducing phosphorus levels will be included as part of the planning process.  A final report being prepared by the State on phosphorus limits will be finalized in 2010 and would affect our treatment plant during the next permit renewal period.

 

Councilmember Tegtmeyer asked if the Village should be more proactive in seeking additional loans after the evaluation process was complete.  Mr. Coghlan indicated that the Wastewater Treatment Plant was twenty-two or twenty-three years old and updating many of the mechanical components would be advantageous.  The evaluation process will identify the areas that may be critical.  Councilmember Tegtmeyer asked when a completed evaluation report might be available.  Mr. Coghlan indicated a report should be available in the next forty-five to sixty days.

 

Manager Holycross indicated that these projects were also submitted for economic stimulus funding.

 

Vote to approve Resolution No. 09-23. Motion carried (6-0).  Resolution No. 09-23 was adopted.

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES

 

Regularly Scheduled Meeting of February 18, 2009

 

Councilmember McGowan moved to remove the February 18, 2009 from the table.  Second by Councilmember Mershon.  Motion carried 6-0.  Clerk Prasher advised that after a review of the tape recording of the February 18th Council meeting, the comments Councilmember McGowan questioned, regarding the ineffectiveness of spending the water credit locally, were not part of that meeting.  The only comments relevant to that were made by Vice Mayor Herman and were included in the minutes.  Councilmember Tegtmeyer advised that she had already provided corrections to the Clerk.

 

Councilmember Mershon made a motion to approve the February 18, 2009 minutes as amended.  Second by Councilmember McGowan.  Motion carried 6-0.

 

Regularly Scheduled Meeting of March 4, 2009

 

Councilmember Mershon made a motion to approve the March 4, 2009 minutes.  Second by Councilmember McGowan.  Motion carried 6-0.

 

MAYOR’S COURT REPORT – February

 

The Mayor’s Court Report for the month of February was presented for review.

 

Councilmember Tegtmeyer questioned the high number of traffic citations.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that the traffic citation number was larger than the number of actual court appearances.  Manager Holycross indicated that he would check on the citation number and what was included in that line item.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there was anything specific regarding criminal complaints that Council should review.  Manager Holycross indicated that were was nothing specific and the detailed descriptions of the citations were outlined in the police report.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe moved to accept the February Mayor’s Court Report.  Second by Councilmember Tegtmeyer.  Motion carried 6-0.

 

Mayor Hartfield instructed the report be filed with the Clerk.  A copy of the report will be included as part of these minutes. 

 

MANAGER’S REPORT – February

 

The Manager’s Report for the month of February was presented for review.   

  

Mayor Hartfield stated that the number of calls to the various district schools were dropping.  Manager Holycross indicated in the affirmative.  He also advised that in the future, the calls to district schools report would reflect unsecured building calls only.

 

Mayor Hartfield stated that the income tax receipts were good.  Manager Holycross indicated that he was very satisfied with the tax receipt levels thus far, but it was still early in the year to make specific predictions.

 

Councilmember Mershon moved to accept the February Monthly Manager’s Report   Second by Councilmember McGowan.  Motion carried 6-0.

 

Mayor Hartfield instructed the report be filed with the Clerk.  A copy of said report will be included as part of these minutes

 

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS   

 

Economic, Finance, Personnel Committee (EFP) – (Hartfield, Herman, Tegtmeyer) 

Mayor Hartfield indicated that the EFP Committee meeting minutes were included as part of the packet.  Council was provided a copy of the non-profit funding draft.  The Committee would like to have Council review the draft and discuss the specifics of the draft at the next meeting.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that the Committee recommended that Council review and make a decision on the two requests already before Council, prior to approving the non-profit funding policy.  Manager Holycross indicated that one of the organizations indicated that there was some urgency in receiving a response to their funding request.  Councilmember Tegtmeyer indicated that the Committee reviewed several policies from other communities.  The Committee was interested in any additional suggestions or recommendations regarding the policy from Council.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked, if after her retirement as Director of the Granville Fellowship, would there still be a conflict of interest on issues involving the Fellowship.  Law Director Crites indicated that he would research that issue.

 

Granville Foundation – (Tegtmeyer)

Councilmember Tegtmeyer reported that the Foundation discussed a multi-year funding policy, but decided to hold off on making a decision regarding that issue.

 

Light, Safety, Sts/Sidewalks, Utility Committee (LSSU) – (Herman, McGowan, O’Keefe)

Manager Holycross indicated that the Committee will probably meet in April.  There were no specific issues to discuss currently.

 

Planning Commission – (O’Keefe)

Councilmember O’Keefe reported that the Planning Commission approved a sign and a roof replacement.

 

Planning & Zoning Committee – (Barsky, Hartfield, O’Keefe)

No Report. 

 

Recreation Commission – (McGowan)

No report.

 

Tree & Landscape Commission (Barsky)

No report.

 

Union Cemetery (Mershon)

No report.

 

OTHER COUNCIL MATTERS

 

Mayor Hartfield indicated that due to the hour, Council would continue the discussion of the goals & objectives at a later meeting.  Manager Holycross indicated that Council would need to prioritize each item at some point.

Councilmember O’Keefe asked Councilmember Mershon about the progress of a single trash hauler for the Village.  Councilmember Mershon indicated the minutes summarized the next action steps were in the Manager’s control.  Mayor Hartfield indicated that George Wells was really George Wales.  The minutes of that meeting would be amended.

 

Councilmember Tegtmeyer advised that a number of Granville players and coaches from the Newark Generals Ice Hockey Team won the state championship.  The team had been invited to a Newark City Council meeting in April to be recognized for this accomplishment.  Councilmember Tegtmeyer asked if Granville’s Village Council would be interested in recognizing the team as many of the participants were Granville residents.  As a proud mother of a team member, she asked for Council’s indulgence.  Councilmember Mershon suggested a proclamation and invite the team to a Council meeting.

ADJOURNMENT (10:02pm)

 

Councilmember McGowan moved to adjourn the meeting.  Second by Councilmember Mershon.  Motion carried 6-0.  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.