Invocation was given by: Dr. Richard
Lapehn, Pastor followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes – December 1, 2008
Johnson moved to approve, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
A Presentation by EMS Chief Baillis and
Fire Chief Sweigert
EMS Chief Baillis and Fire Chief Sweigert presented
commendation pins and lifesaving certificates to EMT-I/FF Jeremy
Straub, EMT-B/FF Sam McComas, EMT-P/FF Curtis Russell, EMT-B/FF
Adam Dheel, EMT-B Cale
Bachman, FF Jay Russell and EMT-B/FF Jason Wellman for
their lifesaving efforts in August of 2008 to Arthur Rowe during
his sudden cardiac arrest along with his wife Mrs. Rowe and neighbor
Betty Cline who performed CPR until help arrived. It was noted,
Mr. Rowe is alive today due to these efforts and all involved
should be commended.
Workshop
a.
Discussion of
the Rates for Sewerage Disposal
City Manager Boggs provided Council with a spreadsheet,
which illustrated approximately
47% of the water/sewer billing was made up of households who use 0 to 3,000
gallons of water each month. Boggs indicated households using
from 4,000 to 13,000 gallons per month consisted of 50% of the
households for a total of 97% of the customers falling within
this consumption range. Boggs indicated while no one likes increasing
the rates he felt they needed to do something on a consistent
basis to keep up with escalating costs to provide this service
citing the maintenance and ongoing capital improvement needs of
the sewer system and recommended the rate not change for those
using 0-1,000 gallons of water and a slight increase for those
households using 2,000 and 3,000 and a 6% increase for all others.
Finance Director Mann provided Council with a spreadsheet, which
outlined the cost per thousand gallons based on average charges
per month divided by 1,000 gallons billed. Mann indicated her
chart depicted the costs if Council increased the rates 6%, 4%
or 2% as well as the revenue that would be generated based on
the percentage increased.
Council Member Copley advised based on figures over a ten-year period
provided earlier if they averaged the straight revenue divided
by the number of gallons used for each year it came out to $4.30
per thousand gallons. Copley indicated the revenue divided by
gallons billed averaged out to $5.77 per thousand gallons over
a ten-year period. Copley advised he wanted to keep the base rate
“as is” because he felt the rate was in excess of the actual cost
and the upper levels were below that threshold and the break even
point using the $4.30 per M/gal. he felt was at 17-18,000 gallons of usage. Copley felt they
needed to increase the rate for all the tiers after the first
one, as the first two tiers he felt basically pay for the other
tiers.
It was noted, there was an error in the codified ordinance book,
as it did not have the 6% increases for the last two years for
the commercial/industrial rates.
Copley noted, he got the $4.30 per M/gal based on the ten-year revenue
versus thousand gallons used, which was basically taking the total
revenue and dividing it by the total cost divided by total gallons
on a per year basis.
Mann indicated that was in gallons billed and not gallons treated,
which was not the same.
Copley advised his point was that he was not sure the rates were
a problem.
It was noted this did not take into account the maintenance costs
or capital improvements.
Boggs indicated the surplus did not take into account the capital
projects needed. Boggs indicated the fact that they haven’t done
a lot of capital projects in recent years was starting to hurt
the integrity of the system.
Copley agreed and if should they raise the rates he felt they should
set some funds aside for capital projects.
Boggs advised part of the reason they have had a surplus was due
to the Caraustar Agreement and that was gone now.
Mann concurred and advised that was approximately $120,000 a year
and now they were not going to have that surplus coming into the
city.
Utilities Director Metcalf advised there were important capital
improvements that need taken care of and they were trying to get
a handle on the expenses and revenue and they have had to be conservative
in doing those projects in the past. Metcalf advised he could
provide a five-year plan for capital projects to justify rate
increases, as those would benefit the residents and the city as
a whole in the long run to not neglect the infrastructure or the
equipment. Metcalf advised the actual cost for treated water and
sewer comes out to approximately a penny a gallon including the
maintenance, the capital improvements and the water and sewer
usage. He advised we were providing a good service at a low cost
and the discrepancy in the surplus fund was due to the lack of
aggressiveness in the repair/capital improvement area in recent
years.
Copley suggested they set aside a dollar amount per bill strictly
for capital improvements such as $1 per bill, which would add
$67,000 a year and $2 per bill would add approximately $150,000.
He advised he felt this would help us go forward and maintain
our system, which in the long run would save us money. Copley
advised this would be the approach he would like to see taken.
Boggs indicated he tried to breakdown the first tier so the burden
didn’t lie mainly with those families with children in the home.
Council Member Carey clarified if the funds from Caraustar were
removed from the equation, the city would have lost money. Carey
advised if they do exactly the same as last year they would be
in the red and he didn’t see how they could not do something.
Council Member Lapehn advised it seemed as if each community bills
in a different way for water and sewer usage and he inquired as
to why the minimum bill was 0-3,000 gallons of usage.
Metcalf advised most of the customers fall within the lower two
tiers and he would have to look at how other communities were
billing, but they have to support the integrity of the system
as 97% of the people fall within the first two tiers.
Lapehn indicated he sees it completely opposite of the way Copley
does, as there generally was a price break when you purchase more
of a commodity than less. He advised thus, the person receiving
fewer gallons does typically pay more per gallon than the person
using the higher range. Lapehn advised for approximately more
than 12-15 years the city did not increase the sewer rates and
back in 1987-1991 there was a surplus of money and ever since
they have been chipping away at that overage until the last five
years they have had to raise the rates at least three times. Lapehn
advised we have been spending more per year than we have been
collecting and he felt the rates were going to have to go up.
Copley advised the issue he has with charging per thousand beginning
with the first 1,000 was the cost would be $25, which was well
above our cost.
Citizens Forum – No comments were made.
Old Business
a.
Motion to Remove Ord. No. 7532 from the Table
Johnson so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
b. Ord. No. 7532 An Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Rittman, Wayne and Medina Counties, Ohio, Amending Codified
Ordinance 941.05 to Increase the Rate for Sewerage Disposal from
January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010 and Declaring an Emergency.
First Reading. Copley
moved to amend and raise all tiers except the base tier of 0-3,000
gallons usage by 6%, upon roll call; Carey-No, Copley-Yes, Russell-No,
Johnson-Yes, Lapehn-No, Beaumont-No and motion failed. Johnson
moved amend and not increase the sewer rates, upon roll call;
Beaumont-No, Lapehn-No, Johnson-Yes, Russell-Yes, Copley-Yes,
Carey-No (3-3), Mayor-No and motion failed. Beaumont
advised he felt to be consistent and fair to all they should allocate
a certain amount of funds for capital improvement projects. After
some discussion there was a general consensus the funds for capital
projects could be considered in a separate piece of legislation.
It was noted a 6% percent increase across the board would generate
approximately $69,000 in revenue. Beaumont moved to amend and
increase the sewer rates 6% for all tiers, upon roll call; Carey-Yes,
Copley-No, Russell-No, Johnson-No, Lapehn-Yes, Beaumont-Yes (3-3),
Mayor-Yes and motion carried. Lapehn moved to place on
second as amended, upon roll call; Beaumont-Yes, Lapehn-Yes, Johnson-No,
Russell-No, Copley-No, Carey-Yes (3-3), Mayor-Yes and motion
carried.
c. Ord. No. 7533 An Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Rittman, Wayne and Medina Counties and State of Ohio,
Amending Section 941.05 to Establish Section (D) Sanitary User
Charges, to Amend this Section of the Codified Ordinances of the
City of Rittman and Declaring an Emergency. Second
Reading. Law Director Bower clarified in answer to a
question from Copley that this ordinance gives a place in the
codified ordinances to allow Council to enter into an agreement
with the Apostolic Home. Lapehn moved to place on third, upon
roll call; Johnson-No, Russell-No, Lapehn-Yes, Beaumont-Yes, Copley-No,
Carey-Yes (3-3), Mayor-Yes and motion carried.
d. Res. No. 7534 A Resolution of the Council of the
City of Rittman, Wayne and Medina Counties, Ohio, Authorizing
the Municipal Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Apostolic
Christian Nursing Home for Sewer Service. Second
Reading.
Johnson inquired if the $100,000 upfront tap-in fee
was not (offered) would Council even be considering this (agreement).
Beaumont advised they authorized the City Manager to negotiate
an agreement with the Apostolic Home and he did and we have discussed
it for the last 3 or 4 meetings. Beaumont advised (Boggs) came to us with his recommendation, which
he thought was an acceptable negotiated agreement. Beaumont advised (Boggs) took the agreement as
a package and not as bits and pieces and while the $100,000 was
an integral part of the whole negotiated agreement it was part
of what was recommended to (Council) and up to this point
the agreement that we have accepted. Beaumont
advised he didn’t feel it was fair to pick out certain pieces
of what they authorized the City Manager to negotiate.
Copley advised he wasn’t so worried about the nursing
home and the church, but there were 41 apartments and he inquired
if they have separate kitchens and bathrooms or if they share
a common one.
Administrator Maletich advised they were independent living apartments by
code.
Copley advised there was a section in the current code,
which requires non-residential units (meaning single family units
outside the city limits) that have restrooms and kitchen facilities
to pay $2,500 per unit for a (sewer) tap-in fee, which would be
well over the $100,000. Copley advised with this contract they
were not only providing for a discounted tap-in fee, but also
a discounted rate in the future. He advised when he was calculating
the sewer analysis the cost per thousand gallons was between $4-$5
according to the last ten-years data
and at $4.30 per M/gal. the city rate was around $1,100 twice
(outside city) would be around $2,200 and Maletich
estimated they expected to use approximately 337,000 gallons per
month and those gallons would cost the City of Rittman $1,449.10
and at the city rate we would be losing $346 per month. Copley
advised the contract does provide 110% for the first 15 years
meaning we would only be losing $236 per month. He advised beginning
at year 16 at 125% we would be losing $71 per month for supplying
the nursing home with this service. Copley inquired if it was
fair that someone outside the city was costing the residents of
the community every month. He advised assuming the current code
dictates those outside the city should pay 200% (although it could
mean 300%) the city would have additional revenue of $755 per
month assuming a cost of $4.30 per M/gal. Copley advised the city
would be providing a service outside the city and he felt it was
not unconscionable that the city should make a lit bit (financially).
Russell indicated the contract was not final yet and
he felt the City Manager could still negotiate if Council was
not happy with the terms.
Johnson indicated he felt they should amend the ordinance
to include the apartments if they were separate facilities and
expected to have sewer provided.
Mayor Robertson advised the bottom of page 1 of the
attached contract states, “Apostolic Christian Nursing Home
shall mean the nursing home or resident care facility and its
attendant assisted living units”.
Johnson advised he felt that language should be in the
ordinance.
It was noted the ordinance reference the attached Exhibit
A, which was the contract.
Johnson advised he still did not agree with the rate
of 110% for the first 15 years as well as 125% beginning with
year 16 as he felt it defeated the purpose of the outside the
city rate. Johnson indicated he would also like to know how the
residents in the area felt about being required to tap into this
line should their septic system fail.
Copley indicated he felt it must be stated in the contract
that if the city limits ever reach the nursing home the City Manager
would act on their behalf to execute an annexation petition the
nursing home would agree to sign.
Lapehn inquired if the amended language would be read
at the next reading to indicate the change.
Copley advised it was a major change and Councilman
Beaumont has pointed out previously he doesn’t like to have major
changes at third reading.
Bower noted the language would be included in the contract
as he felt that would be clearer.
Maletich advised as he discussed previously if the city limits
ever reached out to that point it would be advantageous for the
facility to annex, as they would then receive the city sewer rate
as well as other city services.
Copley withdrew his motion to amend.
Copley moved to table until such time as the annexation
language was included in the contract, upon roll call; Beaumont-Yes,
Lapehn-No, Johnson-Yes, Copley-Yes, Russell-Yes, Carey-Yes and
motion carried.
e. Ord. No. 7535 An Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Rittman, Wayne and Medina Counties and State of Ohio,
to Create Chapter 739, Tree Removal Contractors, of the Codified
Ordinances of the City of Rittman and Declaring an Emergency.
Second Reading. Boggs advised the police
department would be monitoring these licenses in answer to a question
from Russell. It was noted it would be handled similar to snow
removal contractors. Copley moved to place on third, all Yeas
on roll call and motion carried.
New Business
a.
Motion to Go Into Executive Session for the Purpose of Considering the
Purchase of Property for Public Purposes and Invite the City Manager,
the Mayor, The Finance Director, the City Solicitor, the Fire
Chief and the Director from the Wayne County Emergency Management
Agency– 8:14 pm
Johnson so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
b.
Motion to Come Out of Executive Session – 8:37 pm
Russell so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
c.
Motion to Request an Engineering Study be Completed Regarding a
Collapsed Sewer Line Under the Railroad Tracks at South
Main Street Boggs noted this study would cost approximately $17,500.
Johnson so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
d.
Motion to Place Richard Kidd of Lincoln Drive on Probationary Status for the
Rittman Fire Department Johnson so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
e.
Motion to Place Brian McCullough of South Second Street on Non-Paid Status
of the Rittman Fire Department Russell so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
f.
Motion to Place Deb Steiner of Hillcrest Dr on Non-Paid Status of the
Rittman Fire Department Russell inquired as to the difference in the probationary
status and the non-paid status. Chief Sweigert advised his understanding
was that probationary status was 6 mos. to a year and once they
pass all the required training to be a certified firefighter they
can move to non-paid status and wait until a paid position was
available. Copley advised he felt this extra step was (implemented)
to avoid confusion so there was a record of who was up next.
Copley so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
g.
Motion to Appoint Mike Wilkinson of W. Sunset Dr. to the Planning
Commission for Another 3-Year Term Beaumont so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
h.
Motion to Appoint Jack Rice of Grandview Blvd. to the Board of Zoning
Appeals for Another 3-Year Term Russell so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
i.
Motion to Appoint John Robinson of Fairlawn Ave. to the Board of Zoning
Appeals for Another 3-Year Term Copley so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
j.
Motion to Appoint Keely Dreher of Hillcrest
Dr. to the Cemetery Board for
Another 3-Year Term Carey so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
k. Motion to Appoint Nick Bostos of Douglas Dr. to the Utilities & Refuse Rate Board
of Review for Another 3-Year Term Russell so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion carried.
l.
Motion to Appoint John Clifton of Woodland Ave. to the Fair Housing Board
for Another 3-Year Term Copley so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
m.
Motion to Appoint Sally Tomlinson of Liberty St. to the Shade Tree
Commission for Anther 3-Year Term Russell so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
n.
Motion to Appoint Jim Wolfe of W. Sunset Dr. to the Shade Tree Commission
for Another 3-Year Term Carey so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
o. Motion to Request Legislation be Drafted to Consider
Repealing the Ordinance(s) Regarding the Motor Vehicle License
Tax and to Place it on the Ballot
Johnson inquired as to why his request for legislation
at the last meeting was not brought to this meeting and he requested
it be brought to the next meeting.
Russell advised he felt all discussions of Council should
be done at the meeting and not through e-mails or phone calls.
Copley advised he felt the issue at hand was whether
or not a single Council Member could ask for specific legislation
or need the majority of Council to ask for such. He advised his
opinion and the way it has been treated since he has been on Council
or sat in meetings was any one member of Council could request
legislation and it was prepared and brought before Council. Copley
indicated if a member of Council thought prior to a meeting that
something should or shouldn’t be brought before Council he would
need to wait until the meeting to request such while at the same
time if the City Manager deemed something necessary he could have
it prepared and brought to the meeting. Copley advised he had
a problem with the City Manager having more authority or power
to bring legislation before this board than the members of this
board themselves. He felt all members of Council had the right
to bring legislation in the same manner.
Russell indicated the City Manager was different in
that he had the position of knowing the everyday needs.
Copley advised he felt the same could be true for a
Council Member and in the past he felt that has been the practice.
Lapehn agreed it has been past practice and he cited
another instance where something was practice and then a policy
was implemented when a conflict arose as to the proper procedure.
Lapehn suggested this could be an occasion when they should reexamine
if Council’s practice should be changed and a vote should be taken
to change the procedure.
Johnson indicated his point was this same legislation
failed the first time it was brought and another Council Member
asked that it be brought back. He advised he was asking it be
brought back for consideration to be placed on the ballot and
let the citizens have a say if they want a tax increase on their
license plates. Johnson felt one Council Member went behind his
back when he made his request by contradicting him and instructing
the City Solicitor to do something else, which Johnson felt he
did not have a right to do. He inquired as to why one Council
Member could request legislation and when another member requests
legislation he felt a different rule applied. Johnson advised
it looked to him as if something was ok to bring back if it had
a chance to pass and not ok to bring it back if it had a chance
to fail.
Mayor Robertson advised a potential ethical situation
was pointed out and he felt it was also in our best interest to
protect the City Solicitor from violating an ethical code that
he has to abide by.
Johnson inquired as to what was unethical about repealing
legislation to have it placed on the ballot.
Solicitor Bower advised that in and of itself was not
unethical. Bower advised he has two clients, they were Council
as a whole, and not one member thereof
and no one member was better or worse than the other, it was also
the City Manager. Bower indicated he and the City Manager meet
every week and if he were directed to amend something or prepare
something he does it routinely without anyone on Council requesting
such.
Copley advised he was not suggesting (Council) make
it a requirement to vote to have the City Manager bring legislation,
but at the same time he would suggest that individual Council
Members have the same right as the City Manager.
Johnson indicated in the past they have been able to
request legislation as one member.
Bower advised he represents Council as a whole and before
any of the e-mails were sent he stated at the last meeting that
he felt it was incongruous to (fulfill Johnson’s request) because
Council as a whole was his client. Bower advised the ethical violation
for him was Council previously in June (’08), albeit on a fourth
revote the closest margin you could have, passed the tax and then
a Council Member requested it be placed on the ballot and that
failed (res. no. 7499). Bower advised to him as Counsel for Council
my client has manifested its wish and intent to impose the tax
and not to repeal it. Bower advised he called the Ohio Supreme
Court as well as the Grievance Committee of the Bar Association
for guidance as he didn’t want a problem. Bower advised he was
not looking to dodge work, he was not trying to anger (Johnson)
or offend him, but he was clearly here in the middle because (Johnson)
wants him to do something and another member doesn’t. He advised
both (the Ohio Supreme Court and the Grievance Committee) told
him the same thing citing three canons of ethics.
Johnson advised yes 4-3 said they wanted it, but the
meeting before that 3-2 said no so, he felt it should never have
come back ethically according to what you are stating.
Bower advised that begs the issue of what you were asking
me to do. Bower advised subsequently it was brought back and adopted
by Council. Bower advised he could not ethically do something
against the clear wish and desire of his client.
Johnson advised he felt the clear wish the first time
was for no.
Bower advised that was subsequently changed by Council
at the very next meeting.
Johnson advised then he wanted a motion to reconsider
and bring the legislation back because that was what happened
the last time.
Bower advised he agreed with Lapehn’s suggestion to
have a policy and if four (Council Members) want him to do something
then he would do it.
Johnson advised it came back the last time because of
one Council Member.
Bower advised if you want one guy to tell me to draft
legislation, “then ‘til the cows come home then I’ll do that”.
Johnson advised it was what they have done in the past
and he was trying to figure out why it was changing.
Bower advised it has always been at least a consensus
in the past.
Copley disagreed and advised he has asked for things
in the past that have been brought before Council.
Bower indicated he didn’t hear any opposition and advised
such as when Beaumont requested legislation for the tree contractors. Bower advised
he didn’t hear anybody opposing it so he inferred from the demeanor
of their colleagues that they want him to do it.
Johnson advised he believed there were three members
of Council that would like to see the legislation come back.
Bower advised ok, give me policy direction.
Johnson agreed there needed to be policy, but advised
he was getting confused as to why all of a sudden was policy being questioned.
Beaumont advised it was a matter of ethics.
Russell advised he believed Johnson’s request was legitimate.
Bower advised so take a vote.
Copley advised should the legislation come before this
Council, they still have a right to say no and the fact it comes
before this Council doesn’t make it so. He advised he really did
not see his (Beaumont)
objection to having it brought back before Council.
Beaumont advised the whole purpose of the emails was myself
as an attorney pointing out what he believed to be ethical considerations
for (Bower) and he believes as an attorney he did the right thing.
He advised he wasn’t making legal opinions, but he felt as an
attorney he had an obligation to point those issues out to (Bower)
and he did that. Beaumont
advised whether or not he wants to prepare legislation after that
was his (Bower) purview as the Solicitor. He advised his purpose
was to point out what he believes to be some ethical considerations
and (Bower) did so before any emails were sent. Beaumont
advised we all bring our areas of knowledge to this board and
that diverse knowledge was what makes a committee or group work.
He advised he felt he had an obligation to bring those up and
whether it assisted or aggravated anyone he apologizes, but he
still believes he was right in so doing. Beaumont advised if there was a method to get your (Johnson) wishes
before the public then he should do so, but he believes we as
a Council have voted. He advised there was legislation on the
books now that there is a $5 license fee. Beaumont
advised if you (Johnson) wish to have it placed on the ballot
then you as a person, as a citizen should do that or someone else
in the community.
Johnson inquired as to why it was ok when the legislation
failed the first time that it could be brought back, which is
what happened. Johnson further accused Beaumont of giving legal advice as a Council Member when he sent out
the first email and he instructed (Bower) not to bring back the
legislation, which shows he did not want it to come back.
Beaumont advised that was as one attorney to another. He advised
he has a professional responsibility if he believes an attorney
was in a situation where there may be ethical considerations to
point them out to him.
Johnson advised he felt Beaumont should consider that he was a Council
Member 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Robertson advised they also have a professional life
and a personal life that overlaps.
Russell indicated he felt that part of (Johnson’s) argument
was when it (ord. no. 7492) failed the first time 3-2 and then
it was asked to be reconsidered and (subsequently) brought back
(ord. no. 7493, 7494) and yet he (Beaumont) was saying Johnson
was not right by asking legislation be brought back now. Russell
advised he felt if one was right then they both were right.
Johnson advised he felt if it was unethical for him,
it was unethical for (Beaumont).
Beaumont advised he wasn’t talking about our ethics at all.
He advised he was talking about the issues (Bower) may encounter…
Johnson advised he believed the Ohio Ethics Commission
does not discriminate between an attorney and a Council Member;
he looked into it.
Robertson advised we may have made a mistake by bringing
it back, but it was done. He advised (Bower) has a different professional
level of ethics that he has maintain at the risk of losing his
license and he felt they were two different issues and he didn’t
believe anyone was questioning individual members
ethics.
Copley advised with all due respect, the legislation
previously brought before this Council failed because one of the
members was not present. He advised once the member became present
no one changed their vote, but it was felt they could get it passed
now that (the missing) member was present with a 3-3 tie and the
Mayor subsequently breaking the tie. Copley advised he was assuming
no one was changing their mind, but another member has requested
that it come back and now we are saying, “wait
a minute there is an ethical violation and we can’t bring it back”.
Copley advised there was a problem in his mind that it was ok
the first time, but now it’s not ok and that was his biggest problem
with the whole situation. Copley advised he felt it was not different,
but the exact same situation.
Johnson interjected, if its not ok for me then the legislation should be removed immediately.
He advised he felt they were saying one Council Member could do
more than another Council Member.
Robertson advised the ethical violation did not fall
with whether or not he brought the legislation back, but the ethics
points to him (Bower).
Copley inquired as to how in the world they could say
in the negative it was ok, but in the positive it was not ok.
Johnson advised he spoke with the Ohio Ethics Commission
Bower advised the Ohio Ethics Commission were irrelevant.
He advised these were his professional level of ethics.
Johnson advised the Ohio Ethics Commissions says that
one Council Member cannot request or do more than another Council Member.
Robertson advised that was true.
Johnson felt that was exactly what took place when the
ordinance passed the first time and now another Council Member
was not getting their request. He advised the Ohio Ethics Commission
was stating that was a sincere violation and was prosecutable.
Johnson inquired as to how it was ethically ok when it fails…
Bower advised because back in June a majority of Council
wanted it, which was evidenced by the 4-3 vote.
Johnson advised, but they also didn’t want it in a majority
of 3-2. He inquired as to why it was ok to bring it back…
Bower advised because a majority wanted it. Bower advised
if a majority wants me to bring back legislation for the next
meeting, they’d have it.
Johnson advised he believed he asked that and it was
not here.
Carey inquired if this whole thing boils down to the
fact that when it was voted down the first time, it was not an
ordinance, but now that it has passed…He advised he was the one
member who was absent.
Robertson advised it was not an ordinance at that point
(meaning an adopted piece of legislation).
Bower advised it was a resolution to place it on the
ballot.
Johnson advised it failed in the (April ’08) meeting
and came back at the June meeting and passed.
Bower advised because at least 3 members of Council
said they wanted it and not just one.
Johnson advised he recalls seeing an email from one
person to the City Manager and that was Mr. Beaumont.
Copley advised that was what I recall.
Johnson advised a Council Member requested it and now
a Council Member was requesting it again, but he has the support
of two other Council Members to bring it back if we need three.
Bower advised he was trying to be respectfully as he
was in the middle, surely they could see that, please adopt some
policy so I can better do my job for you.
Robertson inquired if that would remove him (Bower)
from his ethical problems.
Bower advised he believed it would because it satisfies
the manifest wish of my Council, which is my client.
Bower clarified Copley’s motion was to repeal the passage
of the tax and secondly place it on the ballot.
Copley so moved, upon roll call; Lapehn-No, Beaumont-No,
Carey-No, Copley-Yes, Russell-Yes, Johnson-Yes (3-3), Mayor-No
and motion failed.
Johnson advised he would ask that it be brought before
a policy is set in place just like it has been done in the past.
Russell advised he believes the residents should have
a say in whether they want to pay that $5 fee, although most likely
they would not have a problem with it he felt they should have
that choice and let them express their opinion yes or no.
Johnson advised they couldn’t always say that Council
best represents the (wishes) of the citizens of Rittman as the
annexation to Guilford Township passed in Council Chambers 4-2
and by a heavy majority failed with the public. Johnson advised
he felt the problem was this Council wouldn’t give the citizens
the right to exercise their vote including the Mayor.
Robertson advised there is that option open to any citizen.
Johnson advised he would like the legislation brought
back.
Robertson advised that again presents (Bower) with an
ethical…
Johnson advised he believed it presented him with one
the last time it was brought back and he did not understand the
difference. He advised the majority of his (Bower) client said
they did not want it and yet he brought it back.
Bower advised and then a majority decided on a 4-3 vote
– no and he (Johnson) was coming back telling me – yes.
Johnson advised there is no policy set in place so he
can do that and there has never been a policy on it and he was
trying to figure out why now there needs to be one. He advised
if they want a policy for him to be able to bring it back then
we need to wipe it (ordinance) out of the books because he felt
they were treating one ordinance two different ways.
Bower inquired and what then if Mr. Beaumont tells him
not to prepare such legislation.
Johnson advised “you have been told by one” and he felt
outside of this chamber he (Beaumont) could not go behind “my”
back and besides he told you as an attorney and not as a Council
Member and he felt it should have been ignored on that standpoint.
Lapehn advised he felt they were not heading in the
right direction and he suggested they invite (an expert) in to
address these concerns and talk with City Managers and Mayors
of other cities about policies they use to bring legislation before
Council as that might be helpful. He advised at this point he
didn’t feel the banter helps them or the public so he would like
to move the agenda forward.
Russell advised he felt the Mayor should not have broke
the tie and let it go to the public.
Johnson advised he felt because the Mayor was the one
who broke the tie it should have gone to the ballot.
Robertson advised he attended the senior citizen health
fair last week and he talked to at least 20 or 30 regarding this
vehicle tax and he has not gotten the feedback that it was a problem.
Johnson advised there was one citizen who came to Council
over the street repair and ask when they would get their chance
to vote.
Russell advised there might not be a problem, but he
felt it was the idea of giving them a choice and their right to
express their opinion.
Robertson advised there would be an expense of a campaign
and a ballot issue, as they had to get information out.
Johnson and Russell advised not necessarily.
Johnson again requested legislation be
brought to the next meeting.
Robertson inquired if Lapehn would like to make a motion
to reconsider the last motion to create legislation.
Lapehn advised that was not his call, but he was not
going to make a motion at this time.
Johnson advised he was failing to see the need for the
reconsideration, as there was no policy in place. Johnson advised
he was fully prepared to filibuster this meeting and as a Council
Member he has the right to hold this floor up until midnight.
Johnson advised he believed the legislation was not at this meeting
because an attorney instructed another attorney not to do something
whenever a Council Member asked for something. Johnson demanded
to see the ordinance as it was not there and he wanted to see
it at the next meeting.
Robertson advised at this point in the meeting Council
has told (Bower) no.
Johnson reiterated the majority of Council said no the
first time around, but it was still brought back.
Robertson advised we just specifically voted.
Johnson advised he had a book and he was prepared to
break it out and start reading it.
Copley advised it absolutely amazes him that 3 members
of this Council and the Mayor refuses to allow legislation to
come to the floor just for the sake of allowing it. He advised
they were looking at (Johnson) as if he was adamantly doing something
wrong while adamantly requesting it while at the same time they
were adamantly denying it. Copley advised all it would take was
for one of those three members or the Mayor to say ok we are going
to bring it back. He advised it absolutely amazes him that the
Council and the Mayor were not able to work together enough to
do that. He advised he was disappointed. Copley advised he did
not have the right to reconsider the motion as only the three
members with the dissenting vote could and he would ask that they
make the motion so we could move on.
Beaumont advised he wasn’t doing it. He advised we just voted.
Johnson advised we didn’t vote for you to bring it back
so why was that ok.
Beaumont advised you (Johnson) asked to have it considered,
you (Copley) made the motion and we voted.
Johnson advised he requested it be brought and states
that Beaumont stuck his
nose where it didn’t belong and had it kept out.
Robertson reminded Council to keep it civil, as there
were a lot better words he could use to use.
Johnson advised he felt that was the best way to put
it because an attorney told an attorney what to do.
Robertson advised (Beaumont) pointed out a legal problem for that
attorney (Bower).
Johnson continues his point as previously stated above.
Russell inquired as to why (Bower) brought it back the
first time.
Bower advised he didn’t recall if it was some Council
Members or the City Manager who requested he do it.
Johnson advised it was Council Member Beaumont.
Bower advised at least 3 members of Council wanted him
to bring it back.
Johnson advised at least 3 members of Council want him
to do it now.
Bower advised it was just voted on and it went 4-3.
Johnson advised we didn’t vote previously.
Bower advised they did at the June meeting and it was
also a 4-3 vote.
Johnson advised they didn’t vote to bring it back, we
voted to pass it.
Bower advised the voted to impose the tax and the next
piece of legislation was to place it on the ballot.
Johnson advised so all he had to do was send an email
for it to be brought back because an email was sent out by a Council
Member, but (Johnson) felt (Beaumont) crossed an ethical line when he decided to be an attorney
over being a Council Member. Johnson advised he walked that ethical
line himself previously with a different issue. Johnson advised
so, an attorney could walk the ethical line, but he couldn’t.
Johnson advised ethically he (Beaumont) over stepped his bounds
by deciding when to be a Council Member and when not. He advised
he went through the same thing over a year and a half ago over
when to be one or the other. He inquired as to why it was ok for
him (Beaumont) to decide it. Johnson advised he
(Beaumont) was always a Council Member for
the City of Rittman.
Johnson advised he felt it was not ok for a Council Member to
do one thing one time and another Council Member requests the
same thing. Johnson points his finger and says you (Beaumont)
wanted it to come back because you were upset it failed and you
wanted it to be reconsidered. Johnson advised he wants to bring
it back to give the members of the public an opportunity to vote,
which you (Beaumont) obviously expressed your concerns that you
don’t care what they have to say in the first time around whenever
you decide to vote no on a citizen voting. Johnson inquired as
to why was it ok to bring it back when
you (Beaumont) don’t get the result you want, but it was not ok
for him to do the same thing. Johnson advised he felt that was
the real reason behind this and the whole ethical thing had nothing
to do with it.
Beaumont advised (Johnson) was missing the whole point here
of the ethical consideration. He advised the whole purpose of
sending the email was from one attorney to another to point out
certain sections of the code of professional responsibility and
as (Bower) has already stated he was way ahead of me as he had
already contacted the Supreme Court and the Grievance committee
and obtained an opinion. Beaumont advised he felt he had a responsibility to tell him so because
he believed there were some ethical issues and the whole purpose
for the email. He advised it had nothing to do with the legislation,
but it had to do with what he believed to be an ethical issue.
Beaumont advised (Bower)
could do as he chooses that was his position.
Johnson inquired as to why he didn’t point that out
the first time when you (Beaumont) wanted it brought back because
he felt it was the same ethical situation for him (Bower).
Beaumont advised you (Johnson) asked to bring back new legislation
that was exactly what you did. He advised you (Johnson) said,
“I want legislation prepared”. “I demand” or whatever words you
used. Beaumont advised what you were doing was ask (Bower) to
do something that was contrary to what his client had already
instructed him not to do.
Johnson advised and you (Beaumont) did the same thing.
Beaumont advised no I did not.
Johnson advised three members of this Council said no
and that was a majority.
Beaumont advised the first email he sent out dealt with the
ethical considerations of actually…
Johnson inquired as to how did it not have to do with legislation.
Robertson reminded Johnson that he had his turn and
that Beaumont had the
floor.
Johnson advised he never gave up the floor.
Robertson advised he gave it to Mr. Beaumont.
Johnson advised he was ready to filibuster here and
they couldn’t take the floor. Johnson talking over others advised
them to start stating truthful facts that it does not have to
do with legislation when the first sentence of the email (from
Beaumont) says, “I instructed him not to prepare the legislation”.
Johnson advised the legislation was brought up in the first email.
Beaumont advised the reason the ethical consideration came up
was because of your (Johnson) demands so, he felt he had to reference
that in the email. He advised in the last email he points out
the fact that I was not making legal opinions, but I pointed out
issues, which I believe from one attorney to another that need
to be considered. Beaumont advised and as (Bower) has indicated he
was way ahead of the game.
Johnson advised it wasn’t a legal opinion if one attorney
says it to another, but if he (Johnson) asks you (Beaumont) an
ethical situation it would become a legal opinion. Johnson inquired
as to why a legal opinion does not transfer from one attorney
to the other.
Beaumont advised he said he was not giving any legal opinions
to the Council, but he was pointing out some of these considerations
to (Bower), which he did. Beaumont advised he did the right thing
by pointing these issues out to (Bower) and he (Bower) did his
research and came up with what he believes to be the correct approach
on his own behalf. Beaumont
advised there were other ways for (Johnson) to get what you want
other than trying to get us to change our vote.
Johnson advised he tried that by asking the same way
you did. Johnson advised he felt this Council needed to rethink
what they did to the public.
Copley advised it was not only Council, but also the
Mayor as he was the one who broke the tie.
Beaumont advised there were so many things for us to try to
accomplish as a Council and this was just nonsensical banter.
He advised we were not accomplishing anything.
Johnson advised other than pointing out unethical things
that you (Beaumont) yourself have done.
He advised because it was ok to come back the first time when
it failed 3-2 and if it was ok then…He inquired as to why he was
saying it was unethical now. Johnson advised he felt it should
never have been brought back to this Council the first time based
on what you were stating.
Russell advised when it was turned down the first time
and then you (Beaumont) requested (Bower) bring it back and inquired
if he thought at that time that it might have been unethical.
Russell inquired if he thought of the same thing as he was saying
now that it would be wrong for (Bower) to do. Russell advised
you got him to bring it back the first time, but now you were
saying he shouldn’t because it was wrong. He inquired if he (Beaumont)
thought the first time that it was brought back that it was the
same thing as he was thinking now.
Beaumont advised no, that was not what was in my mind
and the reason was that he asked, since (Carey) was absent from
that meeting, that it be reconsidered on the basis we could get
input from a Councilman that was not here. He advised he did not
talk to (Carey) about it, as he never does outside this chamber
about any legislation. Beaumont advised it was his effort to get (Carey’s)
input and try to get the Council to reconsider it. He advised
he did not know how the vote was going to go.
Russell advised that was not his point, but inquired
if when (requested the ordinance be brought back the first time)
if he considered it would be unethical.
Beaumont advised he asked the City Manager to ask that
it be put on the agenda for us to reconsider that legislation
and he believes that was exactly what they did was reconsider
it. He advised he asked that it be reconsidered to get a full
discussion of Council and we could have (Carey’s) input. Beaumont
advised he felt if they were going to act as a body that everyone’s
opinion should be voiced and he respects and understood (Johnson’s)
opinion. He advised the whole purpose here was bringing up the
ethical consideration and his respect for (Bower), as another
attorney and he will never apologize for that, never because he
believes he did the right thing. Beaumont advised his relationship with (Bower), as an attorney will
exist long past his tenure as a Council Member here and to be
perfectly honest and on the record it was a “hell” of a lot more
important to me than this and that was exactly how I feel. He
advised he was not going to do anything professionally that was
unethical he never has and never will. Beaumont
advised if (Johnson) wants this legislation to be considered by
the public then he should go out in the public and he should banter
for it, but this body has spoken and he felt they did it correctly.
Johnson advised they spoke the first time, but you (Beaumont)
were not satisfied.
Russell advised he didn’t feel any of them wanted to
do anything unethical.
Beaumont agreed.
Copley advised for the sake of moving this forward tonight
he would remind his fellow Council Members that agreed with his
position that they have the authority to bring that same motion
back at every meeting.
Carey inquired if (Johnson) requests (Bower) to bring
this back again and it gets voted down again were they going to
continue to do this (at each subsequent meeting) again.
Johnson advised he would go by what the public wants.
He advised he believed he said when it passed the first time that
until his tenure was up he would bring it back. Johnson advised
was he going to say that it would come back next meeting or the
following meeting – no, but it would come back. Johnson advised
he wasn’t going to guarantee to anyone what he was going to do
on this Council floor as that would be completely unethical in
his opinion. He advised he requested it be brought back and it
was not brought back and “I want to see it back at the next meeting”.
He advised if they want to stay with voting it down, he would
bring it back to the next meeting and the following meeting and
he would tie this thing up for an hour and a half every single
meeting.
Copley interjected until it gets brought back.
Johnson advised, “I will do it”. He advised, “I have
the right to bring back legislation as often as I want”. Johnson
advised he has a feeling that if it would have failed that Mr.
Beaumont would have asked that it come back again because he obviously
wasn’t satisfied the first time around despite what he says. He
advised yes, he was fully prepared to bring it back every meeting
if they want to play that game. Johnson advised there was an easy
way to do this. He advised all you have to do is say that you
want it reconsidered and have the legislation prepared. Johnson
advised no one was holding a gun to their heads saying vote for
this, they did not have to vote yes for it, but just let the legislation
come to the table. Johnson advised (Beaumont)
to put his pride aside for a second, you too (Carey) and quit
thinking about yourself and think about the citizens.
Carey advised he was.
Johnson advised he didn’t believe he was.
Carey advised it seemed to him that this money was an
appropriated piece of legislation to be used entirely to maintain
city streets. Carey advised the increase in sewer, just (advanced)
by Council was also an increase to be used for maintenance of
city property and it was not voted on by the public.
Johnson advised those funds also go toward helping to
pay the salaries of the employees.
Carey advised it was still an increase to the citizens
that was not voted on by the citizens and one reason he voted
as he did because it was an appropriation of funds. He advised
we all know that we could use the money to fix the roads.
Johnson advised $56,000 ain’t going to go that far toward roads.
Carey advised it would help.
Johnson advised he felt there were citizens who felt
that because of this (license fee) they would not be assessed.
Carey advised that question was actually asked at a
meeting, “If this passes, would it eliminate my street assessment”
and they were told no.
Johnson advised he wasn’t doubting that,
Carey advised so if they were under that impression
he doesn’t know where they got it.
Robertson advised they needed to get the word out, as
it was a communication issue.
Russell indicated when he has been asked that question
he has told them it would not eliminate their street assessment,
but it would go toward the cost of the street repairs.
City Manager’s Remarks
City Manager Larry Boggs had no remarks.
a.
Approval
of Financial Report for November
Finance Director
Mann advised some of the figures were corrected with the appropriation
amendment and were reflected in the December report.
Lapehn moved to approve, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
b.
Approval
of Financial Report for December
Carey moved to approve, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
c.
Finance
Director’s Remarks
Finance Director Lucinda Mann had no remarks.
Council Remarks
Council Member James Johnson had no remarks.
Council Member Glen Russell appreciated everyone for being here
and he congratulated all those who received awards, as they were
doing a good job and keep up the good work. Russell thanked the
Service Department for keeping the snow removed from the streets
this past weekend and making the streets safe. Russell thanked
everyone for coming and invited all to come back and to bring
a friend.
Council Member Charles Copley congratulated the Fire Chief on a
grant he received, as any grants help the city. Copley thanked
everyone for coming.
Council Member Darrell Carey thanked everyone for coming.
Council Member Lynn Beaumont congratulated those who received awards.
He congratulated City Manager Boggs for his negotiation of the
scrap salt from Morton Salt, which saved quite a bit of money
and was a job well done. Beaumont advised previously they talked with Simpson about how soon
they should go out for bids for the street paving and he felt
they should consider it for the first part of the year.
Boggs indicated he hasn’t received word if they are going to be
awarded Issue 2 funds for the street paving. Boggs indicated he
didn’t have an exact timetable for the 2009 streets to be presented
to Council. He advised they still needed to be very cautious,
but the general fund was looking better than anticipated as far
as a carryover balance.
Beaumont advised he would like as a Council to
take on the project of looking at our city income tax code, as
there were a lot of loopholes and inequities that aren’t dealt
with. He advised he would like to form a committee with some members
of Council to look at and obviously it was something that would
probably take most of the year to look at it and he was looking
for some feedback from Council as to whether this was something
they would like to pursue and form a committee with cross sections
of people like the recycling committee.
Council Member Richard Lapehn thanked the City Manager for continuing
to meet with prospective business owners and showing the properties
in Rittman to people who have money to invest for potential employers
here in Rittman and he appreciated all the work (Boggs) does and
always keeping an open mind and keeping the communication open.
Mayor William Robertson indicated postcards were going out tomorrow
explaining that the tax forms would not be mailed and people could
print one off the Internet or pick one up at various locations
in an effort to save time and money. Thursday, January 22nd
was the Chamber Annual Awards Banquet and you can talk to the
Chamber Director about making your reservation. Thursday, January
29th was the Wayne County Mayor’s Association Meeting
and they would be talking about regional revenue sharing and contact
him regarding a reservation.
a.
Approval of Vouchers 49932 thru 50205 Including Then
and Now
Certificates Questions were asked regarding #’s 49944, 49986, 50075, 50112, 50135,
50170 and 50201. Johnson moved to approve, all Yeas on roll call
and motion carried.
Motion to Recess this Meeting until 6:30 pm on January
13, 2009 to Consider Pending Legislation – 9:55 p.m.
Johnson so moved, all Yeas on roll call and motion
carried.
________________________________Mayor
__ ______________________
Clerk of Council
Council Minutes