PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MINUTES

SEPTEMBER 25, 2006

The meeting was called to order by Ms. Sellers at 6:03 p.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Leah Sellers, David Burke

OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Dostanko, Phyllis Gaskins, Barbara Bushing, Carroll Ormeroid, Steve Stolte

AGENDA:

1. Civil Service Ordinance

Mr. Dostanko gave a brief update on discussions thus far. About three years ago, supervisor training was held. A second supervisor training was scheduled where Civil Service Members were invited, however, due to conflicts in schedules, members could not attend. Since Mr. Dostanko was very knowledgeable of the Civil Service Ordinance, the meeting was held. At that time, Division Heads asked what the role of Civil Service was in the hiring process. Mr. Dostanko stated the process is dictated in the Civil Service Ordinance. Division Heads checked other cities to see how their process worked. Mr. Dostanko was asked to do further research to see generally what Civil Service does throughout the state, what does the Charter say, what does the State Personnel Board of Review say, what does the law say, what should Civil Service do. The result of that research was the nine-point paper, which everyone has a copy of. A copy of this paper was shared with staff in late 2005, which also included a survey of other cities. Mr. Dostanko stressed that this is in no way shape or form Human Resources or the City of Marysville trying to control Civil Service or telling them what to do. The birth of this was Division and Department Heads asking what it is that they normally do by law, by the Ohio Administrative Code in the effort to seek knowledge. Mr. Dostanko explained in the supervisor training that this information is the result of his research. A think-tank was held with Division Heads and staff. Ms. House directed him to put together a position paper summarizing information from the research, which would be presented to the Mayor. This nine-point position paper was given to Public Affairs Committee members at their last meeting.

Mr. Dostanko said this is not an indictment or personal attack on any of the three individuals at this meeting. He personally likes all three individuals, and they should be applauded and lauded for being Civil Service members, as well as anyone who is on any commission with the City. He has two sets of customers, one of them being the citizens of Marysville and the other internal customers, the employees, which include Division Heads. The Division Heads said they would like to see more supervisory personnel at the hiring table. As a matter of an HR approach, Mr. Dostanko urged them not to bring additional people to Civil Service meetings because you don’t want to have too many people in the room interviewing, because it often alienates the individual or makes them feel very nervous. Knowing that, he’s been keeping people out because he’s been operating under the Civil Service Ordinance currently in place.

Ms. House directed Mr. Dostanko to draft something which addresses these issues. The first draft was dated March 1^st and was presented to and discussed with Civil Service members. He noted Civil Service had two issues which were addressed at a second meeting. One issue was regarding a streets equipment operator hire. The issue here was that there was a feeling that if we went to what was discussed, that we may find ourselves not having Civil Service monitored, and there was a feeling that without it being monitored, there could be something wrong with the system. The issue was taken back to Ms. House with a proposal to have an open invitation for one Civil Service member at every meeting to include interviews and agility. That would negate the issue with the Open Meeting Law. When all three members of Civil Service attend a meeting, it’s covered under the Sunshine Law, which means it must be advertised. Interviewing and agility are not advertised, as well as some other meetings. If they are open meetings, citizens are allowed to come. Law Director Aslaner recommended interviewing with citizens in the room, but at some point, going into Executive Session to discuss thoughts, then come out of Executive Session to ensure that if we did select, the citizens were afforded the opportunity to be in the room. It is very cumbersome if citizens decide to do that. Thus far, they have not.

Because Civil Service wanted some kind of oversight, the second draft included an open invitation for one member of Civil Service to attend the interview and agility meetings. It would be their choice as to who would attend what meeting. The initial night of testing would require a quorum of Civil Service members.

Another issue was noted and that was the ability of some of the crew leaders who want to come in. He heard their request and went back and proposed language stating that any individual that sits at the interview table for the City would go through a training session led by HR or someone else if HR is not available, and they would be taught not only how to interview but how to do it within the confines of the law in terms of liability, in terms of doing it professionally and in terms of doing it efficiently.

From that point, Mr. Dostanko felt they were at an impasse. What he heard Civil Service saying was that they felt that this is HR presenting a problem and they didn’t have problems before HR got here. Mr. Dostanko assured them this has nothing to do with that. He is listening to Division and Department Heads and conducted research as to what other cities do and tried to help contour their feelings and their perspective in the law regarding this and also precedence. The State Personnel Board of Review said they didn’t know of any city that did things this way. It was HR’s view and Ms. House’s view that we should proceed with this.

Because HR owes it to the citizens and administration to let them know what they’re doing, quarterly reports are written. This item has been tracked as an open item. By virtue of this, Mr. Burke questioned this. Mr. Dostanko shared the story behind this, as well as the City’s position. Mr. Burke suggested putting it on the Public Affairs Committee agenda. It was on last month’s agenda and Mr. Dostanko urged the Committee to invite the Civil Service members. Hence, the meeting tonight.

Ms. Sellers noted the top three concerns as:

1) Extra people in the interview, tough on the interviewee

2) Open Meetings issues

3) Parties who are conducting the interview must go through training.

Ms. Sellers asked the Civil Service members for comments on these three concerns or any other concerns they may have.

Mr. Carroll Ormeroid stated the public meeting rule can easily be fixed. HR should make it their responsibility to make sure the meeting notice is published in the paper. Civil Service has no budget to work from. HR has all the resources. He feels if there is an open meeting issue, just publish it and treat it as an open meeting.

Ms. Phyllis Gaskins addressed the Committee. She stated a few years ago they went through this and money was an issue. They didn’t feel at that time they could publicize every meeting, so they suggested that when we have a meeting

for interviews or testing, that the Commission can go into Executive Session, then it would not have to be publicized.

Ms. Sellers said that if you initially publicize the meeting, you can adjourn to go into Executive Session to discuss personnel matters, then return to regular session to ask more questions, etc.

Ms. Gaskins said you could advertise an Executive meeting. Ms. Sellers said you cannot do that; you must first convene as a public body then have a motion to adjourn to Executive Session. All meetings would have to be advertised and open to the public.

Ms. Gaskins commented about the extra people in the interview. It has always been the decision of the department who comes to the interview meeting. Civil Service has never said who you can or cannot invite to the meeting. She asked who else would be invited to interview candidates.

Mr. Dostanko stated that there are some collateral issues to the three above issues. One of those with regard to Civil Service and the processes. It also lengthens the processes. We not only want to get the best qualified people for each division/department, but it’s how we get from A-Z. The process is lengthened because we must take into consideration the schedule of these three valuable citizens. When we can interview and how many we can do in a day is dictated indirectly by Civil Service, which is a concern. Mr. Dostanko noted ads for testing cost $50.00 per ad and the City averages about 15 of those per year. Cost will be an additional $750 per year to advertise in order to maintain status quo. When we do call the newspaper, we have to make sure the ad can be run at the appropriate time. If the meeting date changes, the ad will have to be run again. In addition, if we have to move a meeting, all candidates, Civil Service members and Division/Department Heads would have to be notified and rescheduled. Mr. Dostanko agreed with Ms. Gaskins; it is not Civil Service who said you can’t bring this person or too many people. It is HR and a standard approach to this that has said we simply can’t. In terms of who, we have to go back to a sergeant in the Police Division, to a Lieutenant in the Fire Division, a crew leader in wastewater or crew leader in streets and say you’re limited to one, maybe two people tops, because we have three Civil Service Members, one HR person and this is before we add the Division/Department Head. Feedback from candidates after being hired is that they are very surprised at the number of interviewers; it made them nervous.

Ms. Sellers feels there is a value to having panel interviews.

Mr. Dostanko stated panel interviews take longer. When you have a panel of five people, you’re already up 45 minutes to an hour and we’re tied to Civil Service’s schedule again. What interviews can’t fit in will have to go into another day.

Mr. Ormeroid disagreed. He feels six candidates are enough for one day if you’re going to do them justice. He’s not aware of any instances where interviews had to be postponed. He feels the City is operating a lot in theory rather than fact.

Mr. Dostanko said he is not saying Civil Service is saying lets move this meeting at the last minute. When it comes to advertising all these sessions, we don’t know when we’re going to interview at the initial test, and we don’t set interviews because we don’t know how many candidates we’re going to interview. We almost always know agility testing. He agreed with Mr. Ormeroid that once they pick a date, it’s been there. However, there is a possibility, maybe not for Civil Service reason but City reason, that if we did have to postpone, we would have to re-advertise. With regard to when meetings are set, Civil Service is very open to interview dates, however, Division/Department Heads are not available at all times. We do coordinate with Civil Service schedules. Five or six interviews a day are generally scheduled, but if you expand the group to a panel of eight, there will not be enough time to interview five or six candidates. That number will be reduced to three a day, which means if you have 10 candidates, you are going to have to coordinate schedules of 8 people for three or four days.

Ms. Sellers asked are we talking theory or reality. Has this been a concern in the past and what are specific examples when interviews have run over three days. Mr. Dostanko said with regard to having other individuals in the room, we are going to be talking on theory because we don’t have the opportunity to bring people in the room to compare the two.

Ms. Sellers confirmed that HR is constrained by their own conception of how many people should be in the interview. Mr. Dostanko said there is no legal reason why we can’t say anyone who wants to attend the interview, can attend. In fact, it’s an open meeting. The only constraint we have now is standard operating approach to interviewing.

Ms. Sellers suggested trying it once with all those people, set up interview parameters, delegate certain questions to certain individuals, set a specific time for an interview, etc. Mr. Dostanko said at the present time they are not hiring, but there are around 10 interviews a year. There may be one or two more by the end of this year. He said the City would be available to work this in a test. He could then get back to the Committee.

Mr. Ormeroid said he has had a lot of experience in administration and interviewing and is now on staff at the hospital. They never allow the number of people to participate in the interviews that Brian is talking about. If they are hiring in a specific department, depending on the level of skill, usually the director and immediate manager of that department are the principals. HR gets involved in the background check. Mr. Ormeroid questioned the fact that the department heads have a problem with the way Civil Service operates. When he had his electrical business, he had a lot of department heads stop by his business and talk about various issues. They have tremendous respect for Civil Service Commission and appreciate the fact they are there.

Ms. Gaskins said the firefighters and police always come with questions in hand since Civil Service members are not experienced in the field. Wastewater comes prepared with questions as well. She says possibly the people who are not involved in the interview process are the ones with the problem because they have no choice in the selection of their employee. It’s cumbersome to add additional people to the interview process. She would like to know that there is a true value to adding people to the process. She doubts it.

Mrs. Bushong stated because of the number of people from the same area in the room, the questions tend to be similar. She does not think it would enhance the interview by adding people.

Mr. Ormeroid commented that’s why we have probationary period. No matter how thorough you are, sometimes the candidate can be very devious and astute and they may be able to fool you. You really don’t know who they are until you get them on the job site.

Mr. Dostanko stated the crew leaders are the people on the job site making sure that their new employees meet the probationary status. We’re interviewing and hiring people without a crew leader at the table and then saying here’s your new employee. With regards to seeing an impact with this proposed process, it is very difficult to get a quantifiable statistic for it.

Mr. Dostanko stated he’s willing to do a test, but it sounds as though all three Civil Service members are not willing to invite crew leaders to the interview table.

Ms. Gaskins said if it is found that an individual is hired and happens to be the wrong person for the job, you may want to rethink things and not have the Division Head in the interview process, but instead send the individual who knows the job and will work directly with that employee.

Ms. Sellers felt that made a lot of sense, delegation of power in a case-by-case basis within each department as to who goes to the interview.

Mr. Dostanko agreed with that point but said then you go back to Rick Varner and Richard Shane and tell them instead of them being a part of the interview, the crew leader should go to the interview. Ms. Sellers said Ms. Gaskins is saying that Rick Varner can delegate his responsibility about going to the interview or not. Mr. Dostanko said by doing that, you are taking the bat out of the Division or Departments’ hands, and if you read their job description, they are the individuals that are tasked with making sure that people are selected, managed, equipped and operating in the best way possible. Ms. Gaskins said you can’t have it both ways. Mr. Dostanko stated we can’t have it that way because of the restriction of at least three Civil Service members at the table, which no other city does in the State of Ohio, and which the State Personnel Board of Review says they don’t understand why they do it, nor does the Charter say they do that.

Ms. Gaskins said Civil Service’s responsibility is to make it a level playing field. Everybody gets a chance. They are there to weed out. Civil Service guards against getting a buddy, cousin, etc. of one of the panel hired. Civil Service will not be swayed by cousins, brothers, etc. Civil Service is here to get the best qualified candidates for the open position. Ms. Sellers feels it’s an excellent watchdog for the interviewees.

Ms. Gaskins requested statistics on how many people have been hired in the last six years, how many people failed their probationary period, how many people left on their own. Feels this would give a picture of how well the system has worked thus far.

If Administration is not happy with the questions that Civil Service is asking, questions that they want them to ask should be provided to the members. That is a way of getting outside input to the interview.

Ms. Sellers summarized that an ordinance is being proposed to either add or subtract the number of people in the interview room. She asked if everyone could agree to allow seven people in the interview. Ms. Gaskins stated, “As long as three of them are Civil Service people.” There would be three Civil Service people, Brian and the option of having two or three people from each department. Mr. Dostanko said with regard to what Ms. Sellers just proposed, there is no reason to change the ordinance because it gives us the ability to do that.

Mr. Dostanko added that specifically what the Civil Service does is in the Ohio Administrative Code and also in the Charter.

It was agreed, at least on a test basis, there could be seven interviewees in the room.

The Open Meeting issue was discussed. Ms. Sellers noted an issue of cost. Mr. Dostanko agreed but noted it also adds an additional step to the process.

The rough estimate of cost is $750.00 per year. If it was agreed to advertise all meetings, additional money would have to be appropriated in next year’s budget.

Mr. Ormeroid said that all interview dates could be set regardless whether candidate passes or fails the agility tests because some of them have a lot of experience. The practice of publicizing meetings has not been done in the past. The meetings could be publicized up front. If not all three Civil Service members were available for the interview, at least two members could attend. It’s very rare for two Civil Service members not to be available to meet.

Mr. Burke asked why the meetings haven’t been advertised in the past. Mr. Dostanko said often times we don’t know how many candidates will be interviewed. It depends on the test scores and background checks. The initial test establishes the eligibility list. The establishment of an eligibility listing by the Ohio Code is not encumbent on Civil Service, but is encumbent on the code for them to ratify it. Mr. Burke asked what’s the penalty for setting a meeting in advance to give time for testing and background checks, then you find you don’t have candidates for that meeting? There is no penalty. Ms. Sellers suggested if that happens, you come to the meeting and adjourn to a date certain. She didn’t think re-advertising was necessary. Need to get an opinion from the Law Director.

In summary, resolved getting supervisor directly involved with employee at the table and would expedite the process because you wouldn’t have to advertise the meeting and coordinate every single schedule; you’d do it on the spot.

Open meetings issue subject to Mr. Aslaner’s review.

Mr. Dostanko stated he owes it to the Division/Department Heads to bring their case to light. What’s happened so far is that we’re going to get an opinion from the Law Director as to keeping the meeting open or advertise in the original ad when we’re going to interview in hopes to be able to meet that schedule, which takes flexibility out of background tests and agility tests.

Professional liability interview training. Mr. Dostanko said the Civil Service Commission is now open to allowing a crew leader at the interview table, but concern is that they have the background and experience. He said he’ll be sure they get the training.

Mr. Burke expressed interest in seeing the statistics that Ms. Gaskins requested earlier. Ms. Gaskins explained a document she had in her possession. It covered years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003. It showed who was hired, by name and position, whether they completed probationary period, if they resigned. She noted several resigned, most completed probationary period. She noted all the people that were hired are still employed. This would show that the process that was followed was successful or these people would not have been able to complete their probationary period or they would have been let go.

Mr. Ormeroid said Civil Service has been in place since 1983, and it has worked. There is a purpose for it being here and cited Section 100.01, “The Civil Service Commission of the City of Marysville has a three-fold purpose….” He highlighted “to assist the Mayor and the City Council in obtaining the best qualified persons for the various positions in the classified departments.” He feels the process is working. He said there are some very strong department heads; they are very good leaders. Sometimes you make mistakes, a person can interview well, but their performance doesn’t measure up to how they interviewed. Feels there could be some minor adjustments to Civil Service to remain just as effective as when he joined the board.

Mr. Dostanko stated that the Civil Service members are very accommodating, however, coordinating schedules of the Civil Service members and the people involved in Divisions/Departments does lengthen the process a bit.

Ms. Gaskins knows the positions must be filled as soon as possible, but does not feel one month timeframe is too long to hire someone. You can’t act too fast.

Ms. Sellers suggested setting a certain day of the week and times for interviews. Mr. Dostanko said currently interviews are done on a Tuesday or Wednesday from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Mr. Dostanko said he has been placed between a rock and hard place, and he senses from some of the members of Civil Service that his face has been put to this issue and feels that’s unfortunate. He has tried to make this as less personal as possible. He overheard Ms. Gaskins say that HR is trying to run Civil Service. That is not what he is trying to do. He’s listening to Department Heads and when they’ve had an issue, he’s brought it to Civil Service and tried to be a mediator. Ms. Sellers complimented Mr. Dostanko on doing a great job in his position and is impressed with his work. Mr. Dostanko said he is a team player. He has never said an ill word about any Civil Service member or anyone who works for this great City. Ms. Gaskins was heard saying that if we do this reform, we’ll go back to the “good old boy system.” Mr. Dostanko feels this is unfortunate that they have that level of confidence in the City. He hopes that can be changed. He does not share that opinion.

As far as setting default times, Mr. Dostanko has no problem with that. He’s very willing to work with Civil Service in coordinating times. Mr. Ormeroid is fine with that suggestion.

Ms. Gaskins said being in HR, she saw a lot of unscrupulous things go on, to the point where it made her sick to her stomach. It happened to people who didn’t have anyone to stand up for them or to fight for them, to show them a different way. She is very, very sensitive to unfairness; somebody being hired just because that’s what it should be. The most qualified person should be the one who is selected. Government and Federal government has a tendency to pat each other on the shoulder sometimes when they really shouldn’t. That’s what she’s fearful of.

Mr. Ormeroid commented that whatever decision is made, future administration will have to deal with it. We’re dealing with an Administration that is up for re-election, so you don’t know how it’s going to go. His position is to protect what we have because it works. If we make changes now, that may not be consistent with the next administration. What we have between the Civil Service and the City, we can sit down and work these incidences out. He doesn’t see any monetary penalty that the City has experienced and does not think Civil Service has inhibited departments from getting their job done because they are short one employee. If we were to agree to all that’s being proposed, he doesn’t think it will make any significant difference to the hiring process.

In summary,

Ø Have a seven-person interview panel on a test basis.

Ø Mr. Dostanko will check with the Law Director to see if an open meeting can be adjourned from day to day.

Ø Interview training will take place.

Ø As far as coordinating schedules, Civil Service chairman will be notified and the interview/testing will begin on Tuesday and Wednesday of a given week.

Committee will be notified of future issues to be discussed.

2. Recognition Awards

Ms. Sellers will continue working on this issue. She feels the award should be open to any citizen who contributes to the City, no matter if they live outside the City.

Proposed selection group : City Engineer, Public Service Director, Finance Director.

3. Cell phone usage while driving – tabled until the next meeting. Mr. Dostanko asked if this pertains to use of cell phones within the City for workers of the City or everyone? Being proposed by Sharon Montgomery who lost her husband to driver distraction is, “Will the City of Marysville support a request to the Judiciary Committee of the Ohio Senate to open a hearing for citizens’ comments on a driver distraction law.

4. Memorandum of Understanding – US33 Corridor

Mr. Burke explained progress has been made on the US33 Accord. Began to approach an actual working document. All participants in this Accord were given a Memorandum of Understanding which is a pre-contractural contract to participate in the Accord. This will allow the City to disperse funds or be obligated for funds to start the process for forming the actual document or body of the Accord. It spells out what will happen initially and how it’s going to happen and who will be involved and how the costs will be shared. It lays out the topics for discussion within the body of the agreement. It also gives a couple alternatives to what the actual Accord area could be, with Alternative 3 in the lead and Alternative 1 a distant second choice. November 17^th is the deadline to either accept, deny, table, etc.

This document was prepared by the US33 Corridor Executive Committee. Mark Reams is Council representative in this committee. Mr. Stolte noted Mayor Kruse has been participating in these meetings.

Mr. Stolte explained the concept put forth here is defining land use, intensity of the development, the type of development, the type of wastewater treatment that might happen and whose going to be providing wastewater services.

He noted there have been a number of Accords in Central Ohio, one around Rickenbacher, which involved City of Columbus, Franklin County and Hamilton Township. Another in the New Albany area that involved City of Columbus, New Albany and Plain Township, but Plain Township refused to be involved. Plain Township has expressed interest to become involved. An Accord is simply an agreement by a number of local governments getting together and agreeing on issues.

He noted the City of Dublin initiated a series of discussions and brought local governments in this 33 corridor together and said we’ve got this thing out here that kind of binds us all together, the 33 corridor, and today it’s relatively undeveloped, tomorrow it’s not going to be undeveloped. We need to be communicating, planning and talking about how this is going to develop or it will get away from us. Over the period of two or three years, the “Large Group” has met about every six months. From that group, sub-committees were formed then an Executive Committee was formed from the chairs of all sub-committees, and a couple of people were added to make sure all local governments were represented on the Exec. Committee. Nine months ago, Executive Committee had two or three meetings where people who have been involved in Accords came in to speak. From those meetings, the Large Group decided this is the direction we need to go. The Executive Committee met to put together an area, issues and a draft Memorandum of Understanding “MOU”. The Accord issues came out of two meetings that Jenny Snapp, Gary Lee and Mr. Stolte had with first the two municipalities, Dublin and Marysville, and second with Dover, Millcreek, Jerome and Darby Townships. That is where this list of issues came about.

Mr. Stolte put together three maps of potential Accord areas. Maps and issues were discussed at several Exec. Committee meetings, a list was consolidated and a few things added. One of the alternatives as far as the geographic area was thrown out. The MOU has gone through a couple of iterations. There was another Large Group meeting held at the end of August. A timeline was established for the MOU to be adopted. November was set as a deadline. That is not set in stone, but something to work toward. The Executive Committee will meet again soon to get feedback from the potential partners to this Accord, the Councils, other township trustees not on the Exec. Committee and legal representatives in order to modify the MOU to get a final draft put together so all parties involved can act on it.

Mr. Burke commended Steve Stolte for taking the lead on this project to get it moving forward. He noted progress has been made by meeting with Jerome Township. This will add to the Accord, but it is still a work in progress. It’s a window of opportunity for all entities involved in this. We need to better develop our relationship with Jerome Township. Noting Sugar Run, initially the Mayor was opposed to residential development on Industrial Parkway. Now we’re looking at residential areas as potential buffers with a golf course, all the way down to 42. We can work on other issues in terms of foregoing annexation and economic development. Land use needs to be developed. Marysville is working with them in this area. Once that matures, we’ll have something to bring back to the Accord body and say this is something that the principals, Dublin, Jerome and Marysville, agree on. He feels it’s too early to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding at this time with the large body. He feels Jerome is still unsure of where the dynamics lay. They don’t know exactly who to trust and who not to at this time, however, feels it will come sooner than later.

Mr. Stolte expressed concern that in those discussions you are jumping to the implementation much too soon when you start talking about coming together on JEDD’s/CEDA’s. It seems that you are not adequately discussing and understanding all the issues. JEDD’s and CEDA’s are ways to implement things. You have to identify all the issues and have thorough discussions about the issues. You have to reach agreements on the issues then say how to implement them. Some of those will be implemented through JEDD’s, CEDA’s, through other inter-governmental, through land use plans, thru the adoption of design standards. We have to make sure you don’t short circuit discussions on those types of issues. These discussions, especially when talking about land use and growth issues, have to be very public, very transparent discussions. Must be out there for the public to absorb and have time to think about and comment about. There is a whole other group, not only John Q Citizen, but the interest groups. The lion’s share of the 33 Accord is in the Darby Watershed. Those interest groups who have been actively involved in the Darby Accord will be anxious to give their input into the 33 Accord.

Ms. Sellers asked with all the development pressures, is there time for public input, interest group input? She realizes though the need to address all these issues. How do we balance those competing interests?

Mr. Burke agreed with Mr. Stolte. He doesn’t think you can pick 100 acres and turn it into a JEDD and work with the rest later. When people look at ways of implementing their ideas, these other encumbrances have to be dealt with and can’t be avoided. This Accord has to be held together; this group has to be held together, because we are going to need this in the long run to keep this all together. This is what makes developers realize you are serious about what you are doing. There is a long range plan and this is what’s going to happen. To that end, it is worth waiting.

Marysville needs to work with Jerome and Jerome with Dublin to get a template, then that should be folded into the Accord.

Mr. Stolte said we have to have all these people involved in discussions, Marysville, Dublin, Jerome Township and Union County. He feels Millcreek Township needs to be there, but maybe not now. He would like to see Dover Township there. If no one else agrees, he’s OK with that. He hopes the discussions with Marysville and Jerome Township, which have led to discussions with Dublin, would lead to bringing in Union County and Millcreek Township and getting us all around the table. He doesn’t feel land use issues can be dealt with between Marysville and Jerome Township and forget about all the other issues. They are all too intertwined. The Public has to know that when you’re planning these types of land uses, they have to know what the road network is going to be to serve those land uses. They have to know what roads are going to be five-lane roads and where there’s going to be an interchange. All those types of discussions have to be part of the same effort; they can’t be done separately.

Ms. Sellers expressed concern about having to hire a consultant to do this. Mr. Stolte explained that a consultant draws information out of us and out of the public. They take that information and formulate it, based on their knowledge, and convert it into some kind of a draft plan. Ms. Sellers stated because they’re an outsider, people respect them. It’s a mediator role, a disinterested third-party role. She’s also seen it fail, and referred to Dublin when they updated the comp plan. The consultant was not able to draw out the opinions of the public. She asked if there is anything that could be entered into with these entities that wouldn’t involve a commitment to a consultant at this time, something that would satisfy the goal of this corridor group of having an understanding of what we’re going to do in the future. Mr. Burke feels it’s just too premature to expect a signed document.

Ms. Sellers suggested each political entity determine their own land use, then if necessary, hire a consultant to tell us what we need to do to support that, as opposed to having a consultant determine our land use. Mr. Stolte said part of the reason is that City of Marysville wants to protect certain areas for certain uses. That is the main reason for City of Marysville being involved in this corridor. City of Dublin wants to protect its interests. They would also like to have some identifying growth corridor up into Jerome Township where they can annex into Jerome Township. They are willing to share dollars with Jerome Township in order to gain some amount of control of what’s happening in some areas. Mr. Stolte doesn’t think the idea of letting each township do their own land use plan is realistic.

Mr. Stolte noted Marysville’s concern about residential development not paying for itself; it doesn’t pay for itself in townships either. The City cannot have the attitude that we want all the commercial development happening in our growth area and you folks take all the residential. There’s got to be a proper mix out there. If the City is going to concentrate on commercial development here, you have to be willing to share revenues with the unincorporated areas with the townships to help them deal with the cost of that residential.

Ms. Sellers asked why isn’t that cost of residential and why isn’t the development itself paying through assessments, etc. Mr. Stolte stated the development itself will pay for all infrastructure improvements. It “may” pay for maintenance or future expansion of those. You have to make sure that it’s there through JEDD’s, through community authorities or through special assessment districts. All of these issues need to be discussed, define what the costs are, define what the problems are. Once there is an agreement on all these things, then you talk about implementation.

In summary, the 33 Corridor is an extremely important effort, however, the relationship that we’re working on with Jerome we view as critical to the Accord and its longevity, and the relationship needs to mature and come full circle before we enter into any kind of long term agreement. A recommendation will be made to Council accordingly.

It was recommended to forward this Memorandum of Understanding to the law director so he can begin reviewing it.

Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.