MINUTES OF MEETING OF
IRONTON CITY COUNCIL
June 24, 2021
6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of Ironton City Council was held on Thursday, June 24, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. Present was Vice Mayor, Craig Harvey, who presided and members: Cleary, Haney, Hock, Kline, Pierce, Rist – seven.
All persons stood for an invocation from Father Huffman of St. Joe, St. Lawrence and St. Mary’s Churches, and then the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Public Utilities Committee Meeting of May 19, 2021, the Public Utilities Committee Meeting of June 10, 2021, Finance Committee Meeting of June 10, 2021, and the Regular Meeting of June 10, 2021, stood approved as submitted.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
John Elam, Finance Director, said he wanted to discuss legislation that has been approved for the purchase of police vehicles. He said, in going through the process, they have found out that the bank they had anticipated to finance with was not able to do a lease option. He said that reduces them to one of two options to pursue the purchase. One of them is to go ahead and bond it out—the other one is to advance funds from the General Fund to the Police Equipment Replacement Fund for the purchase of these vehicles. He said the bond rate through the Lawrence County Auditor’s Office for 5 years is 2.25%, which is what they were hoping to obtain with a financing option through a bank that was unable to do that. He said is about a $1,600 expense in addition to that for bond counsel. He said he thinks that this is the way to go, is to do another bond. He knows that there have been differing opinions on that, but he thinks the smartest thing to do is go ahead and get the bond. He said if that fund is healthy enough to pay that off earlier than the bond term date of 5 years, he would be in favor of that also. Mr. Harvey asked if there was any early payment penalty? Mr. Elam said he has not been able to find out. If there is not, then they could go ahead and run it on out, which is the way that they had anticipated—that for the next five years is to go ahead and make payments on that. He said he will find out that answer. But he wanted to get Council’s input for future legislation, hopefully for the next meeting, if they would agree with the bond financing as opposed to financing themselves from the General Fund as an advance to the Police Equipment Replacement Fund. Mr. Cleary said he totally agrees with going out for bond on it. He said they had talked about taking it out of the General Fund and just paying it, but he felt like that if it was bonded out, you have the line item with that bond issue in it and you have payments that you will make to it. So it will always balance out where it is supposed to be. He said if they took out of General Fund and then tried to track it and put money back in the General Fund for it, he thinks it could get lost in the shuffle. Mr. Kline asked, of that 2.25%, how much interest payment would that be over 5 years? Mr. Elam said he ran that amortization schedule, but he didn’t bring it with him. He said he can text it in just a minute. Mr. Kline also asked how that affects their bond debt capacity? Mr. Elam said he asked Brenda Wehmer that question, and she said they were still fully functional. He said, of course, it is going to reduce it $140,000, but she said they would still be in good shape. Mr. Kline asked Mr. Elam if he felt comfortable if it was an advance, not being able to make that payment over 5 years back to the General Fund, like having a line item and having an advanced repayment? Mr. Elam said he thinks they will be able to make that. He said he looks at things conservatively, and probably the most conservative is to say, if we can go ahead and fund this at 0% interest, of course, that would be the way to go. But he is also thinking, what if something happens? He said they know that the Police Equipment Replacement Fund generates enough money, still maintains their incentive to go ahead and do the auctions, and maintain their towing and storage because they have a debt obligation. Mr. Kline said, but what if something happens? They are still going to have to meet that obligation whether it comes from wherever? Mr. Elam said he is exactly right on that. There is going to be a debt obligation either way—it’s whether the Police Equipment Replacement Fund pays back to General Fund or the Police Equipment Replacement Fund pays back the bond. He said he thinks in his conservative view that if it ends up where they can make payments quicker, and that is due to the towing and storage and how successful the auto auctions, etc., that they go ahead and pay the bond off quicker if allowed. But once again, that is going to be Council’s call on that. Mr. Kline asked how much further will the bonding process push it back? Mr. Elam said probably about 2 weeks. He would say that she would have the legislation here within two weeks. Mr. Kline asked, how about the funds being available with the Treasurer’s Office? Mr. Elam said when went through the bonding procedure before with the Lawrence County Auditor, they were able to get monies quickly. He said before he started delving into a lot of these answers, he wanted to see what direction that Council wanted to go. He said he is kind of looking at it like, it is police vehicles, Police Equipment Replacement Fund—it’s just how his theory works; but he does understand the advance. Mr. Harvey told Mr. Kline that the answer to his question is $3,150. Mr. Kline said so they would pay an additional $5,000 and have to wait a little longer. Mr. Harvey said the reason he asked about the early payment is he doesn’t think they lose anything by bonding it, and if they have it and there is no worst case scenario, then they pay it off. And we’re really paying nickels for borrowing the money for it instead of advancing it out of the General Fund. He said he is okay either way. Mr. Pierce asked Mr. Elam about the initial cost of each of the three vehicles. Mr. Elam said it was slightly under $140,000, about $129,000, and that provided the additional funds to specialize them, decals, etc. Mr. Cleary asked Mr. Elam what was in that fund currently today? Mr. Elam said at the end of May there is $32,000 that is unencumbered. Mr. Cleary said, and that $32,000 will just keep growing with the auctions, etc. He said when the first payment is due, they are already ahead $32,000. Mr. Elam said yes. They have made their payments already for the existing police vehicles, and they have one more year on them. So within two years, that fund should have a substantially higher balance in it than it does right now. He said they are only looking at 5 months. He said they should end up with a pretty good balance in that fund this year. Chief Wagner asked Mr. Elam, in that balance, don’t they still have $50,000 encumbered for a new vehicle before they started going in this direction? Mr. Elam said there is $50,000 budgeted. Chief Wagner said, so both of those together would be about $80,000. Mr. Haney asked if the retirement is noted in the indebtedness? Mr. Elam said, the payment they have made on the one set that were purchased three years ago? He said that will be paid off next year.
Mr. Kline asked if they could maybe do a straw poll and see what direction they want to go. He said there are two different directions that require legislation, and he doesn’t think they need to double up on the legislation. Chief Wagner said she wanted to point out that this is a process that they started several months ago. She said as of right now they are alright on their figures on what they budgeted to purchase these vehicles. She said she is not trying to hurry Council, but if they end up rolling over into the 2022 cycle for these vehicles, there may be an extra expense per vehicle. Mr. Harvey said it is not a matter of “if”, it’s just where it’s coming from. Mr. Harvey said Bob and Nate clearly have a preference. Ms. Rist said she agrees with them also. Mr. Haney said he doesn’t see a problem with either, but if they have $50,000 already allotted for expenditure and $32,000, can they just take that, put it towards it and then take the rest out of the General Fund like they had on the legislation and pay it back? Mr. Harvey said they can certainly do either. Mr. Hock and Mr. Pierce said they think that sounds good. Mr. Elam said he thinks it is to advance the remainder from the General Fund. Mr. Kline said he knows they have talked about a couple other advances. He said he would like to have on the back of their Financials a detail of those advances and the repayment tracking of those, or some sort of a scheduled payment. Mr. Elam said on Page 36 at the very bottom underneath that bold black line are the three advances that they have right now. Mr. Kline said he just wanted to make sure that they are not losing track of what’s what and those will be repaid. Mr. Elam said those will be reported on every financial statement that Council receives. Mr. Pierce said, to clarify, that was to take the $50,000 that is already allocated towards the vehicle, utilize that, and then the remainder would come from the General Fund? Mr. Harvey said yes, plus the $32,000 that they have there. Mr. Elam said that won’t be the full $32,000 because there are other expenses budgeted in there. So whatever the maximum is that they can take out, they will take out and apply it from the Police Equipment Replacement Fund, transfer on a budget amendment from the General Fund to the Police Equipment Replacement Fund and is good to go tomorrow. Mr. Haney asked Mr. Elam what amount he needs to be left in there? A ballpark figure? Mr. Elam said she has money left for capital expenditures and operating expenses. He said a lot of times what he sees coming out of operating expenses are badges, hats, bullets, gun belts, etc. He said sometimes there are even operating expenses for the repair of some of these vehicles that are going to be replaced. Mr. Haney asked if he thought $12,000 would be too much or too little? Mr. Elam said he thinks that would be right on the money. Mr. Haney asked, so they would be advancing $70,000? Mr. Elam said probably closer to $100,000 advancing. Because she will end up using her capital expenditures on purchasing capital items. He said there has been $1,700 in vehicle purchase, and he thinks that is probably to repair a vehicle. He said she has spent almost all of the operating expenses. And then the retirement of the indebtedness has been spent also. He said they will pull the maximum out to still allow her to continue to function through the end of the year—advance from the General Fund to the Police Equipment Replacement Fund. Chief Wagner said she also wanted to make Council aware that they will be waiting on those vehicles like they did last year, about nine months. She said those funds are not drawn down until they take possession of those vehicles. She said by this time next year they may have those vehicles and they may not. Mr. Elam said they will transfer that amount for the whole encumbrance for the purchase price of the vehicles, and then with the money that she generates over the next seven months, they might not have to pull all of it out.
Mayor Cramblit said he has a few updates. He said he is not sure if everyone has checked their emails and seen what the State is doing right now with the legislation. He said he copied everyone with some information that he put out to the media today. He said he has been on the phone all day with people from the State, the County, the Districts, having them call our Representatives and our Senators to tell them that what they are doing is going to kill our communities. He said they made an adjustment to Senate Bill 111, which is the ARPA funds, the American Rescue Plan Act funds, which they were to be allocated $2 million over 2 years. The new revision is they decided they can provide it to townships. He is not saying there is anything wrong with that, but the way they are going to fund these townships now is by cutting us all in half. So Ironton is losing $1 million in Federal funding by doing that, Coal Grove losing $250,000, South Point, $400,000, and Portsmouth is losing close to $2 million. He said they have to stop this from happening. He said the best thing they could do to help out is call these people and tell them what it is going to do. He said some of these communities have already spent their money, so now that it just got cut in half, where are they going to make up for that money they have already spent? It is going to come out of their citizens’ pockets. These people need to know that at the State. He said he is not giving up on it and is going to go as far as he can with it. He said he knows Nate has made some calls today, too. He said he encourages everyone to call them. He said the two Senators from Lawrence County sponsored this Bill. He provided phone numbers for Bob Peterson, Terry Johnson, Jason Stephens, and Ryan Baldridge. He said also, their two Reps sat on the House Committee that they passed it through. He said he is sure that Council is just as upset as he is, and he thinks that all of their residents should be upset that our Representatives are not representing their best interest. Mr. Harvey said he knows it is just a token gesture, but this is all this body has to offer, besides individually placing calls, which he would encourage all of Council to do; but they can also draft a resolution that he can forward on the Representatives and the Senators, that is worded that Senate Bill 111 goes against the City of Ironton’s interests, something along those lines. He said Brigham or Mack could draft that strongly worded resolution from this body, and the Mayor can pass that along to the State House. He said that is really all they can do as a legislative body, and he would be happy to sponsor that legislation. The rest of Council also said they would sponsor that. The Mayor said it is the best thing they can do for their community is fight for that money. He said they were told they were getting the money, and they didn’t know that could change; and he said he doesn’t believe it should change, and they need to fix it.
He said also, the LMI survey is being sent out for the third time. He said this income survey is to help them receive CDBG dollars in town. He said it is very important that they get 400 surveys; they have received 189 through the first two surveys. He said they have to send out the third to the same group again, and then they can start a new list if they do not receive the 400. He said if anyone gives them calls about that, let them know that this is for any type of critical infrastructure projects that your part of the community could qualify for. He said they are resurveying all of the areas that qualify to be resurveyed. Some parts of town they cannot resurvey.
He said IBI has obtained the maps from the County Engineer to move forward in reworking their rezoning maps with Susan. So they will have something better to look at electronically. He said they are also putting plans together now for the water plant upgrades, which is the filter media replacement. He said that will be completed with the existing water plant bond funds, which they need to close out as soon as possible.
Mr. Haney asked the Mayor if he could update Council on the construction at Etna Street Park? Mayor Cramblit said they started getting the fences down yesterday. The bid has been awarded now. He said it is something that he wanted to make them aware of. He said originally it was $50,000 to resurface the pickle ball courts that will go where the tennis courts are and the basketball courts. He said they have actually received an extra $90,000-$100,000 in CDBG money left over that the County allocated to them. He thinks it was left over from the Coal Grove water project. He said they either had to send it back or allocate it to another, so this was the project that was ready. So now they are looking at 4 or 5 benches to put around the park, 4 or 5 picnic tables, a water fountain and a few other improvements, along with fencing. He said all it took for them to get the whole entire thing done, they needed to put forward the $11,000 match to do the $142,000 project. He said they plan to do that out of their Community Development Fund, which has unallocated into it already. Mr. Haney said he was able to meet with Brett today and check out what has been done. He said it doesn’t look like it, but now that the fence has been taken down, it is a large area, and it is going to be really nice.
COMMUNICATIONS – None
REPORTS – None
ORDINANCES
Mr. Cleary said before they read Ordinance No. 21-38, it needs to be amended in the body of the ordinance, Section 1. He said It says, “the Mayor is hereby authorized to place a Notice of Bid in a newspaper of general circulation for an easement and lease agreement for a 50-year term.” Mr. Cleary moved, seconded by Mr. Kline, to amend it to say, “the Mayor is hereby authorized to accept the highest and best bid”. He said it is in the title but was left out of the body of the ordinance. Motion was passed unanimously.
AMENDED
ORDINANCE NO. 21-38 – AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SUBMIT FOR BID AND ACCEPT THE HIGHEST AND BEST BID FOR THE CELLULAR TOWER OWNED BY THE CITY OF IRONTON, OHIO AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY was given first reading.
Mr. Haney moved, seconded by Mr. Cleary, to suspend the rules and give Amended Ordinance No. 21-38 second and third reading by title only. Motion passed unanimously, and Amended Ordinance No. 21-38 was given second and third reading. Mr. Cleary moved, seconded by Mr. Hock, to adopt Amended Ordinance No. 21-38. Motion passed unanimously. ADOPTED
ORDINANCE NO. 21-39 – ESTABLISHING AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER AND REPEALING AND REPLACING CHAPTER 618.17 OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES TO THE CITY OF IRONTON AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY was given first reading.
Mr. Cleary moved, seconded by Ms. Rist, to suspend the rules and give Ordinance No. 21-29 second and third reading by title only. Mr. Harvey said this is the first reading before them of the cat ordinance. He said they did a nuisance workshop with multiple things that the residents have complained about, feral cats being one of them, and they needed to change language in that health section to make it Animal Control Officer, rather than just strictly Dog Warden. Motion passed unanimously and Ordinance No. 21-29 was given second and third reading. Mr. Cleary moved, seconded by Ms. Rist, to adopt Ordinance No. 21-29. Motion passed unanimously. ADOPT
ORDINANCE NO. 21-35 – ESTABLISHING WATER RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WATER USERS FOR THE CITY OF IRONTON, OHIO AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY was given second reading.
Mr. Harvey said they had a utility bill workshop last night, and they discussed how on the third reading of this ordinance he (Mr. Harvey) will be on vacation; and he asked Mack tonight about if Council gives that third reading while he is on vacation, if they could table it and vote on it at the next meeting—for two reasons, one, so that he is present since he sponsored it, and two, it gives them more time to discuss the utility bill. He said they had some really good discussions that started last night, and it has been very fruitful. Mr. Anderson said somebody could make a motion to table this now, and it wouldn’t be given a third reading until it was brought off the table. Ms. Rist moved, seconded by Mr. Cleary, to table Ordinance No. 21-35. Mr. Kline asked if they would have to untable it at the next meeting? Mr. Anderson said no. Mayor Cramblit said that is what they were told last time when the bed tax was tabled, that it has to be read at the next meeting, and that was Robert’s Rules. Mr. Anderson said he just read Robert’s Rules of Order, and there is no time limit on taking it off the table. He said he also looked at the Charter, and there is nothing that says it has to be at the next meeting. Mayor Cramblit said Brigham was referring to Robert’s Rules that last time. Mr. Harvey and Mr. Haney said they also recall that. Mr. Anderson said he would table it before it is given third reading. He said they can set it for third reading at the next meeting, table it before it is given that reading and then at the next meeting they can take it off the table and give it third reading, and then it is done within one meeting. Ms. Rist rescinded her motion and Mr. Cleary rescinded his second of the motion. Mr. Anderson said just remember at the next meeting, before it is given the third reading, someone needs to make a motion to table it, and at the meeting after that, you can bring it off the table and give it third reading and vote on it. Mr. Kline asked if that motion could be made after the second reading right now? Mr. Anderson said that is what they talked about doing, but it would be two meetings before it was brought off the table, it has to be brought off at the next meeting. He said he doesn’t see that, but if they do it the other way, they would be safe either way. Mr. Kline said he would be concerned that if there are other council members who may miss the next meeting. . . and they have already given it second reading. So if they take it off the table, it would be given third reading no matter what, correct? If it’s right now or if it is at the beginning of the next meeting? Mr. Anderson said it would take four votes at the next meeting to table it. Mr. Haney said he was going to trust the Solicitor because, like Nate said, what if they have somebody get sick or something like that. He would rather be safe than sorry. Mr. Harvey said he had no preference. Ms. Rist moved, seconded by Mr. Haney, to table Ordinance No. 21-35. Motion passed unanimously. TABLED
RESOLUTIONS – None
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Hock moved, seconded by Mr. Haney, to go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation, with Council, the Mayor, Solicitor and Finance Director, with no action to follow. Motion passed unanimously.
Minutes were taken by Marta Leach, Clerk.
In attendance: John Elam, Finance Director, Mayor Cramblit, Mack Anderson