CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 2-12-26

MINUTES OF MEETING OF

IRONTON CITY COUNCIL

February 12, 2026

6:00 P.M.

A regular meeting of Ironton City Council was held on Thursday, February 12, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.  Present was Vice Mayor, Chris Haney, who presided, and members:  Brown, Harvey, Hock, Kline, Scott, Simmons—seven.

            All persons stood and recited The Lord’s Prayer, and then the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

            The Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of January 22, 2026, and Finance Committee Meeting of January 22, 2026, stood approved as submitted.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

            Aaron Bollinger, 434 Delaware Street, said he approached Council in mid-December about Ordinance 25-57, which has been on the Agenda.  He said he understands that there were come complications and we had to have the Board of Elections come and speak, as well as Ms. McCorkle, the Superintendent of Ironton City Schools.  He did see a problem with the Board of Elections, but he had no problem with that—if the children aren’t present, they can go and vote.  He said he had no idea what safety procedures and regulations that the Superintendent was talking about because there are none in place in the City of Ironton for convicted sex offenders and for registered sex offenders.  He said he is trying to figure out what the resistance is on this issue, this Ordinance.  He hopes that there is no resistance.  He said we are trying to do it for the betterment of our children.  He said it was put on December as an emergency and now we’re in the middle of February—he understands that there needed to be some things to work out.  He said he knows it was tabled, and he would please ask this Council to take it off the table and amend it.  Mr. Harvey told him that it had been rewritten and it is on the Agenda tonight rewritten wholly as Ordinance 26-07 and it has had two sections added to it.  He said that they took it a step further rather than just schools and added public places where children gather.  He said they took into account the Board of Elections and the Superintendent’s recommendation.  He said the Superintendent told them that any time a sex offender would be present because of educational decision-making rights for the student, that they would be accompanied by the school resource officer, and we put that in the legislation.  Mr. Bollinger said he thinks that is great and he appreciates Mr. Harvey telling him that.  He said he was just concerned that once this was tabled, that it was going to pass on, and he did not want that—that is why he come here tonight to talk to Council because he is concerned about our children and he knows Council is as well.  He said he really appreciates that they have amended this and included other activities.  He said, for instance, this past weekend he was at a birthday party at Spare Time and the place was packed with children, and as of right now there is nothing that prohibits sex offenders from going in there and sitting down and watching them.  He said he hopes that is part of this amendment.  Mr. Harvey said that we can regulate public spaces, such as the Splash Park, and we have included that.

Terryann Blizzard, 710 Park Avenue, Scout Master of Girls Troop 106.  She said she wanted to make Council aware in the community that they are having their annual Scout Sunday and the annual Spaghetti dinner this Sunday, February 15^th at Central Christian Church, which is by the Ironton High

school.  She said they will have Scout Sunday at 10:30 a.m. but other people have churches of their own so they will probably start serving afterwards about 12:00 p.m.  She said the price of the dinner is $8 or two for $15.  She said also that this is their 100^th anniversary.

            Gretchen Claypool, the Executive Director of Briggs Lawrence County Public Library.  She said she was asked to come this evening because of the first legislation Ordinance discussed at the podium this evening because the Library was added to this legislation and the Library wasn’t contacted concerning this Ordinance beforehand.  She said she thinks she understands the purpose.  Her principal question is, what responsibility does this put on the Library to comply or to make it easier to comply?  What possible background checks and other necessary items would they need to institute or modify and not run afoul of this Ordinance?  Mr. Haney said he doesn’t think that the intent of the legislation is to cause any more work or burden on the Public Library, in his personal opinion.  Ms. Claypool said she understands, but for instance, they currently have a policy where any employees who interact with children regularly have to be background checked on schedule.  She asked, in order not to run afoul of this Ordinance, would they be expected to modify this to include all employees?  Mr. Haney asked Mr. Kline if he had any guidance on this?  Mr. Kline said that he cannot give guidance as far as the Library policies, but as far as the Ordinance is written, if there is a sex offender who is the Children’s Library area, the Police can be called and they can be cited for violation of this Ordinance, and then go to court with those penalties that are listed on the Ordinance, which he thinks is a Misdemeanor 1.  Ms. Claypool said they are just making sure that we are involved in this process since they are involved in the language of the Ordinance.  Mr. Kline said he thinks in talking to the people in the community, all public areas is something that should be considered and the Library is one of those.  He said people tend to send their children . . . and he is not saying that they do not take their security seriously.  Ms. Claypool said they tend to segregate their children’s areas in all of their facilities.  She said she is vaguely concerned about the ability of patrons to call the Police to come to their facility without their knowledge for a variety of reasons which may not be pure in nature—that does concern her but they can certainly look at ways to help that process.  Mr. Kline asked her if she said she didn’t want people from the Library calling the Police?  Ms. Claypool said no, she is concerned about patrons specifically calling the Police on other patrons while in the facility as part of this Ordinance for not the reasons of actually protecting children.  She said, for instance, they have many parents who come to the Library with a facilitator to visit their children during custody disputes, and they often are high-tension meetings but they decide to do so in a safe public space because obviously their divorces or their custody agreements are too contentious to be contained in a home.  They are concerned about this being an encouragement for people to falsely call the Police on one another, just in their particular situation; but she thinks that is something that they are willing to deal with.  She said they have had the Police called and they don’t know why, and there was also a prank calling, so they are always sensitive to that issue.  Mayor Cramblit said in reading this again, he would also prefer that it come from the person in charge at that building.  He said it doesn’t necessarily say that anyone violating . . . so if the Library decided to allow them, does that make them in violation?  Or does it make the sex offender in violation?  What they would prefer is if the school has someone in violation, they would call us and tell us.  Brigham said ultimately anybody can notify the Police when a criminal act occurs for any reason, so it’s not just the Library . . . Mayor Cramblit asked, but is it written that way though that we would hold the school responsible for allowing it?  Let’s say, no one calls and they just unknowingly allow . . .  Brigham said that there is no liability on the Library on that.  Mayor Cramblit said, it just says anyone violating this Ordinance and it said that they are prohibited . . . Brigham said it would be the sex offender.  Mayor Cramblit asked, so this follows just the individual?  Brigham said that is correct, but anybody can call the Police when they see a crime being committed and this would be a crime that is being committed.  As far as who calls, anyone can do that, but to report a false crime . . .  Ms. Simmons said she just wants to clarify that this would not ask the Library to . . . they are not going to be responsible for looking at pictures and identifying people and are not going to be responsible for calling . . . so it shouldn’t put any extra burden on the Library.  Mr. Haney said that is what we don’t want to do, put any extra burden on the Library.  Ms. Simmons said with the Splash Pad, there is not someone there monitoring it so it would be reliant on members of the public to call.  Mr. Brown said his understanding of this, by making this an actual law for our City, it gives our officers the ability to do something about it, whereas, right now our officers wouldn’t have the ability to do something about that, is that correct?  Mr. Harvey said that is exactly right, and this really just gives these public spaces additional resources because our Police officers and the County police officers are aware of most of these folks and it gives them the ability to get them out of there—we can settle it in court or you can wear these bracelets.  Ms. Simmons asked if maybe they could create a map of these public spaces after this Ordinance is passed so people will know where they have the liability to call if they see a sex offender somewhere.  Mr. Haney said they could also put a simple sign on the parks or whatever.

COMMUNICATIONS – None

REPORTS – None

ORDINANCES

ORDINANCE NO. 26-07 –   PROHIBITING REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS FROM BEING PRESENT ON VARIOUS PUBLIC PROPERTIES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY was given first reading.

Mr. Harvey moved, seconded by Mr. Kline, to suspend the rules and give Ordinance 26-07 second and third reading by title only.  Motion passed unanimously and Ordinance 26-07 was given second and third reading.  Mr. Harvey moved, seconded by Mr. Kline, to adopt Ordinance 26-07.  Motion passed unanimously.  ADOPTED

ORDINANCE NO. 26-08 –   PROHIBITING UNATTENDED DOGS AND/OR CATS BEING LEFT OUTSIDE DURING INCLEMENT WEATHER was given first reading.

Discussion:  Mr. Haney said he appreciates the Ordinance, but one thing when he was researching ORC regarding this, and he may have missed it in here, but ORC supersedes anything we do anyway, but there is an allotment of inches off the ground for an outdoor dog house or cat house, and he thinks it is at least two inches off the ground.  He would like to include that in this if they could amend.  He asked Brigham if they have to since it is in ORC or would we have to amend our own?  Brigham said yes, because yours is more restrictive.  Mr. Haney said ORC says that it has to be two inches off the ground.  Mayor Cramblit said ours doesn’t, so ours is more restrictive, which is okay, right?  Brigham said that is correct.  Mr. Haney said so they wouldn’t have to amend ours?  Brigham said no, yours is more restrictive so if you want to amend it to include that, you would have to put it in.  He said this Ordinance does not provide for that, it’s a more restrictive ordinance than the ORC . . . Mr. Haney said in ORC states that it has to be.  Brigham said he knows that, it states that it has to be, but this doesn’t state that it has to be so it doesn’t have to be in the City because you are allowed to make a more restrictive ordinance than the ORC.  Mr. Haney said ORC is more restrictive than ours. Mayor Cramblit said you can’t make it less restrictive.  Mr. Haney said that is what he is saying—ORC is stating this has to be but ours does not include that.  Brigham asked him what the ORC says?  Mr. Haney said that it has to be two inches . . . something about some type of insulation and he thinks it is two inches off the ground for the dwelling.  Brigham said, so that is less restrictive than this—this is more restrictive and he is saying that he is allowed to do it.  Mr. Haney said that ORC states that it is an hour at a time.  Brigham said he thinks this states an hour too.  Mr. Haney said that he is saying that two inches off the ground is already in ORC.  Brigham asked if he wants that to be part of the law?  Mr. Haney said yes, but it should already be, shouldn’t it?  Brigham said yes, but this is more restrictive.  Mr. Haney moved, seconded by Mr. Scott, to amend Section 2 and state that the dog house or similar structure shall be at least two inches off the ground.  Mr. Brown said the last sentence in Section 2 says “the dog and/or cat shall be considered outside regardless of access to an outdoor dog house or similar structure”.  He is asking, why does the height of the dog house matters if we are saying that it doesn’t matter if it has access to the dog house in these conditions.  He asked if he is reading that correctly?  Brigham said yes.  Mr. Haney said what he has read is that it is an hour at a time.  He said also, ORC states 20 degrees and ours is at the freezing point.  He said another thing he was reading states that certain types of dogs are bred for certain types of climates, such as a husky which can handle below 32 degrees.  Ms. Simmons said she talked to the Humane Society and the Humane Officer asking about this and they suggested for that language that instead of putting a certain degree, saying not above or below the appropriate temperature for the animal’s respective size, coat length and breed.  Mayor Cramblit said he likes this but what he sees from it is what he has already heard—it’s going to be someone calling when it’s 31 degrees and say the dog next door . . .   Ms. Simmons said also, chihuahuas shouldn’t be out there when it’s 45 degrees.  She said if you amend it to say “the appropriate temperature for the breed . . . “.   Brigham asked, how do you police that?  Ms. Simmons said that is another question—are our Police Officers going to have to determine that or do they call?  Mayor Cramblit said you would be able to determine if it is a cruelty situation.  Mr. Haney said the ORC also said something about their water source can’t be frozen . . .  Mayor Cramblit asked, can we make it based on the National Weather Service’s determination as to whether it is extreme conditions . . .  Mr. Haney said that is actually in ORC—it says severe weather, such as tornados . . .  Mayor Cramblit said they have been under that for two weeks.  Mr. Haney said he wonders if they could possibly have a Strategic Planning meeting to work through this.  Mr. Harvey said ORC already addresses some of the things they are worried about so this is just things in the City of Ironton that are beyond that.  He said they are talking about water bowls and tornados, etc., but ORC already addresses that so we don’t have to.  Mr. Scott said he thinks the original language with this was focused on officers being able to use discretion in the fact that someone calling on a 31degree husky that is enjoying the snow was not really the point.  He said over the last two weeks with the weather they have had, he has had people calling him and asking him what the City can do about this because she is watching a dog die in her neighbor’s back yard and don’t know the steps to take.  Mayor Cramblit said he said having one of their own, at least if they did cite someone, we would collect the money and not the State.  Mr. Haney asked Chief Pauley if we could keep this ordinance and let the officers decide . . .  Chief Pauley said that they have a Humane Agent for a reason—if they run into a problem with dogs, it’s because the County Dog Warden won’t come in and do anything.  Mr. Haney said he agrees.  Ms. Simmons said in speaking to the Humane Agent today, they were saying that defining appropriate shelter might be helpful because according to State law, appropriate shelter can be underneath a car or underneath a porch, so if you define appropriate shelter and you are still relying on a . . . he said he would be happy to be added to this ordinance, too, if we needed someone other than the Dog Warden.  Mr. Haney said that the Lawrence County Dog Warden doesn’t do much in Ironton.   Chief Pauley said they refuse to come to Ironton and deal with dogs period—they told us that and we don’t have our own City dog warden.  He said the Humane Agent is Drew Artis if we can get ahold of him.  Mr. Brown said Ms. Simmons mentioned adding the Humane Agent to the language on that, and he thinks that would be a helpful thing to give options.  Mayor Cramblit said we put animal control officer and everything else, like the cat ordinance we have—it would kind of apply to either or a designee.  Mr. Haney asked if we can agree to just move on and give this second reading and talk a little more about it.  Mr. Haney moved, seconded by Mr. Scott, to amend Ordinance 26-08 to include the language in Section 2 to read,

“. . . structure shall be at least 2 inches off the ground”.  Mr. Haney then rescinded his motion.

ORDINANCE NO. 26-09 –   AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF IRONTON, OHIO, TO AMEND THE IRONTON ZONING CODE TO DEFINE AND ADD SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR DATA CENTERS AND DATA CENTER ACCESSORY USES was given first reading.

Discussion:  Mr. Hock said they had their Strategic Planning Committee meeting over the weekend and looked at this holistically and felt like this addressed the concerns they have had with data centers.  He said he wanted to let anyone know who was curious.  Mr. Harvey asked if they need to refer this to the Planning Commission?  Brigham said yes, and also he put in emergency language that has to come out because this can’t be passed as an emergency.  Mr. Harvey moved, seconded by Mr. Hock, to amend Ordinance 26-09 to remove the emergency language and refer it to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Harvey said to caveat on that, he thinks it’s 30 days from the referral that you can call a public hearing.  Brigham said they have 30 days to act on the Ordinance, then they report to the Council with favorable or unfavorable, and then you schedule a public hearing.  Mr. Kline said he wanted to say thank you to Mr. Hock, Ms. Simmons, and Mr. Haney for sponsoring that and he is sorry that he did not make the meeting this weekend.  He thanked them for collaborating and putting this together.  He said when this AI data center discussion came up, this is what he was hoping would come of it as far as a comprehensive approach to it.  Motion passed unanimously.  REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION.

ORDINANCE NO. 26-10 –   ESTABLISHING PERMIT FEES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY was given first reading.

Discussion:  Mr. Harvey said since this only establishes a fee, does their CPI get automatically attached to that.  Brigham said they discussed that but he did not a CPI increaser in here.  Mr. Harvey said, but we did that for all scheduled fees, correct?  Mr. Kline said yes, after this year the CPI should affect it.  They did that comprehensively with all fees.  However, in their discussion with Mark Dickess, this is more of a catch-up because none of them have been updated since 1997, so these are more reflective of to where we are at.  Mr. Haney said these rates are still typically below any of our neighboring communities, and he did want to reiterate that these have not been changed since 1997, almost 30 years.  He said he appreciates Mark Dickess for catching it.  Mr. Harvey moved, seconded by Mr. Kline, to suspend the rules and give Ordinance 26-10 second and third reading by title only.  Motion passed unanimously and Ordinance 26-10 was given second and third reading.  Mr. Harvey moved, seconded by Mr. Kline, to adopt Ordinance 26-10.  Motion passed unanimously.  ADOPTED

ORDINANCE NO. 26-01 –   IMPOSING A MORATORIUM UPON AI DATA CENTERS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY was given third reading.

Mr. Harvey moved, seconded by Mr. Hock, to adopt Ordinance 26-01.  Discussion:  Mr. Kline asked, with this moratorium, does it fall if Ordinance 26-09 is adopted?  Mr. Harvey said it does not—we can repeal it.  Mr. Hock asked if they could amend it now—that would be simple and save them a step.   Brigham said yes.  Mr. Kline said he will support it if it is amended to reflect that, but otherwise he won’t support it.  Mr. Harvey rescinded his motion to adopt.  Mr. Hock said to add a Section 3 that says that the moratorium will be rescinded if and when the zoning legislation is passed.  Brigham said it should state that the moratorium will be automatically repealed once Ordinance 26-09 is passed.  Mr. Hock moved, seconded by Mr. Harvey, to amend Ordinance 26-01 to include Section 3—Ordinance will automatically repealed once Ordinance 26-09 is passed.  Motion passed unanimously.  Mr. Harvey moved, seconded by Mr. Haney, to adopt Amended Ordinance 26-01.  Mayor Cramblit said given the prior conversations that have been had recently, what is the purpose of doing the moratorium if you have legislation in place to start the process . . .  Mr. Haney said it is just to insure what we are working through.  Mr. Harvey said they are looking at maybe 60 days that it could be unaddressed with zoning.  Mayor Cramblit said he thought they were going to invite Vertiv.  Mr. Haney said they were invited three times, but they never heard anything.  Motion passed unanimously.  ADOPTED   

RESOLUTIONS – None

MISCELLANEOUS

Mr. Brown said he had a question about the City’s demolition fund.  He was under the impression that that fund could be used by the City to demo properties that we had acquired or that we had ownership of.  He said he didn’t realize that that fund could be used to demo properties owned by private investors.  Mr. Kline said that money is used for two purposes—condemned property and the way the City can go about it is through structural—Mark Dickess can speak more to it.  He said sometimes that money is also used by the Fire Department for fires, and that demolition money is paid out, and in some cases, reimbursed back through the insurance.  Mr. Brown said he was recently made aware that we allocated funds for the demolition of the Bentley Pharmacy building, which is owned by a private investor.  He said that caught him off guard so he was hoping he could hear more on how that happened.  He said Mark Dickess informed him of that today.  Brigham asked if Council allocated the money?  Mr. Brown said no, the Mayor did.  He said he was hoping the Mayor would be here to speak on that.  Mr. Elam said that is all he knows about that also.  He said that he was the signature on that and was told that this needed to be paid.  He asked if it had been authorized and was told that it had been authorized by the Mayor and he had signed off on it.  He said there is money in the accounts.  Mr. Brown said that his concern with that is that he hates seeing tax dollars spent to subsidize private investment.  He said he is all for private investment but at the cost of private investors.  He asked the Mayor, regarding the funds that were utilized for the demolition of the Bentley Pharmacy building, if he could maybe be pointed in the direction of the legislation that allows that to be spent for private investment versus condemned properties or properties that the City owns.  The Mayor said that most of the properties that they have demoed are not our properties, and that is what it is for, demolition.  Mr. Brown asked if there is a reference on the legislation?  He said he researched briefly. The Mayor said he doesn’t know how far back that fund was created.  Mr. Brown said he cannot speak for the rest of Council, but that doesn’t sit well with him because it is a for-profit venture by a real estate developer who stands to gain from that investment, and he doesn’t think it is our place to subsidize that because that ultimately comes with a cost to tax payers.  He said he doesn’t know what they can do, but he would be happy to sponsor legislation to restrict those funds to only be used for properties owned by the City, and he would also be interested in knowing if that was legally permissible in the first place.  The Mayor said but if it wasn’t, they would be tearing our own stuff down.  Mr. Brown said he means if they acquire property—he also knows that the Land Bank owns most of them, but if we acquired it . . .  The Mayor said if they acquire it, they assess the properties for the demolition cost that we take  if that is not paid off.  Mr. Brown said, but they would have to be able to have funds to do that before we assess it, right?  The Mayor said that is what those funds are.  Mr. Brown said his confusion is why we would demo a privately-owned property.  Mr. Haney said to his understanding those are the only properties they demo is somebody who has neglected . . . condemned properties.  Brigham said his understanding of the ordinance he is referring to is condemned properties only.  The Mayor asked if there was an ordinance that says condemned properties only?  It just says demolition fund and this was a demolition.  Does it say that demolition fund is only for condemned property?  Brigham said yes, there is an ordinance that they did several years ago that established it.  He asked Mr. Kline if that was right.  Mr. Kline said as far as restricting those funds in the demolition fund, he is not 100% sure.  He said the money is set aside for dilapidated or condemned property, fires, etc.  Mr. Harvey said there is one other caveat to that.  He said we did something with the Fire Department and they requested legislation that got us reimbursed for demolitions that . . .  The Mayor said that is a different fund.  Mr. Elam said it was State Fire Loss Fund.  The Mayor said that it is the General Fund, Public Services maybe or Code Enforcement?  Mr. Kline said the demolition fund is outside of the General Fund.  The Mayor asked if anyone disagrees that it was dilapidated and needed to be torn down?  Ms. Simmons said she likes the idea of demoing buildings for the Land Bank and then selling that property to benefit our residents instead of private–she understands where Robby is coming from.  Mr. Brown said he agrees, he thinks that it should have been torn down years ago if they were going to do it rather than at the moment that an investor purchases it and then we spend $40,000 to demo it, because at that point we are essentially giving that purchaser a $40,000 discount on their acquisition of the property.  And then it becomes a lot of discretion on what private investors do receive those discounts versus who does not.  He said that is the part that he thinks we need to address.  Mr. Elam said the Demolition Fund is Fund 53, the State Fire Loss Fund is Fund 56, and that is generally where something has been burnt that is turned in to insurance.  He said after we receive payment, the Fire Department goes out and inspects it and make sure that it is cleaned up to City standards, and then we release the funds on that.  Brigham said these funds that he is talking about were Fund 53, correct?  Mr. Elam said yes.  Brigham said he will look into it and give him an answer.  Mr. Brown asked if that would be more of a Strategic Planning or Industrial and Commercial conversation?  He said he thinks it would be more Strategic Planning. He said he would be happy to call an Industrial and Commercial Committee meeting before our next Council meeting to dive into this further so we can all have a little bit of time to research that and discuss that.  Mr. Haney said he thinks that it would probably be Strategic Planning.  Mr. Brown asked if he could call a Council of a Whole to discuss that?  He said he can’t call a Strategic Planning meeting because he is not Chair of Strategic Planning.  Mr. Haney said that he would rather it be a Strategic Planning prior to a meeting.  Ms. Simmons asked if anybody on the Strategic Planning call that?  She said she would be happy to call that.  Mr. Brown said their next meeting is on the 26^th.  He asked Mr. Kline if he would need a Finance meeting?  Mr. Kline said he needs a CIC meeting and he probably will need a short Finance meeting.  He said they could do the CIC first because there is a piece of property owned by the CIC.  They could do that at 5:00 p.m.  Mr. Haney said he will call the Finance meeting separately.  Mr. Kline asked Mr. Dickess if he could make the CIC meeting at 5:00 p.m. on the 26^th, because he is going to nominated as their newest board member.  Mr. Dickess said he should be able to.  Mr. Brown said he and Ms. Simmons would like to call a Strategic Planning Committee meeting following the CIC meeting.

            Mr. Harvey said he told the Superintendent of Schools that he come and address the policy about sex offenders and their discretion and he will address the School Board about their policy at their next meeting which is on the 23^rd.  He is telling Council because he doesn’t want everyone to show up and they discuss City business and there be more than two of them.

            Mr. Haney said the next Clean-Up date is March 17-21 and the times are 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and that is Tuesday through Saturday.  He said also he wanted to recognize the Ironton Jr. High Basketball programs.  He said 8^thgrade finished undefeated and won the league and the tournament.  He said 7^th grade finished second in both.  He said they both had phenomenal years and he thinks those young gentlemen need to have some type of recognition.  Mr. Harvey said that the Jr. High girls also won a couple of games this year.  Mr. Haney said yes, they improved and he is proud of them.

            Mr. Haney moved, seconded by Mr. Kline, to go into Executive Session with Council, the Mayor, Finance Director, Solicitor, regarding contracts, with no action to follow.  Motion passed unanimously.

            Minutes were taken by Marta Leach, Clerk.

            In attendance:  John Elam, Mayor Cramblit and Brigham Anderson.

________________________________                    _______________________________

Clerk                                                                           Vice Mayor

______________________________

Mayor