VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE
July 17, 2013
CALL TO ORDER (by Mayor Hartfield at 7:30pm)
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Those responding to the roll call were Councilmembers Johnson, Lerner, McGowan, O’Keefe, Vice Mayor Barsky, Mayor Hartfield, Manager Stilwell and Law Director King.
APPROVAL TO EXCUSE COUNCILMEMBER
Vice Mayor Barsky approve the absence of Councilmember Montgomery. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion passed.
CITIZENS COMMENTS (7:32pm)
As no one appeared to speak, Mayor Hartfield closed Citizen Comments at 7:32pm.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Vice Mayor Barsky moved to approve the agenda as presented. Second by Councilmember Lerner. Motion passed.
Ordinance No. 10-2013, An Ordinance to Amend Section 1143.04 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to the Review Procedure.
Ordinance No. 11-2013, An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1189.01, 1189.05, 1189.06, 1189.09, 1189.10 and 1189.11 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to the Review Procedure.
Ordinance No. 12-2013, An Ordinance to Amend Section 1162 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to the Review Procedure.
Ordinance No. 13-2013, An Ordinance to Amend Ordinance No. 22-2012 Providing for Adjustment of the Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 and Revising Sums for Operating Expenses.
As no one appeared to speak, Mayor Hartfield closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 PM.
Ordinance No. 10-2013, An Ordinance to Amend Section 1143.04 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to the Review Procedure was introduced and moved for adoption by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Vice Mayor Barsky.
Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to approve Ordinance No. 10-2013: Councilmembers Johnson – yes; Lerner – yes; McGowan – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Vice Mayor Barsky – yes and Mayor Hartfield – yes. Motion carried 6-0. Ordinance No. 10-2013 was approved.
Ordinance No. 11-2013, An Ordinance to Amend Sections 1189.01, 1189.05, 1189.06, 1189.09, 1189.10 and 1189.11 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to the Review Procedure was introduced and moved for adoption by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Vice Mayor Barsky.
Mayor Hartfield indicated this ordinance was previously reviewed and discussed by Council with the Village Planner. Councilmember O’Keefe asked when a sign approval could potentially come before Village Council as it pertained to Section 1189.06 of the Code. Planner Terry stated that this legislation related to permanent signage within the public right-of-way. The Planning Commission was not the board that would address within the right-of-way. Councilmember Johnson indicated that the section in the Code stated that the Village Manager or Council would give the approval. Should the Village Manager approve a sign that Council did not like, Council would have the ability to modify it. Councilmember McGowan agreed and stated that this section of the Code could be modified in the future, if needed. Councilmember O’Keefe stated Section 1189.10 related to murals painted on building walls should be of a non-commercial nature. She questioned how religious or political murals would be handled. Law Director King indicated such an application would be reviewed by staff particularly reviewing freedom of speech issues. Political speech required a higher standard evaluation and was harder to regulate. Law Director King suggested leaving the current language. Councilmember Johnson stated that the mural on Abe’s Auto Body was allowed due to the nature of the mural. If the proposal had been for a commercial sign or for commercial branding, a mural of this size and nature would not have been permitted.
Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to approve Ordinance No. 11-2013: Councilmembers Lerner – yes; McGowan – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Johnson – yes; Vice Mayor Barsky – yes and Mayor Hartfield – yes. Motion carried 6-0. Ordinance No. 11-2013 was approved.
Ordinance No. 12-2013, An Ordinance to Amend Section 1162 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to the Review Procedure was introduced and moved for adoption by Vice Mayor Barsky. Seconded by Councilmember McGowan.
Vice Mayor Barsky questioned if the proposed amendments were required in order to streamline the process and maintain consistency. Village Planner Terry responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to approve Ordinance No. 12-2013: Councilmembers McGowan – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Johnson – yes; Lerner – yes; Vice Mayor Barsky – yes and Mayor Hartfield – yes. Motion carried 6-0. Ordinance No. 12-2013 was approved.
Ordinance No. 13-2013, An Ordinance to Amend Ordinance No. 22-2012 Providing for Adjustments of the Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 and Revising Sums for Operating Expenses was introduced and moved for adoption by Councilmember O’Keefe. Second by Vice Mayor Barsky.
Councilmember O’Keefe inquired if the St. Luke’s addition would impact funding regarding the storm sewer costs. Manager Stillwell stated that the storm sewer had been redesigned with additional funding from St. Luke’s that would accommodate any addition. The capacity of the sewer line that was recently installed was increased. The cost for that increase was covered by St. Luke’s. Manager Stilwell added that the public improvements were all completed with the proposed changes to St. Luke’s in mind.
Councilmember Johnson made a motion amend Ordinance No. 13-2013 to insert General Fund – Storm Sewers – A01 – D – 250 as b in Section 2, under the third Where As. Second by Councilmember McGowan.
Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to amend Ordinance No. 13. 2013:
Councilmembers O’Keefe – yes; Johnson – yes; Lerner – yes; McGowan – yes; Vice Mayor Barsky – yes and Mayor Hartfield – yes. Motion carried 6-0. Ordinance No. 13-2013 was amended.
Mayor Hartfield called for a roll call vote to approve Ordinance No. 13-2013 as amended: Councilmembers Johnson – yes; Lerner – yes; McGowan – yes; O’Keefe – yes; Vice Mayor Barsky – yes and Mayor Hartfield – yes. Motion carried 6-0. Ordinance No. 13-2013 was approved as amended.
Resolution No. 2013-12, A Resolution to Permit the Demolition of a Single Family House at 2486 Newark-Granville Road was moved for removal from the Table by Councilmember O’Keefe. Second by Vice Mayor Barsky. Resolution No. 2013-12 was removed from the table.
Councilmembers Johnson and Lerner recused themselves.
Gill Miller, West Broadway, stated that the longer Council delayed making a decision on the future of the structure, the more damage could be done to the home. She indicated that she was aware of a family losing their home to ODOT, who might have interest in buying the home and restoring it
Mayor Hartfield stated that after reviewing the information, including the opinion written by Gil Miller, if this home were located in the downtown area, the proposed demolition would not be tolerated. Mayor Hartfield indicated that this issue struck her at her core and could not support the demolition.
Councilmember O’Keefe stated that she saw the demolition as a removal of so much Village history and architectural art that was appreciated in the community. Some of the flavor of the community would be lost without the existence of the structure.
Vice Mayor Barsky stated that she agreed, adding that it was an inappropriate message to send to the community that a house could simply be neglected and a demolition request made that would permit the home to be removed. She also was not inclined to grant permission for the demolition.
Councilmember McGowan indicated that as one Councilmember was absent and three Councilmembers were against the demolition, he would not vote opposite the other Councilmembers.
Councilmember O’Keefe made a motion to deny the demolition permit for the single family house at 2486 Newark-Granville Road, Application No. 2013-12. Second by Vice Mayor Barsky. Motion carried 4-0. Resolution No.2013-12 failed.
Councilmembers Johnson and Lerner rejoined the Council meeting.
Resolution No. 2013-45, A Resolution to Appoint a Member to the Bryn Du Commission was introduced and moved for approval by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Vice Mayor Barsky.
Councilmember McGowan stated they had two excellent candidates, who submitted applications. He suggested Keith Myers be appointed to the Bryn Du Commission, as he had experience as a commission member previously. Councilmember Lerner thanked Mr. Petrosky, who was present at the meeting, for volunteering to serve the community after living in the Village for such a short period. Council encouraged Mr. Petrosky to submit his name for other potential openings on Village boards and commissions.
Mayor Hartfield called for a vote to approve Resolution No. 2013-45. Motion carried. Resolution No. 2013-45 was adopted.
Ordinance No. 14-2013, An Ordinance Adopting Permanent Zoning (Village Gateway District – VGD) for the Village Services Department Property on 1833 Lancaster Road and Kiwanis Property on 1055 Old River Road was introduced and a hearing date recommended for August 7, 2013 by Councilmember Johnson. Second by Vice Mayor Barsky.
Planner Terry stated that Granville Kiwanis was in support of the rezoning application, but had not requested the rezoning. Kiwanis member Jennifer Lawrence was in the audience and available for questions. Planner Terry explained that the utilities would not be affected by this rezoning. All easements were also in place.
Mayor Hartfield clarified with Planner Terry that this legislation was a housekeeping measure. Planner Terry responded in the affirmative.
Manager Stilwell indicated that these properties were changing from Township zoning to Village zoning. The rezoning process slipped through the cracks during the transition of managers. This legislation would bring the properties into compliance with Village zoning rules and regulations.
As part of full disclosure, Mayor Hartfield indicated that her family owned property across the street from these properties. Councilmember McGowan indicated that he was also a Kiwanian. Law Director King indicated that these matters could and should be disclosed; however, it need not prohibit Mayor Hartfield or Councilmember McGowan from voting on the Ordinance.
Mayor Hartfield scheduled a public hearing for Ordinance No. 14-2013 for August 7, 2013.
Ordinance No. 15-2013, An Ordinance Adopting the Application to Rezone Property Owned by Denison University at 1375 North Street from Planned Unit Development District (PUD) to Institutional District (ID) was introduced and a hearing date recommended for August 7, 2013 by Councilmember McGowan. Second by Vice Mayor Barsky.
Mayor Hartfield scheduled a public hearing for Ordinance No. 15-2013 for August 7, 2013.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
Regularly Scheduled Meeting of June 17, 2013
Councilmember McGowan moved to approve the June 17, 2013 minutes as amended. Second by Vice Mayor Barsky. Motion carried.
MAYOR' S REPORT – June
The Mayor's report for the month of June was presented for review.
Vice Mayor Barsky moved to accept the June Mayor’s Report. Second by Councilmember McGowan. Motion carried.
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 – June
The Manager's report for the month of June was presented for review.
Councilmember O’Keefe moved to accept the June Manager’s Report. Second by Vice Mayor Barsky. Motion carried.
Mayor Hartfield instructed the report be filed with the Clerk. A copy of the report will be included as part of these minutes.
Granville Education Foundation – (Lerner)
Granville Foundation – (Montgomery)
Granville Recreation District – (McGowan)
Planning Commission – (Johnson)
Open Space Committee (O’Keefe)
Tree & Landscape Commission – (Lerner)
Union Cemetery – (Barsky)
Vice Mayor Barsky reported the Fannins completed their work by June 30th, despite the weather. The cemetery board was still awaiting the Fannins final report.
OTHER COUNCIL MATTERS
Review of St. Luke’s Development Plan
Rector Stephen Applegate, 117 South Plum Street and Rector of St. Luke’s, was before Council to continue a conversation started on March 20th regarding plans for an addition to St. Luke’s. Approvals for variances were approved by the BZBA and Planning Commission on April 21st and June 24th. Keith Myers met with the Tree and Landscape Commission regarding renovations to Opera House Park. Rector Applegate stated he was not approaching Council to seek their approval for plans for a sunken public garden at the back of the addition. Church members also expressed an interest in a columbarium in this area of the church. Rector Applegate stated that burials in or near churchyards were a historical tradition. St. Luke’s would like to explore the possibility of establishing a columbarium. Such an application would require approval from the state of Ohio. Rector Applegate indicated that many churches pursued similar columbarium’s including St. John’s Church in Worthington and another church in Bexley. As this request would involve the use of public land, he and members of St. Luke’s were approaching Council this evening to gauge their opinion regarding permitting a columbarium.
Keith Myers, 229 East College Street, explained how the proposed pathways would connect directly to Opera House Park. He stated that the sunken garden would be accessible to anyone, at all times. Mr. Myers indicated that the garden would be a quiet, small and very intimate recollection garden with bronze plaques/tablatures on the wall for the columbarium. The lower level of the church would connect to the Park. Mr. Myers presented very early images of how the space would look. He apologized to Council for not providing more details, which would be available further along in the process
Mayor Hartfield questioned if St. Luke’s needed approval of the columbarium in order to move forward with their addition plans. Rector Applegate indicated that an approval of the columbarium was not needed for the addition project to move forward. However, their parishioners expressed an interest in the rear garden area for the burial of ashes. Rector Applegate explained there would be niches available within the wall for cremation remains.
Councilmember Lerner asked Rector Applegate to explain the niches, as she considered a niche to be an open space. Rector Applegate explained that remains would be placed in precast concrete that was a structural part of the wall. A bronze plate would cover each niche and would not be able to be opened.
Councilmember McGowan indicated no preference for the proposal. Some individuals may be against the proposal as it would be on public land. Also other churches mentioned having columbaria, but those would be on private land. Rector Applegate agreed with Councilmember McGowan’s comments, but St. Luke’s had been on public land since the 1800s.
Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the wall would be located on public land. Law Director King commented that the wall was not considered public property. Staff was looking at zoning associated with this request. Current zoning was Village Square District. Cemeteries were only permitted in the Village Open Space district. Law Director King explained that the property would either have to be rezoned or cemeteries would need to be added as a Conditional Use to the Village Square District zoning classification. Manager Stilwell indicated staff needed to do further research regarding this request regarding possible zoning changes and the state of Ohio licensure issues.
Mayor Hartfield indicated her support of the sunken garden, but was unsure of the columbarium request. Councilmember McGowan questioned if other churches could make a similar request including St. Edwards, the Catholic church. Law Director King stated that the Catholic Church was unlike the four churches on the four corners as it was located in a different zoning district. Law Director King agreed it was not unreasonable to believe other churches could lobby for a similar of request.
Vice Mayor Barsky commented that she was interested in knowing the impact to the Township should the proposed columbarium no longer be able to be maintained. Law Director King indicated that he would research whether the columbarium could be made the perpetual responsibility of the church. He stated there may be a statutes that require a trust be set up with the state of Ohio prior to approving the installation. There are various legal analyses that would need to take completed to determine all of the ramifications of this installation.
Rector Applegate commented that this wall was intended as part of their building plans all along. The wall would be four-foot below grade and four-foot above grade to prevent someone from falling into the garden. Councilmember McGowan questioned if the columbarium could be located within the church versus part of the outside wall. Rector Applegate indicated that the columbarium could be inside, but that would not resolve the public land issue. Councilmember McGowan indicated the columbarium would be better suited inside the church, although he requested that the Law Director look into all potential possibilities. Vice Mayor Barsky agreed and commented that she would like more information on the issue involved with the columbarium being located on public land.
Rector Applegate stated records would be kept identifying remains to lessen any burden to the Village should the columbarium ever need to be relocated.
Councilmember Johnson indicated that the Planner should identify any necessary zoning code changes. Law Director King recommended Council consider a Conditional Use for a cemetery as part of the Village Square District, rather than rezoning the district. Manager Stilwell encouraged Council to think about the request and send any questions to Law Director King regarding any issues involving the columbarium.
Discussion of Electrical Aggregation
Manager Stilwell advised Council that Trustee Dan VanNess was present for this discussion. The Township has elected to place electrical aggregation on the November ballot. Manager Stilwell indicated that Council asked Law Director King what action, if any, was required by this Council to perfect the Township’s ability to place aggregation on the ballot for Township residents. Council was provided an opinion from Law Director King and a comment from Manager Stilwell. Manager Stilwell indicated that additional information was still needed about specific aggregation programs. He also indicated that he felt ill-equipped to give an opinion either way as to if aggregation was a good or bad option.
Law Director King commented that his opinion was based on an old Supreme Court case, discussions with the Licking County Prosecutor and excerpts from the Ohio Revised Code. In answer to Council’s original question as to whether the Township could move forward with an aggregation proposal for Village residents, they could not. Council would need to make a decision regarding Village residents and aggregation. Law Director King stated the Township could put the issue on the ballot for Township residents, but it would not affect Village residents unless Council passed an Ordinance also selecting aggregation. Putting the issue on the ballot would not bind Council to move forward with electrical aggregation, it would just make aggregation possible. Manager Stilwell stated the Village had the opt-out option for residents should aggregation be pursued. The Township passed a resolution to pursue an opt out aggregation program.
Councilmember Johnson questioned how if Council moved forward with an opt-out ballot issue and voters approved the issue, would the Village still be bound to proceed. Law Director King indicated that Council may reach the conclusion that the opt-out option was not in the best interest of residents after terms were negotiated. Council could then advise constituents as to why it was not in the best interest for residents to pursue the program. Councilmember Johnson stated this expedited timeline and call for an emergency ordinance would not give Council much time to understand the implications of the program. Mayor Hartfield agreed, adding that the November election was not the only upcoming election. Council may be rushing into a decision that Council needed to understand more thoroughly.
Manager Stilwell explained a ballot issue would ask residents should aggregation be offered. Once approved, a request for an aggregation certification would then go to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) for approval. Manager Stilwell explained that an opt-out program takes an affirmative action by the residents to not be part of the plan, which he found a concern. In May of 2015, AEP would be forced to bid the electrical commodity charge causing many changes. These proposed changes were designed to encourage competition. Manager Stilwell indicated that the overall intent was good, but some of the opt-out details are disconcerting. However, Manager Stilwell indicated that he could not find anything wrong with the plan. The best program would allow the customer to always have the ability to withdraw from the program without penalty.
Councilmember McGowan questioned if the issue were approved, who would select the new supplier and negotiate the contract. Manager Stilwell stated there were no answers to these questions as yet. His recommendation would be for the Township to negotiate the program details, if the issue were approved.
Mayor Hartfield clarified that the Village could not move forward with aggregation without the issue being on the ballot. Law Director King indicated that the opt-inoption would not need to be on the ballot.
Vice Mayor Barsky mentioned that gas aggregation programs typically had a withdraw fee. Manager Stilwell stated that most aggregation programs that were recently negotiated do not have fees or penalties for withdraw from the program.
Mayor Hartfield explained that in order to put this issue on the ballot in November, a special Council meeting would need to be held for an ordinance to be passed by emergency on Wednesday, July 31st. Manager Stilwell indicated that Village staff could have sufficient legislation before Council if they choose to move forward with a special meeting.
Councilmember O’Keefe inquired on the contract negotiations. Manager Stilwell stated that any contract could be no longer than three years. All transmission and distribution systems would still be handled by AEP regardless of any aggregation program.
Rob Barkley, 507 Wenchill Court, Dublin, stated that he worked for AEP Energy. AEP Energy was created by AEP to be a more competitive commodity seller and not restricted by AEP tariffs. Mr. Barkley stated one way for residents to achieve electricity savings was to respond to mailings (opt-in), but another more efficient way was through municipal aggregation programs. The state of Ohio has created an opt-out aggregation program for communities. Mr. Barkley indicated that there are opt-in programs; however, only 10-15% of the residents choose to opt-in. Mr. Barkley indicated that Granville would not be the first community to create an opt-out aggregation plan, as Upper Arlington recently created such a program. Upper Arlington took this issue very seriously and was concerned about whether this program was appropriate for their well-educated community. Mr. Barkley indicated that the legislation provided that anyone with kilowatt usage under 700,000 annually would benefit from the program, so members such as the Chamber, Rotary and smaller entities could benefit. He stated the rate selected would be negotiated and with a zero termination fee and no penalty should someone leave the program early. This information would be clearly stated in residential information.
Councilmember Johnson asked what a normal timeline was for a community selecting an aggregation supplier. Mr. Barkley indicated that a company could potentially be selected by the first week of November. He explained the only deadline was the August 7th deadline to file for ballot inclusion. Councilmember Johnson asked if ballot issues had failed. Mr. Barkley indicated in the affirmative, but by a narrow margin. Voters were familiar with issues involving gas aggregation regarding contracts and miscommunication, but these were not issues with electric aggregation.
Mayor Hartfield asked Council if they were interested in holding a special meeting to decide on placing electric aggregation on the November ballot. Councilmember O’Keefe stated she was in support of putting this issue on the November ballot.
Vice Mayor Barsky asked how competitive was AEP Energy pricing. Mr. Barkley stated AEP Energy rates were not tied to generation prices as power could be created anywhere. The economics of electrical energy pricing created excess generation in the market and an imbalance in the market. Mayor Hartfield commented that the excess energy would not always last. Mr. Barkley agreed, indicating that the term of the agreement was negotiable. Now was the best time for municipalities to take advantage of these energy savings.
Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the Township had already considered an energy supplier. Trustee VanNess stated that the Trustees only passed a resolution to put electrical aggregation on the ballot as an opportunity to save constituents money. If residents find a better deal, they could opt-out. Mr. Barkley advised Council that he had an example of a mailing used for the city of Bucyrus showing the potential savings.
Mayor Hartfield thanked Mr. Barkley for attending the meeting as a resource.
Councilmember Johnson questioned who would manage the advertising and educational component of any program.
Councilmember Lerner asked if the Village joined the Township on electrical aggregation, was the Township assuming a better rate could be negotiated. Trustee VanNess stated that was the Trustee’s assumption. Councilmember Lerner asked if the Village could leave and separate at some point from any deal made by the Township. Law Director King responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Lerner suggested that the Village could offer an opt-out program along with the Township at a later time. Trustee VanNess stated that Council should give constituents an opportunity to save money. Mayor Hartfield reiterated that issues with natural gas aggregation showed that supposed good deals led to unexpected consequences.
Councilmember O’Keefe stated individual residents would have a hard time deciding what decision to make. It could be in the best interest of the residents if the municipality made the cost saving decision for them. It was beneficial for the community if both the Township and Village was involved.
Councilmember Lerner questioned if this issue was urgent enough to warrant an emergency meeting and ordinance. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if this could be on the primary ballot in May. Law Director King responded in the affirmative. Mayor Hartfield stated she was not opposed to this issue on the ballot, but felt the process was too rushed. Councilmember O’Keefe stated that the Township would be placing this issue on the ballot regardless of what the Village decides. Trustee VanNess agreed and indicated that the best savings for residents were between now and 2015 when providers would be chosen for those who had not yet opted-in. Earlier subscribers could get a 20% savings. Constituents might ask why Council was not proceeding forward on this issue.
Councilmember McGowan added that whoever was the Village supplier may now be willing to negotiate a price to prevent the Village from looking elsewhere. Councilmember McGowan stated he would like to know who would be negotiating the contract. Law Director King stated a supplier would not likely be determined until after the vote.
Councilmember Johnson questioned how additional information could be gathered within the next fourteen days for a special Council meeting. Mr. Barkley stated he was certainly available as a resource.
Councilmember Lerner asked if signatures would be required for the issue to be placed on the ballot. Manager Stilwell stated the passage of an ordinance by Council could place this issue on the ballot. Mayor Hartfield stated that if a special meeting was called and the ordinance was passed by emergency, five affirmative Council votes would be needed for passage. Council agreed to hold a special meeting on July 31st and cancel the meeting should things fall apart. Council indicated that any decision would be based on the information gathered to address their concerns. Law Director King stated he would investigate whether an emergency ordinance would be needed to place the issue on the ballot. Councilmember Johnson stated he would need to understand the framework of how a contract would be negotiated before he could support any ordinance. Vice Mayor Barsky stated she would like additional information on who would handle judgments for and against the issue.
Councilmember McGowan made a motion to hold a Special Council meeting on Wednesday, July 31st at 7:30pm to discuss an ordinance regarding electrical aggregation. Second by Councilmember O’Keefe. Motion carried. A Special Council meeting will be held on July 31st at 7:30pm in Council Chambers.
OTHER STAFF MATTERS
Councilmember McGowan commented that the traffic light at Pearl and Broadway was set at 15 seconds duration, while the other lights on Broadway were 45 seconds. He explained that the timer may need to be reset.
Councilmember Johnson inquired about the reported eight (8) thefts in June. Law Director King stated that those incidents were related to one person who was charged with various counts of theft.
Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she witnessed individuals soliciting in the Village. She stated residents are not always aware that solicitors must get permission from the Village to solicit.
Councilmember Johnson stated he would not be attending the first meeting in August.
Councilmember McGowan made a motion to adjourn. Second by Councilmember Johnson. Motion carried.