CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
APRIL 12, 2007
The
meeting was called to order by President Pleasant at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Ms. Sellers, Mr. Fogt, Mr. Pleasant, Mr. Burke, Mr. Reams, Mr. Gore
Excused: Mr. Marshall
OTHERS
PRESENT: Mayor Kruse, Director of
Administration House, Director of Finance Morehart,
Law Director Aslaner, Clerk Patterson
REPORTERS
PRESENT: Ryan Horns, Journal Tribune
CITIZENS
PRESENT: Esther Carmany,
Vic Steinfels, Dennis Schulze, Dick Lowe, Ron Miller,
Dick Noland, Bill Kelley, Myron Gallogy, Lloyd Baker,
Dan Miller, Sara Miller, Debbie Lutz, Alan Seymour, Gary Little, Meg Tullis, Jennifer Weikart
APPROVAL
OF MINUTES: There being no additions or
corrections, the minutes for the meeting on March 22, 2007
were approved as written.
There
being no additions or corrections, the minutes for the meeting
on March 29, 2007 were approved as written.
ADMINISTRATIVE
REPORT: No report.
Mr.
Fogt asked for an update on the
REPORT
OF CLERK OF COUNCIL: : Clerk Patterson reported
that the transfer of the Liquor Permit from Craig Johnson to Stockyard
Steakhouse was brought before Council on February 22nd. An INSTITUTION NOTICE FOR LIQUOR PERMIT has
been received because the Stockyard Steakhouse & Saloon is located within
500 feet of
Received a liquor permit transfer from Buckeye P H Inc, dba Pizza Hut,
Blazin Wings, Inc, dba Buffalo Wild Wings Grill
& Bar,
Blazin Wings, Inc, dba Buffalo Wild Wings Grill
& Bar,
The
police department had no objections to any of these requests. Council had no objections.
Clerk Patterson reported that City Council received a letter from
some 3rd grade students at the
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION:
Mr. Alan Seymour reported that he had been elected Planning Commission
Chairman and Don Bergwall, Vice Chairman. Final plat for the Oaks was filed. Final development plan has been approved.
John Cunningham was elected Chairman of the Design Review Board
and Ken Kraus, Vice Chairman. The Board
heard a Certificate of Appropriateness for historic uptown. Neon signs were discussed for Union County
Computers. It was approved as presented, however, excess signage was a concern.
Approved the plans for First Federal Community Bank of
Bucyrus to be located at Coleman’s Crossing behind Applebee’s.
A shopping center came before Planning Commission. Within that center is BW3’s. Signage was a concern. It was a little too bold for the Coleman’s
Crossing area. The developer compromised
on the color, which was satisfactory to the Commission.
HEARING OF CITIZENS: Mr.
Gary Little referred to the 2005 Annual Report. He stated sewer rates were raised 17.5% in
January 2006, 17.1% in January 2007 and are going to
raise 17.1% in 2008. He noted the short
term and long term debt and doesn’t understand when we’re looking at millions
of dollars that we have in debt, yet the investments that we have are
$63M. We’re accruing a lot of interest,
etc. He knows what the figure is as far
as millions of dollars in some of our other utilities as far as our sewage,
etc. It seems to him that the amount of
money that we are still keeping as debt and not paying down the debt is
astronomical. He’d like an explanation
for that, especially with what’s going on with the water. His question is, realizing the kind of
increases that we’ve had on our sewer system and looking at this 2005 Annual
Report, how it is that we owe so much money, yet in the amount of investments
that we have, $63M, why is that we have that kind of money in investments, why
we’re not paying down our debts?
Mr. Fogt responded that when we do a
project, such as the wastewater treatment plant, the City has to borrow the
money and have the money in hand before we let that project out. We had to borrow that $60+M in order to have
it in our hand before we signed the contract.
Mr. Morehart
stated when we borrowed the money, we invested these funds to maximize our
return with the maturities spaced over the length of the perspective contract
that we have with the vendor. As the
disbursement needs arise, the funds from the maturing investments will payoff
the vendor obligation for the Water Reclamation project. It will take a couple of years to build the
wastewater plant, but we are required to have the money up front, so as
investments mature, we’ll use the money to pay the Water Reclamation obligations
over time. The investments primarily
represent borrowed money which we’ll be using to pay the wastewater obligations
to make sure the vendors are satisfied.
Ms. Debbie Lutz addressed Council.
She and her husband Steve are commercial and residential property owners
in Marysville. Marysville is one of the
very few places in the state of
Mr. Aslaner asked Council’s
consideration to add legislation to the consent calendar.
RESOLUTIONS
The resolution “COMPANION RESOLUTION TO ORDINANCE _____ “TO AMEND
SECTION 931 – WATER RATES – OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF
MARYSVILLE” was presented for third reading, title only.
Mr. Lloyd Baker addressed Council.
He spoke in favor of the resolution because of the business plan aspect
of the resolution. There have been some
referrals that the Malcolm Pirnie Study fills the need of a business plan, but
he doesn’t feel that it does that. One
area it doesn’t cover is in the area of bulk rates. Marysville’s bulk rates are about ten times
above the surrounding communities. A
true business plan would, at the very least, address that issue, and rather
than driving consumers away, it would look for an opportunity to accommodate
that market, as well as the residential and commercial markets.
Mr. Fogt moved to pass the legislation
and the question put, stood:
Mr. Fogt
YES Mr. Pleasant YES
Mr. Burke YES Mr. Reams
YES Mr. Gore YES
Ms. Sellers YES
Resolution 7-07 passed.
The “RESOLUTION SUPPORTING D.A.R.E. PROGRAM FOR THE 2007/2008
SCHOOL YEAR” was presented for second reading, public hearing. Mr. Burke moved to waive reading in full;
affirmative voice vote was unanimous.
“A RESOLUTION STATING THE SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED TO THE
APPROXIMATELY 171.531 ACRES PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED FROM PARIS TOWNSHIP, UNION
COUNTY TO THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE, OHIO AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY” was
presented for first reading, title only.
Mr. Burke explained that this is the Cook property located between Route
4 and Rt. 31. They have worked
diligently with Administration to find a plan that works in terms of road
infrastructure. Mr. Burke feels this is
a positive development for Marysville and provides a solid tax base and also
gives additional users to our utilities, which will ultimately hopefully fund
the infrastructure requirements that we’re looking for. On different levels, this adds revenue and
positive growth to Marysville. He
supports this.
Mr. Fogt asked if this annexation
creates islands and are islands allowed?
Mr. Burke responded that islands are allowed although they’re not
necessarily desired. He believes these
issues have been worked out with the property owners to allow for that issue to
be resolved.
Mr. Dave Cook stated the way the code is written, you have to go
all the way around the property to create an island. This proposed annexation does not go all the
around the
Mr. Fogt questioned that, because all of
Mr. Cook said individually they are islands, but the way code is
written they’re not surrounded on all sides.
To create an island, you would have to totally encompass or be annexing
all the property (inaudible). Granted
we’re doing the balance at the sides, but we’re not annexing totally around
each property.
Mayor Kruse noted that a resolution of services happens to be the
City’s solemn promise that we will provide those services if annexed. At this point, the City will not have the
ability to provide water to that area if it’s brought into the sewer without
some kind of future commitment on addressing the water infrastructure. He recommended Council look into this very
carefully in order to avoid another lawsuit.
Mr. Reams noted that Council would be addressing the water issue
before this comes to third reading.
Mr. Burke moved to pass the emergency and the question put, stood:
Mr. Pleasant YES Mr. Burke
YES Mr. Reams NO Mr.
Gore YES
Ms. Sellers NO Mr. Fogt YES
Emergency failed.
ORDINANCES
The ordinance “TO REZONE 1.01 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED AT 428
AND 504 E. FOURTH STREET FROM B-1 (SERVICE BUSINESS) AND R-2 (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) TO B-R (BUSINESS RESIDENTIAL)” was presented for third reading,
public hearing. Mr. Fogt
moved to pass the legislation and the question put, stood:
Mr. Burke YES Mr. Reams
NO Mr. Gore YES
Ms. Sellers YES Mr. Fogt YES
Mr. Pleasant YES
Ordinance 18-07 passed.
The ordinance “TO AMEND ORDINANCE 99-06 “SETTING COMPENSATION FOR
ALL CITY EMPLOYEES – 2007” was presented for third reading, title only. Mr. Burke moved to pass the legislation and
the question put, stood:
Mr. Reams YES Mr. Gore
YES Ms. Sellers YES
Mr. Fogt
YES Mr. Pleasant YES
Mr. Burke YES
Ordinance 19-07 passed.
The ordinance “TO AMEND SECTION 931 – WATER RATES – OF THE
CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE” was presented for third reading,
title only. An amendment was proposed by
Mr. Burke, Mr. Reams and Mr. Marshall.
Public comment was taken into consideration in terms of meeting our
lower capacity users for single people, seniors on lower income. Also took into account the needs of this
community when it comes to infrastructure, the fact that the City does have a
wastewater plant on line, and the issue that still rests with the trunk line
sewer, the desire to properly plan for our infrastructure needs and to
ultimately resolve the elevated rates that this community suffers from in a
fashion that is planned for and organized.
This amendment is different than in the past. A tier has been added to the chart and the
tiers replaced that currently existed on the previous chart. Starting at 0-140 as previously existed, but
added in a 140-1,500 and combined a blended tier to add an intermediate tier
from 1,500 to 3,000 and 5,000 to 7,000.
In looking at the water use in Marysville, who uses that water in terms
of how many gallons of water that is used out of our system, MGD per
residential versus MGD per commercial and other users on the higher end,
they’ve looked at several calculations and manipulations to try to find a way
to move both the reservoir and the plant forward and have come up with this
chart. “What this chart allows us to do,
if you thought of these rates as a teeter-totter, with residential on one side
and commercial and industrial on the other, and in the past we’ve moved that
teeter-totter forward and balance, raising the rates across the board. This addresses bringing industrial and
commercial users into more of a “per gallon responsibility” instead of laying all the burden on the residential users. He gave an example,as we move towards a new plant that has a carbon
filter on it, that carbon filter can filter a million gallons (not actual
numbers). That first gallon costs as
much to filter through that filter as the last gallon, so shouldn’t that cost
be spread equally among all users.
Currently that doesn’t exist.
It’s all stacked in at the lower end of the scale rather than the high
end. We want to have a mechanism that
entices industrial and commercial users by bringing that economy a scale that
bulk or large water use gives, because there’s added value in our homes, job
and security and the value of our community in terms of the quality of life
that industry brings with it, but the residents should not bare the entire
cost. A rate structure has been
developed that is different. Instead of
moving this altogether as one item, it’s been broken out line by line. 0-140 range would be a 2% increase for the
balance of this year, a 2% the following year, followed by 5 and 5%. In the 1400-1500 ccf usage, it’s 5-5-6-6 and from there it trickles on
up all the way to 9. The thinking being
we didn’t have anyone from industry here complaining when we were talking about
8%. It was all residential people. As we move through this tier, the first 140 ccf usage only increases 2%, inflationary
increase. The balance is at 5%, so we
end up with a blended rate which allows for 500 ccf
users, the first year increase is only 3.3%, second year 3.4% followed by 5.4%
and 5.4%. This ultimately builds up a
revenue stream for the projects that we need to do and it sets a horizon on the
issue that we’ve been dealing with for a long time. It allows the projects to move forward.
Mr. Reams added what he and Council have been hearing from the
public over and over again is what about the little guy, those using a small
amount of water. They tried to develop a
plan that would address that concern. A
four-year plan was requested. There are
issues with the trunk sewer project and the grant funding that’s in jeopardy if
this can’t be resolved within the next couple of weeks. All input was heard and Messers.
Reams, Burke and Marshall have worked diligently to come up with something that
addresses every one of the needs that been addressed. It’s responsible in that it addresses the
City’s needs for four years; it allows the City to move forward; it addresses
the concerns of those who use a small amount of water, and it addresses average
residential water bills, keeping the rates of an increase on a typical bill,
500 cf, between 3.3% and 5.4%, and it fully funds the
City’s utility as we move forward. It
accomplishes all of the goals as a City and as a Council that’s been adopted in
the past. He feels this is a good
compromise.
Mr. Burke added that there are still two parts to the equation; we
still have to vigorously pursue builders, developers, economic development in
the southern part of this County and have them pay their fair share. It doesn’t go away, but it does provide the
City the ability to provide service and negotiate within those realms to make
ultimately these rates come down. He
feels that in 2010, the City will have reached some kind of balance. If the trunk line sewer issue is not resolved
and when it’s rebid, the cost of having to go through
that process again will be probably 10% or $5M.
He feels this is a make or break proposition. If we don’t move forward
aggressively, we will not be a service provider in the southern part of the
county and someone else will fill that need, and the EPA and/or all bond
holders will force us to do what we know we have to do, and we’ll find
ourselves with an even smaller customer base and less revenue to generate to
pay off that debt in the long run and “I’m afraid that problem will perpetuate
for the next generation if we don’t move forward on this.”
Mr. Gore stated his problem is with the four-year commitment. He met with Mr. Brossart
and Mr. Simpson and it’s his understanding that the proposed two-year 6%
increase would address those immediate needs as far as the ability to go
forward with the trunk sewer, the reservoir and also the ability to do the
actual planning for the water treatment plant, which would allow us two years
to pursue any additional funding and/or partnerships that we need to realize as
we grow; that it’s not all about us, but it’s about the folks that we’d be
interested in working with to bring in as a partnership. He fears a four-year commitment makes things
get easy again and doesn’t put the City in a position where we’re out there
trying to pursue any type of alternative funding. He appreciates what Messers.
Reams, Burke and Marshall have done, but he can’t commit to four years.
Ms. Sellers applauded all those who have worked on this amendment
and would support a two-year plan that reallocates to lift the burden from the
residential users, assuming the business community is okay with that. Given the fact that the
financial advisor has stated that a two-year plan at 6%, however it’s
allocated, would allow the City to go forward with the trunk sewer. Regarding Mr. Ream’s
statement that “this four-year plan will fully fund our utility”, doesn’t leave
the City with much leverage or incentive to get the growth to pay for itself. We need to have that back end of two years in
order to go after that other source of financing and “put the fire under us to
get our jobs done.”
Mr. Burke feels that fire has already been lit. He refuses to turn to the people that he
knows in this community and charge them 6% when he knows there is an option for
a 3.3% and 3.4%, and at no time greater than 6%. He defends this option.
Mr. Fogt stated the City is under EPA
mandate to get a sewage plant going. We
need to do that, and any delay in the trunk line sewer is going to delay the
City’s compliance with their wishes. He
complimented Messrs. Burke, Reams and
Mr. Burke moved to accept the amendment and the question put,
stood:
Mr. Gore
NO Ms. Sellers NO
Mr. Fogt
YES Mr. Pleasant NO
Mr. Burke YES Mr. Reams
YES
Motion failed.
Ms. Carmany addressed Council.
“Budget recommendations
for the Water Utility. Please ask
the Water Utility to recommend their own budget cuts, and to keep the existing
residents' water rate increases in line with the Consumer Price Index. The
existing homeowners ought not be responsible for
growth outside the city limits. Connection
fees paid by developers have been non existent, or too low. That could change; the master plan of needed
improvement needs to be closely examined by Council every year.
Water rates in Marysville
are the highest in central
If things are out of focus,
often a "rule of thumb" is used, e. g., if the city is spending more
than 2% of its general fund budget on legal expenses, it needs to settle some
claims and improve its risk management program.
Same principle with debt management;
the lenders make a considerable amount of money each time a new loan is
negotiated; sometimes as high as 1% of the principle borrowed, the day the loan
is consummated. Like any risk
management question, always ask what is at risk and what are
acceptable levels of risk: For the fire department how many homes need
to be protected and how many life safety calls/how many fires per household,
per year, and what response time.
Kitchen fires double in size every 5 minutes. Then you can figure out how many fire
stations, fire engines, and firefighters are needed. Too few firefighters, people will die, houses
will burn down.
For debt that has a revenue
source, like the water enterprise, the question would be what would be the
likelihood of that revenue source disappearing, and if it did disappear, what
would the % burden be on all those other revenue sources. Here's an acceptable rule of thumb: 10% of
the general fund going to debt service, fine, Go
ahead, issue bonds and build what you want.
20%, red flag, not so fine. 30%, too much debt. .
That's whether the "risk" is acceptable; because then the city
would have no choice but to cut essential services like police and fire to pay
debt service. Keep the lid on growth in
water expenditures. Keep the rate hikes
in line with the CPI. The existing residents
are presently regarded as a "steady, reliable revenue source." This
is not so; even enterprise fund debt is not unlimited. We are relying on our elected officials to be
thrifty and prudent with water funds.
The existing residents need
to be satisfied that managers of the water enterprise have looked closely at
their budget for economies and efficiencies.
Ask them to recommend a more reasonable budget. We have never voted on any water rate
increase. If this were put up for a vote
on the November ballot, I doubt it would pass.
Being a good steward is not
only good practice, it is protecting people who live here.”
Mr. Lloyd Baker addressed
Council. He distributed updates on the
rates in other communities from the Malcolm Pirnie Study. Marysville ranks at the top.
Mr. Baker previously spoke
to Mr. Reams about the water conservation and feels it’s an excellent
idea. Efforts are needed to get this
information out to the community. He did
note that the people on the lower income scale would have quite a bit of
hardship in adapting to those, but it would be beneficial for those on a higher
and moderate income to be aware of these savings.
Regarding statements made
previously that a lot of the reasons for this position that we’re in is due to
citizen apathy. Mr. Baker takes
exception to that. He feels citizen
apathy has been a misapplied term to what was really citizen trust. Citizens didn’t come to the meetings because
they elected public officials to represent them and make the decisions for
them. Through citizen trust, they
elected not to micromanage and insult those officials who accepted those
responsibilities. It’s a matter of
citizen trust more than citizen apathy.
It’s a disservice to the citizens to attribute the current circumstance
to citizen apathy. He noted at the
February 7th Ad Hoc Committee Meeting, the former City Administrator
from 1988 until 2000, admonished the citizens who were attending the meeting,
that “we had no business addressing rate increases, we
should leave it to the experts.” Mr.
Baker feels that’S contradictory to the accusation
now that citizens were apathetic.
In closing, Mr. Baker said
we need the definition of progress.
Progress should build and enrich what’s already in place; it shouldn’t
exploit it. The current citizens feel very exploited to the extent at which they’ve had to finance
growth and may be asked to continue to do it in the future. He appreciates the alternative work done by
Messrs. Burke, Reams and
Mr. Fogt
moved to pass the legislation and the question put, stood:
Mr. Reams noted there had
been discussion earlier about the possibility of postponing this to give time
for further study. There is an issue
with the timing in terms of the trunk sewer where this needs to be resolved
within the next week.
Ms. Sellers said she would
support the proposal on a two-year basis.
Mr. Burke said although the
amendment did not pass, he would like to see it in it’s
full consideration because of the delays that occur as this issue regurgitates
itself over and over again. We’ve gone
six months without any rate increase. He
fears two years from now this whole process will go again, when in fact we have
a four-year plan.
Mr. Gore has a real concern
because so much has been made about this, that Council has come back and kind
of backed out of their deal two years ago to raise the rates, and the
discussion very clearly at a Finance Committee was that we would revisit those;
we would try to find ways to reduce the cost to the citizens and that we would
try to find other ways to finance. That
didn’t happen. His whole concern about
this is if we go through and approve a four-year plan, it won’t happen
again. “We’ve reached the point that we
continue, and you can say what you want and you can say that you’re not putting
it on the backs of existing customers, but when you make the statements that we
cannot allow anyone to come in outside the city limits if we don’t pass a rate
increase, that’s putting it on the citizen’s back, and saying that we will
develop further after the citizens pay for us to get a treatment plant, a
reservoir so that we can serve outside the City.” Mr. Gore has to see something that says,
along with what Ms. Sellers proposed earlier, that we make a commitment that if
we’re able to join in a partnership with someone; if we’re able to find some
alternative financing or some revenue sources that will reduce what we have to
borrow to pay for this plant, that we immediately address that through some
form of reduction to our customers. “It
has to be black and white from now on, because as Mr. Baker said, it’s trust,
and part of my problem in my seven years on City Council is that I’ve listened
to this table over here and I trusted and I took their word as gospel, and
sometimes that wasn’t always the case – and that’s seven years, that isn’t just
this Administration. I’ve got to see black and white now.”
Mr. Reams proposed adding a
Section II that says, “Rates will be reviewed in two years. Any reduction in financing needs will be
reflected in the rates.” Add that
section in with the four-year plan with the commitment to do a full study and
any reduction will be addressed at the end of that two years.
Ms. Sellers asked what
incentive do developers have to help contribute to our problem if we have a
four-year plan that fully funds the plant?
What incentive does the County have to renegotiate our service contract
to allow for zone pricing in the county if we have a fully-funded four-year plan?
Mr. Gore asked what
incentive does another community have to partner with us on development if we
have a plan to pay for it?
Mr. Burke asked what
incentive do they have to negotiate with the City if we’re not a service
provider at the time?
Mr. Gore responded, the potential would be there
because in order for them to develop, the water and sewer have to be available
at least through parts of the county. If
we’re going to be able to do that, we need to do it as a partnership.
Ms. Sellers
main concern is that we accept the bids on May 27th to move forward with the
sewer project. She fears that’s in
jeopardy. That’s why she supports
passing tonight a two-year plan that will enable the City to do that.
Mr. Reams stated it doesn’t
allow the City to move forward on water capacity in terms of the treatment
plant, and without addressing that need, we can’t really commit to the trunk
sewer part of that.
Ms.
Sellers said the immediate need is that if we don’t accept the bid that is due
on May 23rd, that we’re going to run into higher costs the next time
it’s bid out.
Someone estimated that at $5M.
Plus, Mr. Reams said we’d lose our grants.
Mr.
Reams moved to add a Section II amendment to the amendment proposed earlier as
follows: “Rates will be reviewed in two
years. Any reduction in funding needs
will be reflected to water rates at that time.”
That will serve as Council’s commitment in writing as we address
development, as we renegotiate with the County anything that we can accomplish
in the next two years will be reduced at that time.
Mr.
Fogt withdrew his motion to pass the legislation.
Mr.
Gore asked Mr. Aslaner how does that lock that up? What does that do
with the companion legislation passed earlier?
Mr. Aslaner doesn’t think it affects it. The resolution passed earlier is still on the
books. Mr. Gore wants this to in fact
happen and not just be going through a motion.
He wants to see the Ad Hoc Committee or a Council Committee keep this at
the top of their list. He wants to take
advantage of the training that the Clerk attended. He wants to be able to continue to pursue
looking for partners, and he doesn’t want it to be two years from now. How do we ensure that happens?
Mr.
Reams said that will fall on Council.
That is Council’s commitment. Mr.
Aslaner said if the commitment is made, you set up
the meetings and plan for the discussion.
Mr.
Gore stated the rates are a little more attractive initially over the four
years.
Mr.
Burke stated if it’s going to take time to digest this information, he would be
in favor of tabling the legislation.
This is a brand new concept.
Ms.
Sellers asked Mr. Reams if he would considering adding the provision that the
rates for years three and four would be contingent on a prepaid tap fee system
going into place and secondly, the County agreeing to allow zone pricing in the
County service area. Mr. Reams said
those are things we can work on the next two years. He noted the City had problems with prepaid
taps a couple of years ago. Ms. Sellers
said if we don’t get the county’s renegotiation and interest in allowing zone
pricing, she doesn’t see how we can adopt any kind of four-year plan. She’ll support the proposed four-year plan if
these contingencies are part of the amendment.
Mr. Reams said he can’t speak for the County,
however, he is committed to that idea.
He has concerns with County residents paying the same rate as City
residents. As we move forward, he is
committed to reducing the rates. Ms.
Sellers feels that the County will have no incentive to allow zone pricing
unless we make years three and four contingent on zone pricing. Mr. Burke added, or any financial model that
increases revenue should be reflected (inaudible). Mr. Reams said we may negotiate something
other than zone pricing.
Mayor
Kruse has said it was necessary to have a commitment in place that would fund
the construction of the water treatment plant.
In order that we would have the infrastructure to provide the growth,
that would facilitate the City fully implementing the rates that we put in
place for the wastewater treatment plant.
Administration built a certain amount of growth in there that we needed
for those rates to be valid. Unless he
can ensure those rates would generate the revenue we need to borrow the $53M
for the interceptor sewer, he could not prudently and in good conscience try
and borrow that money without being sure that we had an ironclad way of paying
that money back. He has also said that
he presented a plan that Council elected not to go with. He’s not going to oppose any plan that meets that criteria. Any
plan that has a contingency on it, that we’re dependent on action by the County
or anybody else, does not make that an ironclad commitment. The proposal that Messers. Burke, Reams and
Mr.
Reams proposed the following amendment to Section II: “Rates will be reviewed in two years. Any negotiated financing model that generates
revenue beyond the current rate structure in years 2009 and 2010 shall be used
to reduce the rates in those years. The
City shall begin working on these alternatives immediately upon passage of this
legislation.”
Ms.
Sellers said it still doesn’t address the issue of what incentive the County
has to agree to this change if the plan is fully funded. This amendment tells the residents we’ll
reduce their rates if they agree, but we have nothing in place to require the
County to agree. Mr. Reams noted the
County is no longer our customer. We
bought the system from them. Ms. Sellers
said “you’re still subject to an agreement with them that provides that we
cannot charge zone pricing, as you know, so that’s the concern.”
Mr.
Burke stated building a reservoir doesn’t make us a service provider. He doesn’t think you have the ability to
negotiate when you don’t have anything to sell.
Mr.
Fogt stated along with Messers.
Reams, Burke and Marshall, he is not going to quit looking for other
funding. He feels just because it’s
written in the legislation isn’t going to make it happen. He would like to go with the amendment
proposed by Mr. Reams.
Mr.
Reams is committed to finding ways to reduce the rates. Ms. Sellers said she’s not concerned about
the level of commitment that Council brings; its third parties that have an
influence over our ability to charge higher rates to County residents.
Motion on the table by Mr. Reams to amend the legislation as brought
forward this evening by adding Section II. “Rates will be reviewed in two years. Any negotiated financial model that generates
revenue beyond the current rate structure in years 2009 and 2010 shall be used
to reduce the rates in those years. The
City shall begin working on these alternatives immediately upon passage of this
legislation” and the question put, stood:
Ms.
Sellers YES Mr. Fogt YES
Mr. Pleasant YES Mr. Burke
YES Mr. Reams YES
Mr. Gore YES
Amendment
passed.
The
amended legislation returned to second reading, public hearing. Mr. Reams moved to waive reading in full;
affirmative voice vote was unanimous.
Mr.
Dick Noland addressed Council. He
doesn’t understand, the Mayor keeps saying we don’t have water, so he visited
the plant and there is between one half and over a million gallons in reserve, so
he doesn’t understand this talk of “you won’t have a shower if we take in one
more subdivision.” The growth in
Marysville has slowed. He checked. There were 257 permits issued in Marysville
in 2003, last year there were 114. If
someone would look at those projections, which were very optimistic in the
Water Master Plan, and the Water Master Plan is an engineering report written
at the direction of the City; it is not a business plan. He still supports the business plan. The business plan should tell the City how
we’re going to make ends meet when develop slows down.
Regarding
the amendment, Mr. Noland complimented Messers. Reams
and Burke for doing a lot of good work.
He wants to find out who is buying the water and who is paying for the
water. This amendment begins to do that
and he’s all for it, but there may be too many rate blocks. He calculated his own cost. He pays $4.50 + per ccf. He volunteered to give Council what time he
has to help in this endeavor. What Messers. Reams and Burke have done is a rate study; what
Malcolm Pirnie did was a revenue study.
Mr. Noland would like to know who is using in each current rate
block. He recalls from a number of years
ago that six or seven rate blocks is too many. Without seeing all the numbers, and he would
like to see the numbers of the rate used by category currently, is that maybe
the bottom block ought to be dropped.
He’d like to help work on it with somebody.
Mr.
Dennis Schulze addressed Council. He
thanked Council. He realizes it’s tough
to make these decisions, especially when it’s going to impact this community
for years. He thinks right now it’s time
for the City, County, Townships, developers and the citizens to all get
together and figure this thing out. It’s
in everyone’s interest to bring the rates down as much as possible and to make
it work so that we have a good strong viable economical community where we can
all live and not worry about how we’re going to pay our next utility bill. We don’t want to get caught in shoddy development
that is going to cost us; we want it to pay for itself, but we need steady,
quality and sensible growth or the rest of us that live here are going to be
paying for some huge bills over the future.
Mr.
Gary Little asked what the average usage of water is for a household for a
year. Mr. Reams responded it’s about 500
c.f. per month based on the bills that were recently run. Green Pastures was 476 and some of the other residential
areas were right around 500 to 510. Mr.
Little asked, “If we get a break in the summer time months with the summer
relief, which starts here in a little while, by doing this amendment, rather
than getting 100% charge, are we going to our summer relief and getting a 70%
of the water charge?
Mr.
Reams believed Mr. Little was talking about the sewer rates, and the sewer
rates are based on your winter usage, and sewer rates are based on water
usage. During the summer months you do
get a break on the sewer. Mr. Little
asked if that would be affected in this? Response was no.
Mr.
Eric Phillips addressed Council. Mr.
Phillips gave City Council members a copy of a letter from David Thorbahn on behalf of the Union County Chamber of
Commerce. He was unable to attend
tonight’s meeting. Mr. Phillips said
Nestle paid $112,000 in a water bill last year and Scott’s Miracle Gro paid $103,000.
Regarding the amendment, he expressed concern that if we price ourselves
out of the market on water rates, it may discourage economic development in the
future.
Mr.
Reams said they did some rate comparisons in terms of industrial as well, and
in particular they looked at
Ms.
Sellers asked Mr. Phillips what his position is on the proposed amendment. Mr. Phillips is not taking a position, but he
commented that he felt it would be important to at least sit down with some of
the major water users so at least they’re familiar with what the rate increase
means to them. A couple of years ago
when a stormwater increase was proposed, a lot of the
businesses were very concerned about that increase. He expressed concern with passing something
tonight that the business community is not familiar with.
Mr.
Fogt noted that if the businesses talk to Mr.
Phillips, be sure to tell them that the original proposal was to increase by 8%
across the board. The revised plan was
6%.
Mr.
Burke said as they work their way through this tier because of the blending
affect, their rate increase is actually less than that because the bottom tiers
averaging anywhere from 2-5. He feels
this provides economic development to continue in this county. When you look at a large water user like ORW,
there’s an incentive to instill some of the conservation measures that Mr.
Reams mentioned. If that occurs, doesn’t
that forego or delay to some degree because of the decrease in usage on these
major users, which actually use more water than all of us put together, forego
the building of a plant and allow us to pursue the activities that Ms. Sellers
has discussed. If we can forego this
plant until 2013, what does that do? It
raises a lot of money, raises a lot of opportunity and allows us to move
forward in a positive direction on all fronts.
Mr.
Phillips said there is a Chamber Executive Committee next Tuesday and asked if
someone could attend and explain this issue to the business leaders. Mr. Pleasant will work on that.
A
Special City Council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, April 17th
at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers to hold 3rd reading, title only on
the water rate legislation. Citizens will
be given an opportunity to speak without having to get permission in
advance.
“AN
ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $53,000,000 OF
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2007, OF THE CITY OF
MARYSVILLE, OHIO, UNDER ARTICLE XVIII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF OHIO, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF PAYING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION,
EXPANSION, REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM; AUTHORIZING A FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST
INDENTURE TO SECURE SUCH BONDS AND ADDITIONAL PARITY BONDS HEREAFTER
AUTHORIZED, WHICH INDENTURE SHALL PLEDGE THE REVENUES OF SAID SYSTEM;
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE OR OTHER FORM OF CREDIT
ENHANCEMENT, IF NECESSARY, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND AUTHORIZING A BOND
PURCHASE AGREEMENT, A FEDERAL INCOME TAX COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT, AN ESCROW
AGREEMENT, AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT APPROPRIATE FOR THE OFFERING AND SALE OF
SUCH BONDS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY” was presented for third reading, title
only. Mr. Reams moved to pass the
emergency and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Fogt YES Mr. Pleasant
YES Mr. Burke YES
Mr. Reams YES Mr. Gore
YES Ms. Sellers YES
Emergency
passed.
Mr.
Reams moved to pass the legislation and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Pleasant YES Mr. Burke
YES Mr. Reams YES
Mr. Gore YES Ms. Sellers
YES Mr. Fogt YES
Ordinance
20-07 passed.
The
ordinance “TO APPROPRIATE $17,370 FROM UNAPPROPRIATED GENERAL FUNDS FOR
RETIREMENT EXPENSES FOR MUNICIPAL COURT AND MODIFY THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
AS A RESULT OF THIS ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF THESE
EXPENDITURES” was presented for second reading, public hearing. Mr. Burke moved to waive reading in full;
affirmative voice vote was unanimous.
“AN
ORDINANCE REDUCING APPROPRIATIONS DUE TO PROJECT AND/OR FUNDING DELAYS AND/OR
EXCESS CARRYOVER ENCUMBRANCES, AND MODIFYING THE ANNUAL OEPRATING BUDGET AS A
RESULT OF THIS ACTION” was presented for first reading, title only. Mr. Morehart
explained these reductions would enable the estimated resources of anticipated
receipts to be consistent with the budget appropriation in the 2007
budget. In the 2007 budget, $110,000,000
was budgeted in the Sewer Incremental Capacity Fee Fund. The year end encumbrance should have been
considered when the final 2007 budget amount was established. Regarding the City Gate TIF Fund, the City
borrowed $5 million in December 2006 for the City Gate TIF. When the 2007 budget was being developed and
approved through City Council, we anticipated the first payment to be made in
January. It was made in December,
creating an over appropriation in the 2007 budget due to the reduction of
resources. Once approved, this ordinance
will be sent to the
The
ordinance “AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTES IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED
$30,000,000 IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, EXPANSION, REHABILITATION,
AND IMPROVEMENT OF THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT
SYSTEM; APPROVING THE FORM OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT RELATING TO THE NOTES, IF
NECESSARY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY” was presented for first reading, title
only. This ordinance supplements the
$53M and it’s a general obligation note.
We will not be issuing $53M in notes.
The total of issuance is $53M and that’s stated in the note. Mr. Rich Simpson explained the total that
will be borrowed is not to exceed $52M.
That will cover the bid cost on the interceptor project. The reason there are both bonds and notes in
this case is because we had to satisfy the additional bonds test under the
indenture that secures the bonds and there is a different test that you apply
in terms of coverage for bonds and notes.
Since you have to look backwards at last years
revenue, we want to issue as many bonds as possible under last year’s test
because it’s a good time to issue bonds. We want to lock in those interest
rates, but if we can’t issue all $52M in bonds, then we have to issue the rest
in notes, which has a lower test. As
soon as the revenues allow them to issue additional bonds, those notes will be
converted to bonds. Notes are generally
less than bonds because notes are short term and bonds are long term. Short term rates are generally, but not
always, lower than long-term rates.
Today they are lower. Long term
rates are really good and we want to issue today as many bonds as we can
issue. The first priority will be to
issue bonds, then when we’re right up against the amount that we can maximize
under the indenture, they rest they’ll issue in notes. In today’s market, it will save a little
money because the interest rate on the notes is less. Ms. Sellers asked if the reallocation of the
water rates affects the backward looking test? Mr. Simpson said no. Ms. Sellers asked if there was anything that
could be done to reorganize the rate structure to maximize the test. Mr. Simpson was not sure. Ms. Sellers asked if it would save a lot of
money if we can get the right allocation of notes to bonds. Mr. Simpson said it would save a little, but
not much because they’re actually very close.
Mr.
Fogt asked for confirmation that Section 5 on Page 2
definitely holds the City to the $53M maximum amount. Mr. Simpson said yes.
Mr.
Fogt moved to pass the emergency and the question
put, stood.
Mr.
Burke YES Mr. Reams
YES Mr. Gore YES
Ms. Sellers YES Mr. Fogt YES
Mr. Pleasant YES
Emergency
passed.
The
ordinance “AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION TRANSFER WITHIN MUNICIPAL COURT BUDGET
SALARY LINE ITEMS AND MODIFYING THE ANNUAL BUDGET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
APPROPRIATION TRANSFER” was presented for first reading, title only. The Judge requested a transfer of line items
“AN
ORDINANCE CONSENTING TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY
CONTAINING 171.531 ACRES IN PARIS TOWNSHIP TO THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE, OHIO AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY” was presented for first reading, title only. Mr. Fogt commented
that he was surprised to see multi-family residential. He was in hopes this would be totally
commercial. He hopes the right-hand turn
lane is designed better than the one at Applebee’s. People turn left at Applebee’s all the
time. He also noted that Dominion Homes
had previously offered land for a fire station next to Larry Hobbs’ house. If something could be worked out, this
property would be great for a fire station to be located in the area. It would have access to
Mr.
Reams YES Mr. Gore
YES Ms. Sellers YES
Mr. Fogt
YES Mr. Pleasant YES
Mr. Burke YES
Emergency
passed.
The
ordinance “TO AMEND SECTION 1144.03, ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITY, OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE” was
presented for first reading, title only.
Mr. Seymour explained that this is a correction to the Design Review
Board member term limits. It’s relative
to the Mayor appointees who come from the Planning Commission. It states that the expiration of the Planning
Commission term is the same time as the Design Review term. A Public Hearing was scheduled for May 24,
2007 per Section 1131.08 of the Planning and Zoning Code.
The
ordinance “TO REDRAW THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, AR/SR, OF THE PROPOSED
GALBURY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION” was presented for first reading, title only. Mr. Dennis Schulze explained this is for
internal movement of the zoning line within the subdivision. This is under the old PUD regulations, so
it’s an overlay. When the PUD was approved,
you overlay it and there was a conflict on the underlying zoning so that it’s
consistent. He asked if Council could do
anything to move this along quickly, they’d appreciate it because of the
upcoming building season. Mr. Seymour
stated there is a section of the code that allows Planning Commission to
recommend minor modifications to already approved plats and this is one of
those conditions. This will not affect
the outcome of the project at all. Clerk
Patterson said this could not be moved up due to the timeframe in which to work
for advertising and notices. A Public
Hearing was scheduled for May 24, 2007 per Section 1131.08 of the Planning and
Zoning Code.
The
ordinance “TO REZONE 1 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, PARCEL NUMBER 1110601001000, LOCATED
NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROUTE 38 AND WALKER WOODS LANE FROM AR
(AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL (TO R-1 (LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)” was
presented for first reading, title only.
Mr. Seymour explained that this is at the corner of Rt. 38. It sets on the south side of
Ms.
Sellers asked what the use is going to be.
Mr. Seymour said residential homes would be going on the property. Mr. Gallogly said
the proposed division under R-1 would be two, half acre lots, 87’ frontage on
Rt. 38, however, the final plat approved by Planning and Zoning for Walker
Meadows provided an ingress/egress at the back of this lot off of
Ms.
Lutz addressed Council. As a point of
clarification, she understands that during the Planning Commission process
there was discussion SR or R-1 and if it was zoned the way that it has been
passed from the Planning Commission to City Council, there would be probably up
to two lots, both with driveways from St. Rt. 38. There was also discussion during that time,
of turning that around instead of it being a line that goes east/west, having a
line that goes north/south and then using a 30’ ingress/egress utility easement
as a permanent driveway that would cut right through the entrance landscaping
of Walker Meadows. She is glad that the
Planning Commission didn’t approve that and she hopes there is no possibility
of any disruption of the Walker Meadows PUD Plan, and that there would never be
any consideration to taking a permanent driveway through an easement that was
meant to be a temporary ingress/egress easement and also utility. It’s part of the master landscaping plan that
was approved and legislated through the PUD process. What the Planning Commission has sent to City
Council is fine. She doesn’t want any
further consideration of the other option.
Mr.
Reams asked if this was considered spot zoning based on this being a single
acre zoned R-1 and surrounded by nothing else that’s R-1. Is that not spot zoning? Mr. Aslaner will
check and get an answer for Mr. Reams.
Mr. Seymour said Planning Commission did take into account spot zoning
and while spot zoning is permissible, it’s not desirable. This was recognized by the Commission and in
recognition of this situation, it was agreed that this would be appropriate in
this case. A Public Hearing was
scheduled for May 24, 2007 per Section 1131.08 of the Planning and Zoning Code.
Mr.
Fogt moved to put the following legislation on the
consent calendar and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Gore YES
Ms. Sellers YES Mr. Fogt YES
Mr. Pleasant YES Mr. Burke
YES Mr. Reams YES
Motion
passed.
The
ordinance “TO ESTABLISH A LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND FOR THE MARYSVILLE
POLICE
DEPARTMENT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY” was presented for first reading, title
only. Mr. Aslaner
explained the Marysville Police Department has obtained some property in the
apprehension of criminals. Research has
not shown any fund setup in which to apply the proceeds from this property. These proceeds become the property of the
Police Department and should be deposited in a fund. The Ohio Revised Code requires the
legislative authority to create or establish this fund.
Mr.
Fogt moved to pass the emergency and the question
put, stood:
Ms.
Sellers YES Mr. Fogt YES
Mr. Pleasant YES Mr. Burke
YES Mr. Reams YES
Mr. Gore YES
Emergency
passed.
Mr.
Reams moved to waive second reading, public hearing and the question put,
stood:
Mr.
Fogt YES Mr. Pleasant
YES Mr. Burke YES
Mr. Reams YES Mr. Gore
YES Ms. Sellers YES
Motion
passed.
Mr.
Burke moved to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.
Mr.
Reams moved to waive third reading, title only and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Pleasant YES Mr. Burke
YES Mr. Reams YES
Mr. Gore YES Ms. Sellers
YES Mr. Fogt YES
Motion
passed.
Mr.
Burke moved to pass the legislation and the question put, stood:
Mr.
Burke YES Mr. Reams
YES Mr. Gore YES
Ms. Sellers YES Mr. Fogt YES
Mr. Pleasant YES
Ordinance
21-07 passed.
COMMENTS
OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL PERSONS AND GENERAL DISCUSSION
1. Parks & Recreation
Representative.
Mr.
Fogt commented that he was happy with the progress
made on the water rates tonight and thanked everyone for all their efforts.
Mr.
Reams agreed with Mr. Fogt. He’s glad to be moving forward with the water
issue.
Mr.
Pleasant thanked everyone for the patience.
He asked everyone to look at the amendment and come back on
Tuesday. Council will continue to make
good decisions.
Mr. Aslaner asked if Council was aware that the emergency on the Resolution of Services for th