November 23, 2015 Summary

MARION CITY COUNCIL MEETING

 

 

City Hall – Council Chambers on November 23, 2015, 7:30 PM

ROLL CALL - 10 members answered – Mr. Cumston, Mr. Ratliff, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Blevins, Mr. Smith, Mr. Osborn, Mr. Crider, Mr. Daniels, Mrs. Gustin, Mr. Edwards.

 

PRAYER LED BY PASTOR TIM ERRINGTON FROM FAMILY LIFE CHURCH

 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

 

Summary of Proceedings from October 26, 2015. Mr. Cumston moved, Mr. Thomas 2nd. Roll Call: Ayes all, motion carried, Summary of Proceedings is accepted.

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

ORDINANCE 2015-83:

ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE SERVICE DIRECTOR TO COMPLETE AN RFP PROCESS FOR THE GEORGE STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 16-1S; S. GREENWOOD ST, PROJECT 16-2S; AND BELMONT ST., PROJECT 16-3S, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

          Mr. Thomas spoke: this came out of Streets & Sewers with a 3-0 approval. This is for the engineering portion of the projects, I’ll move to suspend rules, Mrs. Blevins 2nd. Roll call: Ayes all, motion carried.

          Mr. Thomas moved to adopt, Mrs. Blevins 2nd. Roll call: Ayes all, motion carried. ORDINANCE 2015-83 IS ADOPTED

 

ORDINANCE 2015-84:

ORDINANCE MAKING AN APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT TO VARIOUS FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2015

          Mr. Cumston spoke: This came out of Finance with a 3-0 recommendation for approval, I’ll move to suspend, Mr. Osborn 2nd. Roll call: Ayes all, motion carried.

          Mr. Cumston moved to adopt, Mr. Osborn 2nd. Roll call: Ayes all, motion carried. ORDINANCE 2015-84 IS ADOPTED

 

ORDINANCE 2015-85:

ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF MARION, BY REZONING 1040 MT. VERNON AVE, ALSO KNOWN AS 525 PENNSYLVANIA AVE. FROM AN R-1A (SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, LOW DENSITY) TO A O-I-A (OFFICE - INSTITUTIONAL - APARTMENT DISTRICT) (Applicant, Phil Ruth)

          Mr. Smith spoke: This came out of Zoning and Annexation with a 3-0 approval, I’m asking for a first reading tonight. ORDINANCE 2015-85 HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING

 

ORDINANCE 2015-86:

ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 1969-29 (KNOWN AS THE YARGER REPORT) AS AMENDED, BY UPGRADING THE JOB POSITION OF THE CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER

          Mr. Cumston spoke: This came out of Zoning and Annexation with a 3-0 approval. We have to define a grade, you have to choose a grade between 22-26 If you wanted 22 – we can change it. Judge said you just have to define the range? Mr. Cumston said we can amend it tonight or have a 1st reading. Make it to 22, if you need to 23 or 24, this job will pay 23. Judge said we’d like to have a 1st reading. Mr. Cumston said we don’t do many of these. Mr. Ratliff said should we proceed like that or should we have the judge put it in a grade and then have that at a first reading. Mr. Ratliff said if we make this to 22, and it proceeds that it’s only 22, 23-26 are not here. If you want the job to be 24 – then if should read 24. If you want it to be 26 then make it to 26. Proceed with the one that we are going to use. Judge said that her first choice was to go to 22. Having a range makes it easier for me, and not change the range, I’d go to 22.

          Mr. Osborn said I think judge if this was a salaried exempt position, you can pick a range, and it’s not salaried. It’s a specific pay grade – it has to be selected. Council needs to know what grade. Judge said I’d like to go to 23. Auditor Carr said she has a new pay scale here, she gave it to judge.

          Mr. Thomas asked the judge – you came up and asked for 22 – you said that in the range of 22 – you’d have enough money for that position for 3 years. Judge said yes, that what I was talking about. We talked about the 3 years at rate of 23, think we were getting the range. I can afford the 23 number. Mr. Cumston said I didn’t think about the exempted part. It makes a difference. Judge said she understands that part. Judge said “23”.

          Mr. Cumston moved to amend and have it stated 23. Mr. Ratliff 2nd. Roll call: Ayes all, motion carried.

          Mr. Cumston stated that we’d like to have a 1st reading tonight. ORDINANCE 2015-86 HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING

 

ORDINANCE 2015-87:

(Engineer) ORDINANCE REESTABLISHING THE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR STATUTORY OFFICE HOLDERS WITHIN THE CITY, OTHER THAN CITY COUNCIL, TO BE EFFECTIVE THE FIRST DAY OF EACH RESPECTIVE OFFICE’S NEXT TERM, AMENDING THOSE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF EACH APPLICABLE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

          Mr. Cumston spoke: this came out of Finance with a 3-0 recommendation for approval, I’ll ask for a 1st reading tonight.

          Mr. Sulu Kelley 365 E Farming spoke: the question applies to all of these. The question was asked at committee but no one answered. Mayor Schertzer said Administration put on 2015-87 and 88. Mr. Ratliff said several people worked on the whole bunch of them. Dollar figures concerning them, I came up at City Hall and looked at everything. I took into consideration when everyone had their last raise, the dollars amount and so on. I can support things up to here. I think personally every raise on here is within the realm of what is right and proper, and what is reasonable. Mr. Kelley said I heard that you need to pay enough to keep good people on board and the other is the apparent timing of this is rather poor. I don’t see much of a problem here with the employees, as vs. the elected officials. The elected officials, when you ran for the office, you already knew what the pay rate was, it should be changed mid-term. Right now it looks like you’re giving yourself a pay raise.

 

          Mrs. Blevins said I’m voting for myself a pay raise. What is your concern the pay amount of the money? Mr. Sulu said it’s the appearance, you know you are taking the position for the next term. Mrs. Blevins said if we wait and vote on this in January that means it takes 2 years before we get it. Auditor Carr said yes. Mr. Ratliff said this is how raises have been given in the city for decades. Under previous administrations also. I’m not saying that it’s right or wrong, but that is how the City did its practice. At least from 1995, that is how far back I went and researched. It’s been a common practice within the City for a long time. Auditor Carr said if it passes before you are in it would take effect in 2016. If you wait until after January, you would have to wait until the next term.

          Mr. Daniels said what happens if the compensation you were being offered were dramatically lowered mid-term? What that means, I don’t think most councilmen runs for this position, so they can make 6300 per year. True fully in at-large race, you’re going to spend a significant amount of that every two years. It’s pretty much self-funded. Year and ½ ago, the State made a change. 1. Direct 6300/year salary. 2. Participate in the OPERS. Councilmen for 20 years, you’re going to probably get a check that’s going to be offset in SS. As a council member, you serve for 4 years, you get .83 percent on 1 service credit. It takes you 24 years to get the proper credits to retire. Since 1989 – almost 30 years, Council was willing to work for 6300/year.

          Mr. Kelley said the timing is still poor. I can’t change that in my mind.

Council took a voluntary pay cut, along with other officials, I would like to see that list. That was in a form of the “rebate”. I’m asking for a report, who had given back and how much, hopefully have the report by next meeting.

          Mr. Derek Roberts – 3068 Marion Waldo Road. Mrs. Blevins moved to all Mr. Roberts speak, Mr. Daniels 2nd. Roll call: Ayes all, motion carried.

          Mr. Roberts spoke: he would like to see the raises graduate it. Let them earn it.

          Mr. Ken Lengieza asked when the last update was for the Engineer, in 2002. Mr. Edwards said yes. Mr. Cumston moved to have the first reading tonight. ORDINANCE 2015-87 HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING

 

ORDINANCE 2015-88:

(Parks) ORDINANCE REESTABLISHING THE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR STATUTORY OFFICE HOLDERS WITHIN THE CITY, OTHER THAN CITY COUNCIL, TO BE EFFECTIVE THE FIRST DAY OF EACH RESPECTIVE OFFICE’S NEXT TERM, AMENDING THOSE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF EACH APPLICABLE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

          Mr. Cumston spoke: This came out of Committee with a 3-0 Approval; I move to have the first reading tonight. ORDINANCE 2015-88 HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING

 

ORDINANCE 2015-89:

(Council & Treasurer) ORDINANCE REESTABLISHING THE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR STATUTORY OFFICE HOLDERS WITHIN THE CITY, TO BE EFFECTIVE THE FIRST DAY OF EACH RESPECTIVE OFFICE’S NEXT TERM, AMENDING THOSE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF EACH APPLICABLE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

          Mr. Cumston spoke: This came out of Committee with a 2-1, No Recommendation; this is the Ordinance that Mr. Daniels was talking about.

Mr. Daniels said this would supersede Rule 35, and replace some of the language of that rule. A New Section would read as follows:

          “Any member who is absent in excess of 4 regular council meetings within a calendar years shall be imposed a fine of $150.00 per meeting”. It’s not a criminal action, it’s just to give back per meeting. I ask to put that in this ordinance. I make the motion.

          Mr. Thomas said it’s the rules of Council. Would it not be proper to add this to the agenda, and not add this to the ordinance for the increase in pay for Council persons, Mr. Law Director? Mr. Russell said the proper way would be a separate ordinance. There is nothing to say you can’t do it in this ordinance. This language would be inserted in Section 2. I have no problem in doing this, then rule 35 in Council Rules, would that be changed, or stay the same. Either way we are permissible by law. Mr. Russell said that would be changed, MCC Section 111.04 (O), to amend the existing Rule 35. Mr. Thomas said that would be changing the Section 111.04 and amending 2015-89 in Section 2. Mr. Russell said yes in Section 2.

          Mrs. Gustin said for 4 unexcused absences – after the 4 to pay. Mr. Daniels reread the language – “Any member who is absent in excess of 4 regular council meetings within a calendar year shall be imposed a fine of $150.00 per meeting, thereafter”.  Mr. Edwards said so it would be the 5th Meeting? Mr. Daniels said yes. That does not apply to committees. That is simply Council meetings. Rule 35 - excusing absent members of council – any member who is not present at a regular or a special meeting of council may be excused by Council. In an effort to be civil and decent, voted no on an excuse. We had a council member at large in the last term that had decided to not show up from October through December – 2-1/2 months and drew a pay check. Why would a Council continue to excuse someone for 2-1/2 months? It sets a system – it makes a real hard to look at another and say I’m not going to excuse your absence. I scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, we didn’t it want it to become that way. Eliminate that all together.

You’d have to miss 2 months of meetings, before you have to pay it back.

Mr. Edwards read the sentence again. Mr. Edwards asked what are you considering excused absentness. Mr. Daniels said that was not my intent – no latitude for the extra-ordinary circumstances. Set for the power to supersede Rule 35. Vacation is what it would happen to be. If you are taking more than 2 months of vacation. This introduces a pay raise of 909.00 a year. 150.00 – you’d have to miss more than 4 meeting to get thrown into the hole. You are going to look at it as losing $150.00.

          Auditor Carr said the tracking purposes – we would have to make sure the same way as any pay back. The W-2 have to read at whatever they are set at. They would have to donate it back to the City; that’s the bookkeeping side of it. Mr. Daniels said you’d have to pay tax on it. Mr. Russell said clarification – Mr. Daniels said at the top of the document the existing Rule 35 – Section 111.04(O) currently reads……(he read the sentence) – Mr. Daniels is to strike that entire provision, no longer be an excuse provision and only the one the President had read.

          Mrs. Gustin said if it’s a donation back, who’s going to enforce the donation? Mr. Russell said the Council would have to act to censure the individual to access the process. You’d have to cross the bridge when you get to it. Suggestion whether to entertain it or not, these topic is for committee. It’s up to the Council.

          Mr. Daniels said I’d make a motion to amend with that language, Mr. Cumston 2nd. Roll Call: YEAS: Mr. Cumston, Mr. Ratliff, Mr. Thomas, Mrs. Blevins, Mr. Smith, Mr. Crider, Mr. Daniels; NAYS: Mr. Osborn, Mrs. Gustin. ORDINANCE 2015-89 IS AMENDED AND HAS HAD ITS 1ST READING

 

          Mr. Osborn said he asked the clerk who brought these forward, this was brought to the clerk by the Mayor, Law Director, and Councilman Ayers Ratliff. I’m not going to criticize these 3 people, I think these positions need to be increased, I think they are lower that what they should be. As I said the other night, I really don’t feel this is the time to bring this forward. Had they lost their elections, I ask you whether or not anybody at this table, would have brought this forward?

          Mr. Thomas said he understand where Councilman Osborn, but I’ve been on Council for 20 years, every time there is a pay increase it’s always been this way. With all the administrations, which Dale you were a part of. I’m not quite sure why you have a problem now that you didn’t have back then. Mr. Osborn said I worked for the administration, I was not an elected official. You do as you are directed. I was doing as I was told. Mr. Thomas said that is just a reminder.

 

ORDINANCE 2015-90:

(Mayor) ORDINANCE REESTABLISHING THE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR STATUTORY OFFICE HOLDERS WITHIN THE CITY, OTHER THAN CITY COUNCIL, TO BE EFFECTIVE THE FIRST DAY OF EACH RESPECTIVE OFFICE’S NEXT TERM, AMENDING THOSE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF EACH APPLICABLE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

          Mr. Cumston spoke: This came out of Finance with No Recommendation, we are calling for a 1st reading tonight. ORDINANCE 2015-90 HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING.

 

ORDINANCE 2015-91:

(Auditor) ORDINANCE REESTABLISHING THE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR STATUTORY OFFICE HOLDERS WITHIN THE CITY, OTHER THAN CITY COUNCIL, TO BE EFFECTIVE THE FIRST DAY OF EACH RESPECTIVE OFFICE’S NEXT TERM, AMENDING THOSE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF EACH APPLICABLE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

          Mr. Cumston spoke: This came out of Finance with No Recommendation, we are calling for a 1st reading tonight. ORDINANCE 2015-91 HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING

 

ORDINANCE 2015-92:

(Law Director) ORDINANCE REESTABLISHING THE SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR STATUTORY OFFICE HOLDERS WITHIN THE CITY, OTHER THAN CITY COUNCIL, TO BE EFFECTIVE THE FIRST DAY OF EACH RESPECTIVE OFFICE’S NEXT TERM, AMENDING THOSE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF EACH APPLICABLE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

          Mr. Cumston spoke: This came out of Finance with No Recommendation, we are calling for a 1st reading tonight. ORDINANCE 2015-92 HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING

 

ORDINANCE 2015-93:

ORDINANCE NECESSARY GIVEN THE OHIO LEGISLATURE’S ENACTMENT OF H. B. 5 IN DECEMBER 2014 MANDATING OHIO MUNICIPAL INCOME TAX CODES BE AMENDED BY JANUARY 1,  2016 MARION CITY COUNCIL HEREBY CREATES CHAPTER 194 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MARION REGARDING MUNICIPAL INCOME TAX

          Mr. Cumston spoke: This came out of Finance with a 3-0 recommendation for approval. This will comply with the new State code. We are just going to ask for a 1st reading this evening. ORDINANCE 2015-93 HAS HAD ITS FIRST READING

 

Matters not on the Agenda:

 

          Safety Director Tom Robbins said 60 days ago, we changed the traffic intersection of Silver and Leader St – making it a 4-way stop. After 60 days we’d take a look and get back with you. We did that study this week, in the last 60 days, we had 1 traffic accident. Traffic has been improved, we removed the turn lane, and it flows better now. Sight obstruction, school, all of that helped and it has. I’m going to remove the traffic signal, which has been damaged. Mr. Ratliff said my main objection at first, there were multiple lanes. When it was done, and painted off, only one lane, it has help out tremendously. It makes it a lot safer. Thank you. It’s a good thing at this point. Mr. Thomas wants to commend Tom and the Streets Dept. The signage is now showing a 4-way stop, you also did that on Uncapher and Woodrow. The signage has been great. Thank you.

        

COMMITTEE DATES:

 

Finance                   12/7    @ 6:30 pm

Legislation Codes    12/7    @ 6:40 pm – Liquor Permit

Regional Planning    12/9    @ 7:00 – County Building 

 

        

          With no further business to come before Council, Mr. Edwards adjourned the meeting.

 

 

                                                            ____________________________                                                            Dave Edwards                                                                                         President of Council

_________________________  

Clerk of Council