CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

APRIL 26, 2007

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Kruse, Director of Finance Morehart, Asst. Law Director Eufinger, Clerk Patterson

CITIZENS PRESENT: Bob Marshall, Donna Nicol, Michelle Nicol, Esther Carmany, Lloyd Baker, Bob Muth, Bill Pitt, Chuck Day, Dave Cook, Steve Yurasek, Alan Seymour, Myron Gallogly, Dennis Schulze, Chuck Campbell, Priscilla Gallogly, Gary Little, Steve Lutz, Debbie Lutz, Jeff Garber, David Applegate, Neil Niemi

REPORTERS PRESENT: Ryan Horns-Journal Tribune

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: There being no additions or corrections, the minutes for the meeting on April 12, 2007 were approved as written.

There being no additions or corrections, the minutes for the meeting on April 17, 2007 were approved as written.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Mayor Kruse, with the assistance of President Pleasant awarded a plaque and gift certificate to Donna Nicol, Employee of the Quarter. January through March of 2007 was the busiest time period in our City's HR history. Donna helped manage six simultaneous recruitment processes. The previous record for simultaneous recruitments was three. For two of these hiring processes, the City received over 150 applications for each position. The previous record was 54. In addition to this onslaught of work, she still found time to compile the data and route the 2006 Employee Benefit Summaries to all 158 employees. She diligently dealt with 18 employee benefit issues and played a vital role in the HR's involvement in three internal investigations. She is an efficient, highly competent HR professional and an indispensable part of our team.

On May 18, 2007 the City anticipates letting the contract for the interceptor sewer to connect the new wastewater treatment plant to the existing City. Also plan on letting the contract for the design of the Water Treatment Plant and the contract for the Reservoir later in 2007.(amended on 5/10/07)

On May 8, 2007, City will open bids for 2007 Paving Contracts. The list of streets will not be finalized until the bids come in. City will then be able to know exactly what streets can be paved with the money available.

REPORT OF CLERK OF COUNCIL: Clerk Patterson reported that a request for a C2 Liquor Permit (wine & prepackaged mixed drinks) for CVS on W. 5^th Street was brought before Council on March 8^th with no objections. An INSTITUTION NOTICE FOR LIQUOR PERMIT has been received because CVS is located within 500 ft. of the American Legion Park. The City and City Council are being given the opportunity to object to the issuance of this permit. Council had no objections.

Also received a request for transfer of the D1, D3 & D3X liquor permit from Old Town Inn to C.S.O.T.I., LLC, 113 w. Fifth St. The police had no problems with these establishments. Council had no objections.

HEARING OF CITIZENS: Mr. Gary Little addressed Council. He noted there were two funds with $1M plus in them with regards to water. He asked what percent interest City was making on those. Also, he asked on the 30 year loan which will retire in 2021, what is the percent of interest on that loan? Mr. Morehart said it was between 4 and 5%. He’ll check to make sure. Originally issued in 1991 at 7/8%, refinanced in 1993 at 5/6% and refinanced again in 2003 at 4/5%. Mr. Little will follow up with Mr. Morehart to get exact numbers.

Mr. Marshall moved to add the legislation to the consent calendar and the question put, stood:

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

Motion passed.

RESOLUTIONS

The “RESOLUTION SUPPORTING D.A.R.E. PROGRAM FOR THE 2007/2008 SCHOOL YEAR” was presented for third reading, title only. Mr. Marshall moved to pass the legislation and the question put, stood:

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

Resolution 8-07 passed.

“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 second reading, public hearing. Mr. Reams questioned the need for the emergency. For the Expedited Annexation process, City has 20 days from the date the petition was filed with the County to return the resolution of services, so this timeframe does not allow Council to follow the normal legislative process. Motion was made by Mr. Reams to reconsider the vote on the emergency clause and the question put, stood:

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

Motion passed.

Mr. Marshall moved to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.

Mr. Bob Muth of the Clark addition addressed Council with some concerns. There are 14 homeowners in this subdivision.

1) Request that sewage and stormwater flows from Clark’s addition into the City not be affected by this annexation. Stormwater drains south, and there is an easement that the township acquired some years ago. They would like that maintained. Septic goes north and then discharges into the Cook property. Owners want to make sure that is kept in tact.

2) Want existing utility easements out of the subdivision to the north and to the west to remain utility easements. One concern is that small country roads or subdivision roads in their neighborhood not be a thoroughfare or there not be an apartment complex between 33 and their subdivision.

3) Appropriate buffers be created between the annexed areas and the homes in the Clark’s addition.

4) Lighting, landscaping, public address and sound systems, rubbish, smells and vermin control and the overall development be neighborhood friendly. The Honda Federal Credit Union is an excellent example of a neighborhood-friendly development.

5) Want the zoning and land use of the annexed areas kept as presently described for a period of 10 years. It is now zoned commercial. Feels it would be good to stipulate in the annexation that this is what it is.

6) Want to know the intentions of the City as regards to the annexation of Clark’s addition and costs involved with annexation. He spoke to the Director of Administration and was told City has no intentions of annexing at this time. The cost to connect to City water and sewer is approximately $10,000 and to run the trunk line would be $700,000 divided among the 14 homes.

Mr. Muth urged Council to consider all of the above concerns before the annexation takes place.

Mr. Dennis Schulze added that if Council doesn’t act on this legislation, it doesn’t mean that there is no annexation. The County can still go ahead with it. The statutory language from the State is directory; it doesn’t mean you have to approve it; it means you have to act on it.

Mr. Eufinger clarified that this is not an approval of the annexation; it is an approval of the statement of the services the City will provide to the annexed area.

Mr. Marshall moved to waive third reading, title only and the question put, stood:

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

Mr. Reams moved to pass the emergency and the question put, stood:

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

Emergency passed.

Mr. Burke moved to pass the legislation and the question put, stood

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

“A RESOLUTION STATING THAT BUFFERING WILL APPLY TO ANY INCOMPATIBLE USES PERMITTED BY CITY ZONING IN THE APPROXIMATELY 171.531 ACRES PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED FROM PARIS TOWNSHIP, UNION COUNTY TO THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE, OHIO IF THE PROPERTY IS ANNEXED AND BECOMES SUBJECT TO CITY ZONING WITH A USE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CURRENT TOWNSHIP ZONING OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES REMAINING IN THE TOWNSHIP FOLLOWING ANNEXATION AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY” was presented for first reading, title only. Mr. Fogt moved to pass the emergency and the question put, stood:

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

Emergency passed.

Mr. Gore moved to waive second reading, public hearing and the motion put, stood:

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

Mr. Marshall moved to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.

Mr. Marshall moved to waive third reading, title only and the question put, stood:

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

Motion passed.

Mr. Marshall 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 Mr. Marshall YES Ms. Sellers YES

Resolution 10-07 passed.

“COMPANION RESOLUTION TO ORDINANCE 22-07 TO AMEND SECTION 931 – WATER RATES – OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE”. Mayor vetoed this legislation. Per Section 5.04 of the Marysville Charter, legislation is back on the agenda for Council’s consideration to override the veto.

Ms. Sellers moved to override the Mayor’s veto and the question put, stood:

Mr. Pleasant YES Mr. Burke YES Mr. Reams YES Mr. Gore YES Mr. Marshall NO Ms. Sellers YES Mr. Fogt YES

Motion passed to override the veto passed.

Mr. Pleasant excused himself for the remainder of the meeting due to another commitment and turned the meeting over to Vice President Burke.

ORDINANCES

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 third reading, title only. Mr. Marshall moved to pass the legislation and the question put, stood:

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

Ordinance 23-07 passed.

“AN ORDINANCE REDUCING APPROPRIATIONS DUE TO PROJECT AND/OR FUNDING DELAYS AND/OR EXCESS CARRYOVER ENCUMBRANCES, AND MODIFYING THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AS A RESULT OF THIS ACTION” was presented for second reading, public hearing. Mr. Gore moved to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.

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 IMPROVMEENT 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 second reading, public hearing. Mr. Marshall moved to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.

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 second reading, public hearing. Mr. Marshall moved to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous.

“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 second reading, public hearing. Mr. Marshall moved to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous. Mr. Reams asked what this area was currently zoned. Response was B-1 in Paris Township. Mr. Fogt said once the area is annexed, Planning Commission and City Council will have to approve future zoning for that area. When the rezoning process is going through Planning Commission, residents are encouraged to attend to voice their concerns.

Mr. Marshall moved to waive third reading, title only and the question put, stood:

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

Motion passed.

Mr. Marshall moved to pass the legislation and the question put, stood:

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

Ordinance 24-07 passed.

The ordinance “TO AMEND SECTION 1144.03, ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING CODE” was presented for second reading, public hearing. Mr. Marshall moved to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous. Public Hearing will be held on May 24, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.

The ordinance “TO REDRAW THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, AR/SR, OF THE PROPOSED GALBURY MEADOWS SUBDIVISION” was presented for second reading, public hearing. Ms. Sellers moved to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous. Public Hearing will be held on May 24, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.

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 second reading, public hearing. Mr. Fogt moved to waive reading in full; affirmative voice vote was unanimous. Mr. Myron Gallogly stated he is constructing the sewer line for the City from Timber Trails to his property. In order to do that, additional easements were needed on three parcels. He was able to work out an agreement with two of the people who have houses on those parcels. The owner of the third parcel would not negotiate an easement at any price, so he bought the property in order to get the easement. It is currently zoned AR. He is proposing it be rezoned R-1, which splits it into two half-acre lots, which are larger than most of the lots in Walker Meadows.

Mr. David Applegate, resident of Walker Meadows, addressed Council. He expressed concern as a new resident that the integrity of their development is maintained and that Council at least take that into consideration, Also, building a house of lesser quality in the area and putting an access into a road and giving them an address the same as his may depreciate the value of his home. Residents of Walker Meadows has a hardship of architectural restrictions and would like those to be equal for the two proposed lots. Residents must participate in a community association that requires fees to be assessed. If residents of the proposed two lots are going to have the same benefit of having the same address of their home, it would much more palatable too. Currently, it’s an attractive entrance, and he’s concerned about taking away from the attractiveness of that entrance. He agreed that the size of the lots is appropriate for the area. Nice homes could be built in that area, but still maintain the value of his property. He feels this is a spot zoning issue and the primary concern is that the current and future residents of Walker Meadows be protected from other houses with the same address.

Mr. Fogt stated the proposal is for those two lots to have a Rt. 38 address. Mr. Gallogly agreed.

Mr. Jeff Garber addressed Council with same concerns as Mr. Applegate. They all paid a premium for very restrictive lot covenants and a homeowners association that he feels maintains the value of their property. He asked that consideration be made to restrict access to these lots through Walker Woods Lane. If the access is run through SR 38, he feels the development can take place as planned. If it comes through Walker Woods Lane, it violates access to reserve space that’s controlled by the homeowner’s association, as well as give the property an address that would be consistent with the Walker Meadows subdivision with potentially not the same building restrictions that residents abide by at this time.

Mr. Neil Niemi addressed Council with the same concerns as the other residents. Regarding the access that would allow the rezoning of this property, which is really two in the same argument, which is if the property is to be rezoned, there has to be an access available whether through Rt. 38 or Walker Woods Lane. The question is “As we consider that process, how would access have been applied if Walker Woods didn’t exist. Five years ago when that was farmland, would we be talking about rezoning and carrying a driveway all the way throughout, taking eminent domain over a farmer’s field and cutting that back out through Rt. 38.” He asked Council to think back one step in terms of what the original design of that plot of land was.

Mr. Gallogly stated the developer of Walker Woods submitted a final development plan calling for a 30’ ingress/egress on Walker Lane into that lot in order to facility them getting their road access permit on Rt. 38. That exists, and the final plat submitted by Walker Meadows, approved by Zoning and Council and Administration, and it’s in the final plat, so that 30’ ingress/egress easement is on the deeds and is recorded. That is in order not to have a driveway. Walker Meadows wanted their access on Rt. 38 and the City requires a certain distance between a street and driveway. In order to get that permit, Walker Meadows developer requested that easement.

Ms. Sellers asked for clarification that Mr. Gallogly is proposing to abandon that easement because he doesn’t need it. Mr. Gallogly stated no. That still makes sense not to have a driveway right next to Walker Meadows on Rt. 38. The driveway on the north lot would be the 30’ easement that is on the Walker Meadows plan and the other lot would have a 30’ easement across the back of that lot or share a driveway with Vollrath. Both would retain the rear access nature of the Walker Meadows development, which is one of their building requirements. Both lots would have a Rt. 38 address.

Ms. Sellers asked Mr. Gallogly to address the covenants that are in place for Walker Meadow residents? Mr. Gallogly stated the SR covenants that Walker Meadows has employed are not included in R-1. The best use of that site is to flip flop the other way and have it two half acres lots with 124’ frontage facing on Walker Woods Lane, but City Administration has indicated that it would accept the back lot, the lot to the west, as having frontage on Walker Wood Lane fronting onto this curb lawn. Therefore, SR cannot be used for the split because the back lot would have to have frontage. SR is not an option unless the City would accept that the curb lawn onto Walker Woods Lane is frontage. Then you incorporate the Walker Meadows deed restrictions with the exception of the approval by Walker Meadows of what’s built. The homeowner’s association requirements would not be appropriate. All covenants and building restrictions could be in place.

Mr. Reams asked if this was one or two lots now. Mr. Gallogly stated it is one, one-acre lot, proposed to be zoned R-1 and split into two half-acre lots. Mr. Reams noted the split is not part of tonight’s discussion.

Ms. Debbie Lutz addressed Council. She is the developer of Walker Meadows. She said what Mr. Gallogly said the intent for easements is wrong. That easement was meant as a temporary ingress/egress to that lot and also for the development. That parcel, that is that easement, is owned by the community association of Walker Meadows. It was meant as a temporary easement. If a permanent driveway were to go through there, it would be across and on permanently, the property owned by the community association. Ms. Lutz said she went through a very extensive and laborious process with Planning Commission and City Council to develop a really good subdivision that is Walker Meadows. It is a PUD. Everything that is on the plot was negotiated with the Planning Commission and Council. The landscaping on both entrances was an integral part of the process. That landscaping was legislated; it was approved by statute through the PUD process and to put a permanent driveway on that easement would remove a portion of that landscaping, including trees and planting beds. The easement is an easement, but it is also part of the planting and landscape of the main entrance from St. Rt. 38. It is not something that is intended to be a permanent driveway to contiguous property. It was meant to be a convenience easement for utility trucks to get in, etc. It would be one thing if the deed restrictions were applied to the one house. If the rezoning request were turned down, it would remain AR, which would permit one house on the lot and would fall under the AR zoning requirements for the construction. If the current zoning were approved by Council, it could be divided into two lots. Those lots could come from St. Rt. 38 and could be a shared driveway or it’s possible to take one driveway and extend it right through the landscaping area of the entrance way of Walker Meadows to serve those two lots. Ms. Lutz said that is inconsistent with the Planning process; it’s inconsistent with what the people who bought in Walker Meadows would want or expect, and she is adamantly opposed to it.

Ms. Sellers questioned Ms. Lutz’s support for the rezoning at the last meeting. Ms. Lutz said she was misinformed on some of the information, and the assumption there would be a shared driveway off of Rt. 38. If a driveway is shared off of Rt. 38, Ms. Lutz and Walker Meadows residents would still be concerned about deed restrictions and covenants, because it is contiguous property, but they would not be able to control it. They would like to see something developed that would be consistent with the entire area and consistent with what they’re going to be doing across the street and enhance the development across the street as well.

Ms. Sellers questioned whether the easement is temporary or permanent. It’s not known for sure if it’s temporary or permanent.

Mr. Reams reminded everyone that we’re talking about rezoning, not the purpose of the land. Ms. Sellers disagreed with that position.

Mr. Alan Seymour stated this is about zoning. Timber Trails is zoned R-1 and Walker Meadows is zoned SR. This property is between those two zonings. Planning Commission reviewed the entire project and what is the best use of the land. In this particular case, Planning Commission recommended R-1 because it appeared R-1 created the most flexibility in connection with the land that adjoins it and would likely become R-1 as well. While SR is desired because it adjoins the Walker Meadows property as well, it would be a nice thing, but for general flexibility, R-1 seemed to suit this the best. Without serious consideration of how it would be developed and recognizing that it would be an issue at some point, the best use of the land is how the Planning Commission came up with R-1.

Ms. Sellers commented about her position on Council tackling rezoning issues. She feels Council should have the foresight and stringent look at this kind of development in the same manner as Dublin. She noted the City of Dublin just spent many hours deliberating on a rezoning and required a final PUD prior to rezoning a parcel of land where Dublin got a fire station and $800,000 homes. She feels Council should be considering these issues now and take time to deliberate these issues that are before Council, giving due consideration to both sides of the issue.

Mr. Burke stated there has been some communication from some Planning Commission members and asked about the communication between the members. Mr. Seymour stated a home has to have road frontage and by facing the main entrance to Walker Meadows, that would not be acceptable as road frontage, because the reserve is in fact a lot owned by the homeowner’s association. Rt. 38 is the only option for road frontage. SR could work also. He said you consider the best use of the land and the surroundings and how the zoning would best compliment existing conditions and potential future conditions.

Ms. Sellers asked if the lot split could occur first, then rezone the property. Mr. Seymour stated the lot split isn’t relative to this at all. Mr. Gallogly said you cannot have SR zoning without having over 100’ frontage.

Mr. Marshall shared a concern that just because an area is rezoned a certain way, who knows what its going to look like 5/10 years from now. He understands the concern from the residents as far as being concerned as to what goes in beside them.

Mr. Seymour stated Marysville has been predominantly R-2 for many years. Very little R-1 has existed. It’s a good thing to have R-1. It’s a great thing to have SR as well. R-1 should not be belittled. There are a lot of benefits to R-1, such as 80’ lot frontage, home size restrictions. Marysville is growing in the R-1 segment. Mr. Marshall feels we need to respect and be sensitive to the concerns of the homeowners beside it, whether it be Timber Trails or Walker Meadows, that something undesirable doesn’t go in there. Mr. Seymour said Planning Commission is not in a position to instruct them on the type of home to put there. The best you could do is request that they create a tight covenant so it compliments Walker Meadows. That would be about the only leverage to consider for the record.

Mr. Fogt asked if this is rezoned as R-1 and split into two lot, what oversight is there for Planning Commission and Design Review? Mr. Seymour didn’t believe that would come to Planning Commission.

Mr. Gore stated the lot split should not be an issue, because those two lots are bigger than the lots in Walker Meadows. He questioned the time the Planning Commission spent on this issue. Mr. Seymour stated there was a lot of discussion, each time reeling it back into the zoning issue after digressing to this level and focused more on how it’s going to be split rather than how it should be zoned. The Planning Commission then reconciled that R-1 should be submitted to City Council. It was unanimous for this to be zoned R-1, but Mr. Seymour admitted the Planning Commission was toiled between which way to go.

Mr. Gore understands the concerns of the residents and legitimately so, but two years ago Ms. Lutz was in front of Council arguing the same stuff to get it her way. There was a lot of discussion on that issue between Council and Planning Commission. Mr. Seymour said if you ask yourself is R-1 right or wrong or is SR right or wrong, there is no right answer.

Ms. Sellers said given that she has received word from another Planning Commission member that he’s in support of SR and we now have resident involvement, she proposed sending this issue back to Planning Commission. Mr. Gore didn’t know how Ms. Sellers could compare this community to Dublin. Ms. Sellers agreed and said we don’t want to be a Dublin. We want to be a small town but feels we should look at all development with as much of a stringent view as we can and make sure the residents are happy with what’s happening. Council has heard all sides of an issue, and it’s been completely reviewed by Planning Commission. Hearing from the residents tonight for the first time and hearing Ms. Lutz change her position from last meeting, there may be new information that needs to discussed and believes the best place to do that is Planning Commission.

Ms. Lutz said the primary concern is no driveway through the entrance of Walker Meadows, and the secondary concern is what goes on the property would be consistent with the homes in Walker Meadows.

Ms. Sellers moved to send this issue back to Planning Commission.

Mr. Gallogly does not accept the issue going back to Planning Commission unless the City Administration accepts the curb lawn as frontage. He is not applying for SR; he’s applying for R-1.

Mr. Gore is not in favor of sending it back to Planning Commission. He’s in favor of trying to resolve the issue.

Ms. Sellers withdrew her motion.

A public hearing will be held on May 24, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.

“AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT A SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM” was presented for first reading, title only. Mr. Burke commented that this legislation will help address an issue that was brought up a couple of years ago about some of the sidewalks in Marysville. This is a matching funds program. The City has allocated $10,000, and is a 50/50 match up to $500 of City funds and $500 residential funds for a total project of $1,000 (example only). This is an application process. This legislation addresses the $20 sidewalk inspection which would be waived on approved applicants. This program is restricted to the Uptown Renewal area and is a pilot project. Sidewalks will be graded on a scale from 0-5, with 5 being the most severe. Residents will submit an application, sidewalks will be graded and approved for matching funds, of which the resident will contract out that work and have the work completed and paid for. They will submit their receipt along with their approval to the City, who will in turn administer funds up into the matching amount of $500 on a 50/50 match. This is limited to residential areas, not business frontage sidewalks. This is for sidewalks that run parallel to the street, not up to one’s home.

The ordinance “TO AMEND CHAPTER 313, TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, CHAPTER 333, OVI; WILLFUL MISCONDUCT; SPEED, CHAPTER 337, SAFETY AND EQUIPMENT, OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE, OHIO” was presented for first reading, title only. Mr. Marshall commented that this legislation will provide Administration more leeway to more easily perform their jobs as it relates to traffic control devices. It mainly allows for the addition of the Director of Administration, in addition to the Director of Transportation. Previously it was only an ODOT designation. The intent is not changed in any of these chapters.

The ordinance “TO APPROPRIATE $88,300 FROM UNAPPROPRIATED STREET FUNDS FOR STREET PAVING, AND MODIFY THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AS A RESULT OF THIS ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF THIS EXPENDITURE” was presented for first reading, title only. Mr. Morehart asked that the title be changed to read “PAVING OF CITY PARKING LOTS” as stated in the body of the legislation, instead of ‘STREET PAVING.” This is considered to be a clerical change so no amendment is needed. The Paving of City parking lots will be incorporated in the Paving Program.

The ordinance “TO APPROPRIATE $4,100 FROM UNAPPROPRIATED LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A VEHICLE INVOLVED IN A POLICE LEGAL SEIZURE AND PAY OFF THE VEHICLE LOAN, AND MODIFY THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET AS A RESULT OF THIS EXPENDITURE” was presented for first reading, title only. Mr. Morehart stated a Law Enforcement Trust Fund was established at the last meeting. City has a seized vehicle they want to process through this fund. The loan has to be paid off first before the vehicle can be sold. This legislation is to payoff the loan.

In order to avoid paying additional money in interest, Mr. Reams moved to waive second reading, public hearing and the question put, stood:

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

Motion passed.

Mr. Reams 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:

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

Motion passed.

Mr. Reams moved to pass the legislation and the question put, stood:

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

Ordinance 25-07 passed.

COMMENTS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL PERSONS AND GENERAL DISCUSSION:

1. Parks & Recreation Representative – Mr. Marshall reported that Parks & Recreation met and discussed the 5-year Capital Plan. The Plan will be updated and brought back to the Commission for approval at the next meeting.

ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before Council, the meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m.