CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

 

JANUARY 26, 2006

 

 

The meeting was called to order by President Gore at 7:00 p.m.

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  Mr. Marshall, Ms. Sellers, Mr. Fogt, Mr. Gore, Mr. Burke, Mr. Reams, Mr. Pleasant

 

OTHERS PRESENT:  Mayor Kruse, Director of Administration House, Finance Director Morehart, Law Director Aslaner, Chief Gary Johnson, Chief Golden, City Engineer Roush, Public Services Director Davies, Asst. Fire Chief Myers, Clerk Patterson

 

REPORTERS PRESENT:  Ryan Horns-Journal Tribune, Lois Gruenbaum-WUCO

 

CITIZENS PRESENT:  John Cunningham, Chris Harrington, Rose Penhorwood, Becky Arnott, Dick Noland, Pete Griffin, Ken Kraus, Brian Bornino, Peter Boissiere, Don Bergwall, Roger Yoder, Alan Seymour

 

REORGANIZATION:

 

2.     Appoint Council Committees:

 

Finance Committee:  David Burke, Dan Fogt, John Gore

Public Safety:  John Marshall, Mark Reams, Leah Sellers

Public Services:  Dan Fogt, Ed Pleasant, Mark Reams

Public Affairs:  David Burke, John Marshall, Leah Sellers

 

1.     Review Rules of Procedure – Mr. Gore referred Council Rules of Procedure to the newly appointed Public Affairs Committee.  Committee to bring back recommendations at one of the February meetings.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  There being no additions or corrections, the minutes for the meeting on January 12, 2006 were approved as distributed.

 

ADMINISTRATION REPORT: Mayor Kruse gave his State of the City address as follows:

 

STATE OF THE CITY

-2006-

MAYOR THOMAS L. KRUSE

 

2005 could be characterized again as another year of progress. I could give you an itemized list of all of the positive happenings in each division but that would take more time than I think we would expect to spend this evening. I would encourage anyone interested in the detail of activities that have transpired in each division to take a look at the annual reports for each of those divisions.  Those annual reports are available to council and anyone from the public that cares to review them.

 

It is safe to say that today we are spending less of our time putting out fires and are doing substantive things for future planning.  While conditions have gotten progressively better each year, let’s not be lulled into complacency and think that we are out of the woods.

 

Much of our time this year has been absorbed in the wastewater treatment area because of the urgency of complying with EPA standards and gaining direction on how we can provide the capacity for additional development.  We were able to complete our wastewater master plan and to move forward into the design stages of a new wastewater treatment facility and the interceptor sewer necessary to utilize it.  Malcolm Pirnie is currently designing the treatment facility and DLZ Engineering is in the design stage of the interceptor sewer.  We are looking towards beginning construction on both of those projects in the early or middle part of this year with completion, hopefully, by the end of 2007.  We have had some issues as far as the route to be taken by the interceptor sewer but those issues are very close to being resolved at this point and will be resolved without causing any inconvenience or disruption of anyone’s way of life.  It has been our goal all along to be sure that we are in a position where we work as cooperatively as possible with those even remotely affected by installation of this sewer plant and sewer line.

 

Another major event in the wastewater treatment area has been the agreement that we have been able to reach between the County and City with regard to service down Industrial Parkway. I think that is probably one of the most significant accomplishments that transpired during the year of 2005.  I want to acknowledge the fact that this never could have become a reality without the assistance of Commissioner Gary Lee and Councilman Ed Pleasant.

 

Also during 2005, we completed our Water Master Study and we are moving forward this year with the construction of the reservoir and our long term planning effort with regard to an additional water treatment facility.

 

As I stated earlier, there are many other interesting activities and accomplishments during the year of 2005 but I urge you again to look at the individual annual reports of the divisions to get an understanding of what these actually are.

 

Something I do want to elaborate on is the financial condition of the City.  As of December 31st, our General Fund reserves were $3,391,708.  That figure was $2,345,581. at the end of 2004.  In spite of the General Fund additional appropriations during the year of $548,000, we were still able to finish the year in a very positive position.  This financial condition can be attributed to the following:

 

1.       The General Revenue Fund ended the year $623,000 favorable to the forecast.  The two main areas that made up this increase were income tax revenues up $313,000 and interest revenue up $544,000.  Income tax revenue ended the year at $7,078,121. which is 12.79 percent higher than 2004.  Last year we brought the income tax function back in house.  Becky Arnott and Rose Penhorwood did an excellent job in performing this function.  By performing this function in-house versus RITA, we saved over $71,000 in operating expenses and realized an increase in collections.

 

2.       On the expense side, actual 2005 expenditures were one point one million under budget.  All operating Departments and Divisions contributed to this favorable position.  Compared to 2004, General Fund expenditures increased only 5.95 percent.  While this certainly is an admirable position to be in, let us again not get complacent because we need to look more closely at the future and at how this may trend.  We certainly are not out of the woods yet but we are clearly moving in that direction.

 

During 2005 we received grants and discounts from various sources totaling $1,332,243. Additionally we have grant funds awarded and unspent for 2006 totaling $1,667,000. A list of these grants is available in the City Administrator’s office.

 

We have several projects that we are going to be working on this year that I think are of significant interest.  We fully understand that we are in need of an additional fire station.  The problem with having an additional fire station at this point is not the ability to construct one; it is the ability to staff two fire stations at the same time.  There is no doubt that financially that is not possible at this point.  Consequently, what we are looking at is building a new station and moving the fire division to a new location.  The idea is that we can better serve all areas of the City with a new fire station in a more suitable location.  We are discussing this with Council Committees, will have a meeting for the public once we have come together with a recommended but not final location and get public input on this issue.

 

Sometime this year one of my goals will be to begin taking a look at the whole salary and benefit structure for the City. I will be looking to involve not only City management, but also the City employees and their representatives. I will be looking for input from the business sector and from the public. I think it is important that we get an understanding of what is fair in terms of salary and benefits and also how we compare to the private sector and what we are going to be able to support in the future. It is also important that we have an understanding of future staffing needs and how we will be able to meet those needs.

 

As I am sure everyone is aware from reading the media recently, we have a great deal of interest in projects proposed in the commercial and industrial sector of our economy.  We are very optimistic and very encouraged with this coming together because, as I have stated for a number of years, a very important part of the City’s financial viability is economic development. I am very excited about the kind of projects that are proposed and I want to make it clear to the development interests, council and to the public that everything must, in the final analysis, benefit the people of Marysville, improve their quality of life and not cost them and be a burden to support this development. Residential construction has slowed somewhat and from our perspective that will allow us to catch a breath and make progress on some other projects.

 

Again, this year we will be having another major street repaving project.  The list of proposed streets is being finalized as we speak and will become public knowledge very shortly.  Our hope is to bid this project by March.

 

Also, tonight I wish to acknowledge the Uptown Renewal Team, more commonly known as URT, and the great work they are doing.  I believe the right people are involved with this group and their focus is right on target. As Mayor I am supportive of their efforts and urge strong community backing.

 

I again want to thank all of the associates of the City of Marysville for their outstanding performance during the past year.  Without their enthusiasm and professionalism and desire to do an outstanding job for the people of Marysville, I would not be here tonight expressing the optimism that I am.  I also want to thank the City Council, the County Commissioners, the various Township Trustees, the business community, the Chamber of Commerce and the many groups and individuals that have worked with us over the past year and helped us to reach the point that we are at tonight.  I hope to continue the relationships that we have developed over the past couple of years and together I think we are going to be able to work together as a team for the benefit of the people of Marysville and Union County.

 

I thank you all very much.

 

Ms. House reported that the City received a CHIP Grant.  A Public Information Meeting is scheduled for February 2, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.  Initial information on how residents can take advantage of some of these funds will be available at the meeting.

 

Mayor Kruse and President Gore presented the Employee of the Quarter award to Becky Arnott, Tax Administrator.   Ms. Arnott was hired in 2004 when the City income tax function was brought back in-house from RITA.  Ms. Arnott was formerly with the Dublin Income Tax Department and prior to that, with OPERS.  She holds a Masters degree in Taxation and is a CPA.   Mayor Kruse recognized Rose Penhorwood and Donna Nicol who were nominated for this award.

 

Mr. Morehart asked Council to consider adding legislation to the consent calendar.  He received a request from Judge Grigsby to appropriate $2,700.51 for a 2002 Probation Grant.  This portion of the grant was unspent, so the State has requested the City to return that money within 30 days.  He asked Council’s consideration to waive a reading.

 

Motion was made to put this legislation on the consent calendar and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES  Ms. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES

 

Motion passed.

 

REPORT OF CLERK OF COUNCIL:  No report.

 

REPORT OF LAW DIRECTOR:  No report.

 

HEARING OF CITIZENS:  Peter Bossiere addressed Council regarding recycling.  He checked into mandatory recycling for the City of Marysville and how it would help the recycling agency in Marysville.  He talked to Buckeye Waste and they stated the issue is environmental.  Mandatory recycling would help the City in the long run.  The landfill is located in Bellefontaine, so if there is more recycling which would be done here in Marysville, it may save on the next contract.  Recyclers are sending Mr. Bossiere further information on recycling.  Mr. Bossiere is to contact Mr. Fogt of the Public Services Committee when additional information is received, then the Committee can put that topic on their agenda for further discussion.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

The “RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO COOPERATE WITH AND ALLOW THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO COMPLETE THE GATEWAY MARYSVILLE PROJECT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY RC5521.01” was presented for second reading, public hearing.  Motion was made to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.  Mr. Fogt asked if the City’s share could come out of the TIF funds.  Response was possibly, but the City won’t realize any measurable amount of TIF dollars until next year. 

 

Motion was made to waive third reading, title only, and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES  Mr. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES  Mr. Burke  YES

 

Motion passed.

 

Motion was made to pass the legislation and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES  Mr. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES  Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES

 

Resolution 2-06 passed.

 

The resolution “TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT TO SELL LAND ON NORTH WALNUT STREET” was presented for first reading, title only.  Mr. Morehart explained the bidding process has been completed and there was one bidder.  That bidder has signed the contract and Council needs to approve in order to move forward to close. 

 

ORDINANCES

 

The ordinance “TO AMEND CHAPTER 1145, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE” was presented for third reading, public hearing.  Mr. Cunningham addressed Council.  He met with Ms. Sellers regarding her concerns.  Planning Commission also met and discussed the concerns.  They agreed that requirements in 1145.14 should mirror those in 1145.21.  Mr. Cunningham asked that if other amendments were to be proposed, Planning Commission would like the opportunity to respond to those concerns.

 

Ms. Sellers proposed the following amendments to the pending legislation:

 

1)     Add a cross reference in the beginning of the legislation to reference the Home Rule power.  Add:  Ohio Constitution, Art. XVIII, Sec. 3.  Purpose for this amendment is to reflect that the City has complete power over this process through Home Rule and a lot of discretion in the Planned Unit Development process. 

 

2)     Proposed additions to the overall objectives to the Planned Unit Development type of zoning and development.

 

a.      To develop land in an orderly, coordinated and comprehensive manner that is consistent with accepted land planning, landscape architecture practices and engineering principles.  This will enable areas of land planning and architecture practices to be brought into the evaluation of these planned unit developments.

b.     To pursue the housing and economic development goals of the city.

 

3)     Conform Section 1145.14.  These are the provisions in the preliminary stage of review in the PUD process to the final plan process in order to make sure these two areas are consistent.  When City Council is looking at this as a legislative body to rezone the property, they have the same criteria for review as the Administrative end.

 

Proposed amendment:

a.      (3) The streets and thoroughfares proposed and affected are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic.

b.     (10) The proposed development meets the objectives set forth in Section 1145.01.

 

4)     1145.18(a):  Proposed that this pending legislation be changed to permit City Council to have administrative review on the back end of each development process, unless it determines to waive that review.  This would mean that if there is a large development, i.e. 5,000 acres, Council would have the ability to make the zoning change on the preliminary plan review and stay in touch with any changes, substantive or otherwise, that may happen until the final development plans comes in.   Need some sort of reporting mechanism so that Planning Commission can report the deviations/variations from the Preliminary Development Plan to the Final Development Plan back to City Council.  Proposed amendment to read:  “1145.18(a)  Planning Commission will report all Preliminary Development Plan variations to City Council within five working days, or at such time as mutually agreed by and among City Staff, following the Planning Commission meeting in which any changes to the Preliminary Development Plan are discussed.”

 

5)     1145.22:  Propose:  “City Council may, at its discretion, waive its administrative approval for any Final Development Plan and that City Council would note the waiver in its legislative action under the Preliminary Development Plan zoning change resolution or by separate resolution following the receipt of this report.  If City Council does not waive final administrative approval, Planning Commission must come back to Council with recommendations similar to at the Preliminary Development Plan stage for a final review.  If Council waives the Final Approval, Planning Commission, after considering these factors, can administratively determine whether to approve or disapprove or approve with supplementary conditions. 

 

Mr. Reams expressed concern with #5 proposed amendment.  He stated only minor changes can be made; otherwise it would come back to Council.  He fears this would change the timeline for the approval process by possibly two months, plus adds another factor of uncertainty.  This amendment does not help to streamline the process.

 

Ms. Sellers noted that the existing process allows for Council review at two stages, both Preliminary and Final, and understands the need for streamlining the process.  She believes Council should maintain control of the ability to get the final review if they desire. 

 

Mr. Reams noted waiving the right to the review would still require three readings of the legislation. 

 

Mr. Gore asked about putting a number restriction on the development, i.e. number of units or acreage, before it has to come to Council for review.  Ms. Sellers did not think that would address her concerns. 

 

Mr. Fogt is in favor of the proposed amendment. 

 

Mr. Gore proposed that he and Ms. Sellers attend the February 6th Planning Commission meeting to have further discussion, then come back to the February 9th City Council meeting with recommendations for amendments. 

 

Mr. Aslaner suggested that after Planning Commission approves the Final Development Plan, it would be deemed approved unless, within a certain period of time, a councilperson sponsors legislation to review it.  That way, it is deemed approved and Council would not have to go through a formal waiver process unless a councilperson or the Mayor wants to put it back on the table for further review.

 

Ms. Sellers was in favor of Mr. Aslaner’s suggestion, however, pointed out that a lot of the cost to the developer is incurred between the Preliminary Development and Final Plan, so there may be problems with doing this. 

 

Mr. Cunningham clarified a statement made by Ms. Sellers that Council currently has two reviews.  That is incorrect.  The two reviews referred to in the past are the rezonings for a PUD.  There are actually two zoning changes.  He gave an example of a property today being zoned AR.  AR is not appropriate for a PUD, so the developer has to come in and request a change to SR, ER, etc.  This is a legislative change.  Once this process is done, then the PUD process begins.  At that point, Council only sees it once and that’s at the Final Development Plan.  He pointed out that Planning Commission, while developing this proposed legislation, had significant discussion amongst members as to what was a Preliminary Development Plan, a Final Plan, a Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat.  It was a matter of nomenclature.  What is now called the Preliminary Development Plan, since it really does represent what would become the legislative act of zoning, essentially could be considered in retrospect to the previous legislation, the Final Development Plan.  That is the only time Council had an opportunity before to see the PUD, and it’s the only time that’s being proposed now to see the PUD.  At that point, Planning Commission does get into a discussion of what is a substantive change and what is a non-substantive change. 

 

Mr. Cunningham is not in favor of Mr. Aslaner’s suggestion because the PUD process would become a “crap shoot” that at any given point in time, including up to and after, something could happen to blow the plan out of the water and cost the developer hundreds and thousands of dollars.  He stated one of the benefits of a Planned Unit Development is that it encourages innovation and design based largely on the flexibility.  Planning Commission believes what really makes this current legislative proposal work is that there is a point in time where they can tell the developer that they are pretty much good to go.  If by chance, when doing the engineering, you run up against something unexpected, such as shifts in the layout, which doesn’t affect the overall intent of the approved legislation to zone it as a PUD, Planning Commission can give the OK.   This is a non-substantive change. 

 

Mr. Cunningham stated the process as laid out is readily understood by the all parties, both the City and developer.  He feels under the proposed language, it adds uncertainty to the whole process and makes it a less attractive approach. 

 

Mr. Burke agreed with Mr. Cunningham.  He does not feel that much beyond zoning is within his personal realm of responsibility as a Councilperson.  That’s why there is a Planning Commission, to review these documents.  He feels the document that’s being proposed is much better than what the City is currently working with.  He did agree with some of Ms. Sellers’s points; there is always room for improvement.  He feels the proposed amendment to 1145.22 reverses the majority of the process. 

 

Mr. Marshall proposed tabling this legislation to a date certain, February 9th, instead of doing the amendments halfway.  Get all the parties together, sort out the issues and come back at the next Council meeting.

 

Mr. Reams suggested changing 1145.18(b) by defining a little bit more what we mean by substantial, i.e. a change in density greater than 2% or change in open space, a change in usage, etc. 

 

Mr. Gore feels this needs further work by the committee.  Ms. Sellers agreed to withdraw her motion and refer to Planning Commission for further discussion. 

 

Mayor Kruse asked that this not be delayed for a long period of time because there are a lot of proposed developments that the City is talking with people about and a number of them are looking at the possibility of using the Planning Unit Development.  He noted Administration likes that concept because it gives the City a comprehensive idea of what the total picture is.

 

Ms. Sellers commented that she is in favor of this type of development.  She believes it allows a lot of flexibility and because there are developers lined up wanting to use this process, we need to make sure we have good legislation and it’s workable and everyone is in agreement. 

 

Motion was made to table to date certain, February 9, 2006, and the question put, stood:

 

Clerk Patterson commented that per the Planning and Zoning Code, there is a timeframe in which Council has to act on this legislation, and that from tonight, Council has 45 days in which to take final action on this legislation.

 

Mr. Marshall  YES  Ms. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES  Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES

 

Motion passed.

 

The ordinance “TO AMEND CHAPTER 1137, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE” was presented for third reading, public hearing.  Motion was made to table to date certain, February 9, 2006 and the question put, stood:

 

Ms. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES  Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES

 

Motion passed.

 

The ordinance “TO AMEND SECTION 1105.02, COORDINATION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION WITH SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE” was presented for third reading, public hearing.  Motion was made to table to date certain, February 9, 2006, and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Fogt  YES  Mr. Gore  YES  Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall  YES  Ms. Sellers  YES

 

Motion passed.

 

The ordinance “AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $1,900,000 OF NOTES IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF (I) PURCHASING MOTOR VEHICLES AND RELATED EQUIPMENT THEREFOR, (II) ACQUIRING A PUMPER TRUCK FOR THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE, AND ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES RELATING THERETO, AND (III) PAYING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTING, RESURFACING AND IMPROVING CITY STREETS, WITH RELATED EQUIPMENT AND ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES, AND RETIRING NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR SUCH PURPOSE; AND APPROVING THE FORM OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO THE NOTES” was presented for third reading, title only.  Motion was made to pass the legislation and the question put, stood:

 

Mr. Gore  YES  Mr. Burke  YES  Mr. Reams  YES  Mr. Pleasant  YES  Mr. Marshall YES  Ms. Sellers  YES  Mr. Fogt  YES

 

Ordinance 1-06 passed.

 

“AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE, ADOPT AND ENACT THE 2005 REPLACEMENT PAGES TO THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES; TO REPEAL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREWITH; TO PUBLISH THE ENACTMENT OF NEW MATTER AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY” was presented for second reading, public hearing.  Motion was made to waive the reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.

 

The ordinance “TO AMEND ORDINANCE 22-04, AMENDING FEES FOR VARIOUS SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE” was presented for first reading, title only.  Mr. Marshall explained that Parks & Recreation Commission is recommending a fee for ball field usage because some people reserve a field and never show up to use it, thus preventing others from using it.   These fees will also align the City parks with the Joint Recreation District facility. 

 

The ordinance “AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE TO PICK UP THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY PURSUANT TO I.R.C. SECTION 414(H)(2)” was presented for first reading, title only.  Mr. Morehart explained that the City has the opportunity to take advantage of a tax control process for the additional incremental amount that the City employees have to pay to PERS.  Current pickup is 8.5%.  Additional pick up would be .5% for 2006, 1.0% in 2007 and 1.5% in 2008.  Ms. Arnott noted there are two types of pick-ups and added a pick-up doesn’t mean you pay; it means tax deferred.  One type of pick-up is fringe benefit, which is what the City has always had, where the employer pays as a benefit to the employee.  The other type is salary reduction, where the employee pays it; it’s just tax deferred for State and Federal purposes.  Both are handled the same; both are reported to PERS the same.

 

The ordinance “AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTES IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED $1,000,000 IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTING, RESURFACING AND IMPROVING CITY STREETS, WITH RELATED EQUIPMENT AND ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES, AND APPROVING THE FORM OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO THE NOTES, IF NECESSARY” was presented for first reading, title only.  Mr. Morehart explained this legislation is required for the City to proceed with borrowing the $1M for the 2006 street paving project. 

 

The ordinance “TO APPROPRIATE $2,700.51 FROM UNAPPROPRIATED GENERAL FUNDS FOR A REFUND EXPENSE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MUNICIPAL COURT PROBATION GRANT AND MODIFY THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AS A RESULT OF THIS ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF THIS GRANT EXPENSE” was presented for first reading, title only. 

 

 

COMMENTS OF COUNCIL PERSONS & GENERAL DISCUSSION:

 

Mr. Gore appointed Ms. Leah Sellers to the Community Reinvestment Area Housing Council.  She will be the Council representative.  She and Mr. Gore will discuss appointing one additional member to this Council. 

 

Mr. Gore proposed changing the November and December Council meeting dates so there is no conflict with the holidays.  Dates would be the 1st and 3rd Thursday in those two months.  Meeting dates for November would be the 2nd and 16th; December dates would be the 7th and 21st.  Motion was made to change the dates accordingly; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.

 

1.     Parks & Recreation Representative – No January meeting due to lack of agenda items.  Mr. Marshall reported that the Frozen Nose 4-Miler took place on January 21st.  Had a strong turnout, 62 runners.  Mr. Marshall, Mr. Reams and Ms. Sellers participated in the run.  He thanked Steve Conley and his crew for all their hard work on this event.  He extended thanks to Marysville Police Department for directing traffic and to the sponsors of the event.

 

Mr. Reams echoed Mr. Marshall’s comments; he thought the race went very well.

 

Mr. Reams felt the work on the WWTP and the interceptor sewer went well over this last year.  Wants to see continued progress in getting this project completed.  He hopes this is done in a way that does not create an additional burden on the citizens of Marysville. 

 

Mr. Burke reported that he attended an URT meeting last evening.  Group reviewed 2005 accomplishments and what was coming in 2006 such as a marketing survey, walking tours, building inventory, grant applications.  He complimented Eric Phillips for his help with the grants, as well as Joe Duke for his work with URT.  Feels a lot is being accomplished by this group.

 

Mr. Fogt commented about the land purchased by the school at the intersection of Rt. 4, Milford Avenue and Southard Road.  He expressed concern for potential traffic problems in that area.  Suggested looking at Milford Avenue, intersection by Community Markets and possibly extend Collins Avenue directly to the stop light at the hospital.  Feels with all the traffic in the area, will need to stay ahead of the project.  Mayor Kruse stated with the schools locating in that area, it will create increased traffic and said “the schools probably ought to be looking at putting something in the pot to deal with the traffic issues that will be created.”   Mr. Gore agreed.  He noted the City Gate project just announced.  When actual plans are submitted, need to include plan for the increased traffic. 

 

Mayor Kruse said he received an anonymous letter this week.  It was a complimentary letter about what the City is doing.  They did share a concern with the traffic in the Coleman’s Crossing/City Gate area. 

 

John Gore commented that he felt there were some rough times in 2005, but all in all, it was a great team effort to get where we are.  Complimented Mayor and staff on accomplishments in 2005.  He also complimented Council for their efforts and

involvement in some of the successes.  He’s looking forward to working very closely with the County Commissioners and the Trustees. 

 

ADJOURNMENT:  There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.