[1. Call The Meeting To Order - Mayor Jeff Gore]
[00:00:07]
UH, C HEBREW HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
TODAY'S DATE IS MARCH 8TH, 2022.
UH, WE'RE GETTING STARTED AT 7 38 AFTER A BRIEF RECESS IN OUR PREVIOUS WORK SESSION MEETING.
UH, THIS MEETING IS OFFICIALLY CALLED TO ORDER, SO I NUMBER TWO, MR. ROGERS, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? MR. HERE, MS. BAKER, MR. KIBBLE HERE, MRS. BERG, MR. OTTO HERE, MR. LION HERE.
THIS IS KITCHEN MR. WEBB HERE, MAYOR GORE HERE.
NEXT IS I NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS NEW BUSINESS AND UNDER ADMINISTRATION, UH, ITEM THREE,
[ A Resolution Authorizing And Directing The Clerk Of Council To Schedule A Joint Work Session Meeting With Bethel Township, Miami County For The Purposes Of Discussing Annexation. (first reading)]
A ITEM THREE, A OR RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COUNCIL TO SCHEDULE A JOINT WORK SESSION MEETING WITH BETHEL TOWNSHIP MIAMI COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING ANNEXATION AT THE FIRST STREET.AND BRIAN, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE.
AND FOLLOW-UP TO THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, UH, THERE WERE SOME UP QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION IN SOME DISCUSSION, UH, WITH MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, UH, AND FROM, UH, THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND, UH, AS AN OUTCOME TO, UH, SOME OF THE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT, UH, THAT WERE, UM, UH, POSTED TO ME THAT I WAS A PART OF, UH, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION BE BROUGHT FORWARD, UH, AND CONSIDERED BY COUNCIL, UH, IN ADVANCE OF ANY OTHER ACTION BY COUNCIL ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, UH, ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, WHICH IS WHY IT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
SO, UH, I GUESS LOOKING HERE TO, UM, UH, EMOTION TO DIRECT TONY, TO SCHEDULE A MEETING WITH THE, UH, WITH BEVELED TOWNSHIP, MIAMI COUNTY, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING ANY OF THAT, IS THERE A MOTION MR. CAMPBELL MOTION TO ADOPT MS. BURCH HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DIRECT TONY TO SCHEDULE THAT MEETING? IS THERE ANY OF THE DISCUSSION? YES, GLENN.
UM, MY QUESTION WOULD SIMPLY BE WHAT GUARANTEE DO WE HAVE THAT THIS MEETING IS GONNA TAKE PLACE? WE'VE ALREADY AS A COUNCIL GIVEN, UH, OUR CLERK DIRECTION TO SCHEDULE A MEETING IN THE PAST, WHICH HE DID, AND WITHOUT CANCEL, DIRECTING HIM TO CANCEL THE MEETING, IT WAS CANCELED.
SO, UH, I'M NOT SURE THIS EVEN WAS NECESSARY, UM, AS WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN A DIRECTION BEFORE, BUT WHAT GUARANTEE DO WE HAVE THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN? LIKE THIS WAS A FORMAL RESOLUTION, UH, DIRECTING TONY.
SO THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO THE COUNSEL.
AND THAT'S WHAT TELL YOU TO DO DON'T EVEN SCHEDULE YES, RICHARD, UM, IN THIS RESOLUTION, IT STATES THAT THIS MEETING WOULD BE SET AT THE EARLIEST DATE AND TIME, UH, TO ACCOMMODATE A QUORUM.
UM, HOWEVER IT DOESN'T STATE THAT THIS MEETING WILL BE SET BY A CERTAIN DATE.
UM, I, MY, MY FEAR IS THAT, YOU KNOW, AS COUNCILMAN OTTO ALLUDED TO, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS RESOLUTION, THIS MEETING COULD BE SCHEDULED IN JANUARY 23RD, 2023.
UM, THERE'S NO, NO TEETH IN HERE TO, YOU KNOW, STATE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TAKE AS LONG AS POSSIBLE, JUST THE EARLIEST DATE.
AND WE'VE SEEN HOW SCHEDULING CONFLICTS GO.
I MEAN, WE, HAVEN'T HAD A MEETING JOINT MEETING WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD IN THREE AND A HALF YEARS.
UM, SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHAT PROVISIONS IN THEIR STATE THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER? YES.
MR. KEVIN, MR. MACDONALD, COULD WE AMEND THIS TO PUT, UH, A DROP DEAD DATE, SAY IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS? UM, YES, WE NEED, WELL, WE HAVE A PENDING MOTION, SO WE DRAW THAT AND DO A MOTION TO MANAGING JERRY.
I THINK YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT GETTING, I CAN WITHDRAW THAT MOTION AND I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND AND SCHEDULE THE MEETING WITHIN 30 DAYS.
THE SECOND MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON MOTION TO AMEND, TO HOLD THE MEETING WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS? 30 DAYS NEXT 30 DAYS.
MR. WEBB, MR. SHAW AND MOTION CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
NEXT UP IS ITEM THREE, B MAYOR.
THAT WAS AMEN TO ADOPT RICHARD SECOND EMOTION IN A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ADOPTION? OKAY.
AND THE MOTION TO ADOPT CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THE ONLY ISSUE WITH THE DEFENDANT OF DEI IS RECOGNIZING THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, I WILL PUT OUT TO
[00:05:01]
OUR SIDE, I'VE EMAILED TOMORROW SEEKING AVAILABILITY FOR THAT MEETING, BUT WE DON'T CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF THE BETHEL TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES.SO, UH, JUST BE AWARE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, TH THAT LIMITATION MAY WORK AGAINST THEIR SCHEDULES.
I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT, BUT I CAN ONLY CONTROL, YOU KNOW, FROM THIS END, AS FAR AS THE SCHEDULE.
UM, ANOTHER THING THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO DISCUSS AND TALK ABOUT IS LOCATION, BECAUSE THEN THAT WAS KIND OF THE BIG ISSUE THAT WE HAD LAST TIME WHEN YOU WERE TRYING TO SCHEDULE US LOCATION, PEOPLE, MIAMI COUNTY, HE WANTED MIAMI COUNTY BUILDING PEOPLE IN BETHEL, ONE AT THEIR BETHEL, UH, AT THEIR MEETING OFFICES.
UM, WE PREFER TO HAVE IT HERE IN OUR OFFICES.
SO I THINK THAT THE LOCATION WAS THE BIG ISSUE WE HAD, UM, TRYING TO GET THIS THING SCHEDULED LAST TIME.
UM, AND WE, WE, WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT.
WE DIDN'T DISCUSS THAT BEFORE THE LOCATION WAS THE PROBLEM.
SO, UH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT AND DECIDE WHERE TO ACTUALLY HOLD THE MEETING.
AND WHERE'S THE LARGE ENOUGH SPACE I THINK HERE WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PLACE.
UM, BUT YEAH, THAT WOULD BE A COUNCIL'S DISCRETION AS WELL.
RICHARD MAYOR JUSTICE SUGGESTION, UM, I GUESS, UH, UH, KIND OF MEET IN THE MIDDLE LOCATION.
UM, UH, I WOULD PUT THE SUGGESTION OF THE YMCA.
UM, IT IS A MIDDLE GROUND LOCATION.
UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE A EQUAL DRIVE FOR ALL PARTIES.
AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
LIKE, WHY AM I BEING A GREAT PLACE OR ONE HINDRANCE TO THAT WHERE WE WOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE STREAMING AND RECORDING? I THINK, UH, I THINK ABOUT 15, 20 PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO FACEBOOK LIVE.
I THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN AND STREAM IT RIGHT ONTO THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
AS THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER HAS DONE BEFORE.
DOES IT MEET OUR OBLIGATION TO, WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO EVEN RECORD THEM.
IT JUST HAS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
SO THERE WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE A RECORDING.
IT WAS JUST, WE HAVE IT IN PLACE HERE.
MA'AM UM, JEREMY, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE CAN'T MAKE IT IN 30 DAYS, JUST RESOLUTION, NULL AND VOID WITH WHAT HAPPENED? WE BRING IT BACK AND AMEND IT AND GET ANOTHER 15 DAYS OR WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO TAKE.
MA'AM DO WE HAVE SPRING BREAK COMING UP THAT MIGHT AFFECT THIS? YES.
FROM, FROM, FROM OUR SCHOOL, FROM THE BETHEL SCHOOL? UH, OUR HEBREW HIGH, WELL, HE WRITES IS NOT THERE.
UM, SPRING BREAK, I BELIEVE IS THE WEEK OF APRIL 11TH, MAYBE.
SO IT'S MORE OR LESS MID APRIL.
SO, I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE KIND OF THE TAIL END OF THE, OF THE 30 DAYS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT WOULD AFFECT RICHARD WELCOME COMMUNICATE.
I DO KNOW THAT THE TOWNSHIP TRUSTEES HAVE BEEN VERY EAGER TO STATE THAT THEY WOULD EVEN SHOW UP AT OUR NEXT WORK SESSION.
UH, SO I DON'T THINK THEIR SCHEDULES ARE GOING TO BE QUITE THE ISSUE.
UM, I WOULD ALMOST BET MY LAST BUFFALO, NICOLE, THAT IF WE SAID THAT MEETING WOULD BE TOMORROW, THEY'D BE HERE.
IF WE'RE INVITING, WE CAN BE HOST.
I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR BEING FLEXIBLE WITH ELMA LOCATION.
CAUSE AGAIN, I'M JUST SAYING THE LOCATION, UH, WHEN TONY WAS TRYING TO PUT THIS IN THE LAST TIME, THERE WAS, UH, THERE WAS MUCH DIFFICULTY ON SETTLING ON A PLACE TO HAVE THIS, AND THAT WAS THE INFORMATION THAT TONY GOT BACK TO ME.
SO, UM, I THINK IF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BE FLEXIBLE IN WHERE THE MEETING IS HELD.
UM, AND FROM A TIMEFRAME YOU, AGAIN, I DON'T, I THINK OUR SCHEDULE IS GOING TO BE MORE DIFFICULT THAN THE THREE TRUSTEES AND PROBABLY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSIONERS WILL HAVE MUCH OF AN ISSUE OPENING UP THEIR SCHEDULE AS FAR AS LOCATION GOES.
I THINK WHATEVER WOULD ACCOMMODATE A LARGE GROUP WOULD BE GREAT.
I THINK THIS MIGHT BE A LITTLE, NOT QUITE CONDUCIVE TO ADDING IN AN ADDITIONAL GROUP, UNLESS WE ALL WENT TO THE FLOOR AND THEN WE WOULD LOSE MAYBE SOME SEATING FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR ANYONE WHO MIGHT WANT TO ATTEND, BUT YOU KNOW, MAYBE A BETHEL HIGH SCHOOL OR, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THEIR FACILITIES UP THERE, SOMETHING IN BETWEEN WOULD BE GREAT.
BUT JUST, I THINK IN MY OPINION, I DON'T CARE WHERE IT IS AS LONG AS WE GOT THE SPACE AND EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE.
SO WE'LL KIND OF LEAVE THAT TO YOU TO COME UP WITH OR IN DISCUSSION WITH THEM WHERE THAT WOULD BE, BUT CERTAINLY GET BACK TO US AND LET US KNOW WHAT A POTENTIAL LOCATION WOULD BE.
ALL THE START TOMORROW BY INITIATING THE CONVERSATION WITH EACH OF YOU ABOUT AVAILABILITIES FOR UPCOMING DATES, UH, ONCE WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT I WILL REACH OUT TO THE BAFFLE TOWNSHIP FOLKS AND, UH, WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHICH OF THOSE DATES WORK TO THEIR AVAILABILITY AS WELL AS A POTENTIAL LOCATION.
I MEAN, TO MUDDY THE WATERS LOCATION WAS AN ISSUE LAST TIME.
SO I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT UP.
[00:10:01]
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH.[ A Resolution Adopting A Statement Indicating The Services The City Of Huber Heights, Ohio Will Be Providing To The Territory Proposed To Be Annexed To The City Of Huber Heights Pursuant To A Petition Filed With The Board Of Commissioners Of Miami County By Landowners (As Defined Below) And As Provided By Ohio Revised Code Section 709.023. (first reading)]
NEXT UP IS ITEM THREE, B ITEM THREE B A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STATEMENT INDICATING THE SERVICES OF THE CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS.OHIO WILL BE PROVIDING TO THE TERRITORY PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS, PURSUANT TO A PETITION, FILED WITH THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI COUNTY, BY LANDOWNERS AS DEFINED BELOW.
AND IT'S PROVIDED BY A HIGHER REVISE CODE SECTION 7 0 9 0.023.
THE FIRST READING, RIGHT? UH, YES, SIR.
UM, AS I REFERENCED EARLIER, THERE WERE A LOT OF, UM, QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, UH, FOLLOWING, UH, THE LAST TIME THAT THIS PARTICULAR MATTER WAS BROUGHT BEFORE COUNCIL.
UH, AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BASED ON, UH, SOME OF THAT DIALOGUE, THAT, WHICH I WAS A PART OF, SOME OF THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, UH, AND WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTION THAT WAS JUST PASSED, UH, THAT THIS POTENTIAL MATTER, OR THAT THIS MATTER HAD A POTENTIAL FOR RECONSIDERATION, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR.
UH, IS THERE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER? LET'S CATCH UP.
I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
IS THERE A SECOND, MR. CAMPBELL, SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR RECONSIDERATION.
UM, FIRST OFF, BRIAN CAN, ACCORDING TO THIS, UM, FIRST OFFICE, CAN YOU STATE PUBLICLY THAT WE WOULD NOT BE PROVIDING WATER IN ROPE REAL QUICK? SO IT WAS TINY.
SO WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER, AND THEN WE WILL GET INTO KIND OF THE DISCUSSION POINTS AND ALL THE THINGS, BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT THAT HE MADE AND ALL THOSE THINGS, SO, YEAH.
SO EMOTION AND THE SECOND ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER THIS, THIS DISPERSE, MR. OTTO.
AND MOTION CARRIES SIX TO TWO.
SO NEXT WE WOULD NEED A MOTION TO AMEND.
THAT WAS AN AMENDMENT THAT WAS, UH, THAT WAS ADDED OR PRESENT TO THE, UH, CITY MANAGER.
SO, UH, BRIAN, DID YOU WANT TO PUT THE DETAILS OR WHAT THAT DIFFERENCE IS? SO TONY, CAN YOU PASS OUT, UM, AND, UH, CONVERSATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT THE INITIAL PRESENTATION OF THE LEGISLATION WAS I'LL USE THE WORD DEFINITIVE, UM, THAT THE LEGISLATION WAS, UH, TOO DEFINITIVE.
UH, THIS IS A PROCESS, UM, AND ULTIMATELY IN THE END, UH, WHEN THE PROCESS IS ABOUT TO CONCLUDE THE LAST PARTICULAR ITEM OF THAT PROCESS IS THE CITY'S DECISION TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE ANNEXATION.
EVEN IF THE PETITION TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS FOUND TO HAVE MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS, THE CITY STILL HAS AN OPPORTUNITY, UH, TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE ANNEXATION OR TO FURTHER CONDITION THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ANNEXATION.
AND SO THAT THE REQUEST WAS TO PROVIDE FOR LANGUAGE OR UPDATE THE LANGUAGE IN THE RESOLUTION TO TRY AND DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS IS STILL A PROCESS AND THERE IS STILL A CHOICE.
AND THAT JUST BECAUSE THE PETITION IS CERTIFIED BY MIAMI COUNTY, UM, IN THE EVENT THAT THE, UM, PETITION IS CERTIFIED BY MIAMI COUNTY, THAT IS NOT A SHORT THING, THAT THERE IS NOT A, A MANDATE TO THE CITY TO ACCEPT THAT WE STILL HAVE A CHOICE.
UH, AND TO THAT END, UH, WE DID MAKE, UH, TWO LANGUAGE CORRECTIONS, UM, IN, UH, THE, UH, AND THE DECLARATIONS, UH, AND, UH, ONE, UH, AND THEY'RE BOTH NOTED IN RED IT, AND IT'S IN SECTION ONE AND SECTION TWO FOR COUNSEL'S REVIEW.
SO THAT IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, UH, THAT, UH, HAS BEEN REQUESTED ON THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION.
SO IS THERE A MOTION TO AMEND MS. BERG? IS THERE A SECOND? IT WAS A BIGGER SECOND, THE MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE M AND MS. ROGERS.
I WAS GOING TO DO DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO DISCUSS THE AMENDMENT, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT.
AND MOTION TO AMEND ALSO CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
IS THERE A MOTION? GOOD QUESTION.
BEFORE, BEFORE WE'VE MOVED TO MOTION TO ADOPT.
UH, WE WILL ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT DURING THE DISCUSSION IN THE DISCUSSION PORTION,
[00:15:01]
ONCE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND MARK MOTION TO ADOPT, THE SECOND IS THE BIGGER, THE MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION FOR ADOPTION? THIS IS BIRCH, UM, JU UH, JERRY, IF AT WHAT ARE THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS, IF, IF IT COMES TO US AND WE, AND WE, UH, REJECTED NOTHING.I MEAN, THERE'S NO PROFILE, NO PROTEST, RIGHT.
OR NO, WE HAVE, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REJECT OR ACCEPT THE ANNEXATION UNDER 7 0 9 0 4.
I JUST WANT HER TO OBSERVE AS AN APPEAL PROCESS OR SOMETHING.
UM, I JUST WANT THIS ON PUBLIC RECORD.
WHAT, UM, WHAT SERVICES WOULD WE BE PROVIDING? I E AS I SAID, I HAD QUOTED I DIDN'T, I WASN'T COMFORTABLE ABOUT THE WATER AND SEWER, AND, UM, I WANT IT STATED PUBLICLY ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD BE HANDLED.
UM, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR SERVICE LETTER DOES NOT INCLUDE, UH, UTILITY PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR WATER AND SEWER STORM SEWER WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY UNDER THIS PARTICULAR, UH, LEGISLATION, BUT NOT WATER, UH, OR SEWER.
UH, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS, UM, UNLIKE THE PREVIOUS PHASE OF CARRIAGE TRAILS, UH, BETHEL TOWNSHIP HAS CONSTRUCTED ITS OWN PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SINCE THAT TIME.
AND IT HAS, UH, IT CONSTRUCTED, UH, PUBLIC, UH, WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND IS WITHIN ITS OWN FACILITIES, PLANNING, UH, AREA.
AND AS A RESULT, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROVIDE A SERVICE AND WE CANNOT PROVIDE THAT SERVICE UNLESS THEY ALLOW US TO DO SO.
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE ARE NOT REQUESTING, OR WE ARE NOT INTENDING TO PROVIDE SERVICE, UH, UNDER THIS PARTICULAR, UH, AGREEMENT UNDER THIS LEGISLATION.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WOULD NEGOTIATE WITH THE TOWNSHIP AND THE TOWNSHIP WOULD AGREE TO DO THAT, BUT THAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE UNDER A SEPARATE AGREEMENT.
AND THAT AGREEMENT WOULD BE, UH, UNDER THE AUSPICES OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE, BUT THIS PARTICULAR SERVICE AGREEMENT AT THIS OR THIS SERVICE LETTER AT THIS POINT IN TIME DOES NOT INCLUDE WATER OR SEWER.
ALSO JUST A LOT OF QUESTIONS I'VE BEEN GETTING FOR PEOPLE.
COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE PROCESS OF HOW THIS ANNEXATION WORKS, KIND OF NOT GIVING A TWO HOUR SPEECH ABOUT IT, BUT JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO GET TO WHERE THIS IS ALL APPROVED? I'LL DEFER TO THE LAW DIRECTOR ON THE TECHNICAL MERITS OF THE PROCESS.
THIS IS PRIMARILY A COUNTY, UH, FUNCTION.
UH, THE AGREEMENT IS, OR PETITION IS FILED WITH THE COUNTY, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE ONCE THAT'S DONE.
THE CITY HAS AN INITIAL OBLIGATION WITHIN 20 DAYS TO PASS THE STATEMENT OF SERVICES, UH, WHICH IS, EXCUSE ME, WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS.
THIS IS WHAT THEY CALL IT, TYPE TWO ANNEXATION.
THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT KINDS.
THIS IS ONE AND WHERE THE PROPERTY WILL NEVER BE TAKEN OUT OF THE TOWNSHIP.
UM, AS THIS ANNEXATION, AS MEANING, THE TOWNSHIP WILL ALWAYS BE GETTING ITS TAXES.
UH, THERE'S SOME FORMULAS ON WHEN YOU GET INTO LIMITATIONS AND HOW MUCH YOU CAN TAX AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
BUT, UM, THE, IT WILL GO IN FRONT OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THEY WILL HAVE, THEY HAVE A LIST OF ABOUT FIVE DIFFERENT, MAYBE MORE, MAYBE SIX, BUT THEY HAVE A LIST OF THE CRITERIA.
AND IF IT MEETS THE CRITERIA, THEN THEY HAVE TO APPROVE IT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE CONSENT OF ALL THE OWNERS.
AND THEN ONCE IT'S APPROVED, IT WILL COME BACK TO THE CITY.
AT THAT POINT, IT'S BELIEVED 60 DAYS BEFORE THE CITY CAN EVEN DO ANYTHING.
AND THEN THE CITY HAS 120 DAYS TO EITHER APPROVE OR REJECT THE ANNEXATION.
IF WE DO NOTHING, THEN IT'S DEEMED REJECTED AFTER THAT 120 DAYS.
AND THERE IS A PROCESS MS. SKETCH, AND THERE IS A PROCESS IN THERE THAT ALLOWS THE CITY AND THE TOWNSHIP TO NEGOTIATE, UM, TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE TOWNSHIP WOULD RELEASE ITS TERRITORIAL CLAIM OR ITS CLAIM TO THAT TERRITORY.
UM, MAKING THE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA, NOT MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL, BUT WHOLLY JURISDICTIONAL WITHIN HUBERT HEIGHTS.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE THROUGH AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT, WHICH RICK COULDN'T IN FACT ALTER THE, MAKE THIS INTO A TYPE ONE ANNEXATION, BUT THERE'S OKAY.
ANOTHER QUESTION IS, UM, I KNOW RICHARD HAD BROUGHT UP, UM, A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, I GUESS, ABOUT A MORATORIUM OF ANNEXATIONS.
[00:20:01]
THIS WOULD GO THROUGH TO DO A MORATORIUM THAT WE DO NOT GO NORTH OF BY STATE ROUTE 40? WOULD THAT BE A POSSIBILITY IF THAT IS THE POLICY CONSENT OF CITY COUNCIL AND THE POLICY CONSENT OF BETHEL TOWNSHIP, THEN THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION OF AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AND YES, THAT WOULD THEN BE THE LIMITATION OF OUR AUTHORITY BASED ON THE AGREEMENT.AND THEN ALSO, UM, CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN, BECAUSE IT HAD COME UP ABOUT THE 2008 AGREEMENT WHEN CURIOUS TRAIL FIRST GOT PUT INTO PLAY, UM, HOW DOES THAT AGREEMENT COME INTO PLAY WITH THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT IN, IN THIS PARTICULAR, UM, IN THIS PARTICULAR AGREEMENT, LET ME REPHRASE GOING BACK.
THERE IS, UH, THE SERVICE LETTER, UM, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE PREVIOUS ANNEXATION, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THIS SERVICE LETTER HERE.
BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UH, WHICH I BELIEVE IS WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, UM, BACK, UH, FROM 2008.
AND THAT WAS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THAT WAS STARTED WITH THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPER WHEN THE PROJECT WAS KNOWN AS BENCH ROCK.
UM, AND THEN THAT PROJECT FELL APART FOR A VARIETY OF ECONOMICAL CONDITIONS.
AND, UH, DEC CAME IN AND KIND OF PICK THAT UP AND RESURRECTED THAT, AND THAT AGREEMENT, UH, IS EFFECTIVELY, UH, DEFINES THE TERMS OF A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEC ABOUT WHO WOULD ASSUME CERTAIN DEBT RESPONSIBILITIES, WHO WOULD ASSUME CERTAIN CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES AND HOW THE VARIOUS PARTIES WOULD BE COMPENSATED FOR THEIR ROLE IN THAT PARTNERSHIP.
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, UM, WE ARE NOT, UM, REMOTELY INVOLVED IN A NEGOTIATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME WITH DEC, UH, REGARDING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR THE CITY TO BE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, THROUGH A VARIETY OF, UH, OF ITS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.
WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH, UH, THE HOMESTEAD GROUP.
WE HAD A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH A BROAD REACH.
WE, SO WE, UH, WITH DDC IN WESTPORT VILLAGE.
SO WE ENTER INTO THESE AGREEMENTS ALL OF THE TIME.
I'M NOT AWARE THAT DEC HAS AN INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY ON CARRIAGE TRAILS, PHASE TWO, BUT WE ARE EARLY IN THE PROCESS AND THEY MAY APPROACH THE CITY ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE AN AGREEMENT THAT WOULD BE SEPARATELY NEGOTIATED.
IT IS NOT PART OF THE ANNEXATION.
IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE ANNEXATION, BUT IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
AND THAT AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, BEFORE IT COULD BE EFFECTIVE.
THEY ARE NOT THE ANNEXATION, UH, THE SERVICE LETTER AND ANY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO BE INTERCONNECTED.
AND THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO ALL BE, UH, ADOPTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
SO YOU COULD APPROVE THE ANNEXATION.
HYPOTHETICALLY DECK COULD APPEAR A YEAR FROM NOW AND ASK FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
AND COUNCIL MIGHT FEEL THAT THE TERMS OF THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARE NOT IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST, AND YOU COULD VOTE THAT DOWN AND THE ANNEXATION WOULD HAVE HAPPENED, BUT YOU HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO PARTNER WITH DEC OR ANY OF ITS SUBSIDIARIES.
CONVERSELY, DEC COULD NEVER SHOW UP AND THEY COULD SIMPLY FINANCE THE PROJECT IN A WAY WHERE THEY COULD TAKE ON THE PROJECT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE THE CITY.
SO THESE ARE NOT, UM, OBLIGATE TORY, OR THEY ARE NOT INTERRELATED, UM, ON THEIR FACE.
SO THESE ARE ALL INDEPENDENT AGREEMENTS, ALL OF WHICH HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE THEY CAN BE IMPLEMENTED.
UM, ALL I WOULD HAVE TO SAY IS, YOU KNOW, IF THIS DOES GO THROUGH, I REALLY WOULD WANT TO HAVE A SERIOUS TALK ABOUT A MORATORIUM NOT TO GO NORTH OF 40, UH, OUR NEXT WORK SESSION OR WHATEVER.
I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOMETHING IN PLACE.
I THINK THAT WOULD ALL BE A PART OF OUR DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS OR IN OUR DISCUSSIONS.
I THINK PROBABLY I IMAGINE THAT DISCUSSION PROBABLY WOULD COME UP IN THE JOINT MEETING THAT WE WOULD HAVE WITH, UM, WITH BELLA TOWNSHIP IN MIAMI COUNTY.
SO YEAH, I THINK THAT DISCUSSION IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE OUT THERE AND OPEN THE TABLE HAVE, HAVE FULL DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
MY, MY UNDERSTANDING OF BASED ON THE, ON THE VARIOUS CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAVE BEEN A PART OF, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE INTENT OF THE JOINT WORK SESSION WOULD BE FOR BOTH PARTIES TO TALK ABOUT WHATEVER THEIR CONCERNS OR WHATEVER THEIR INTERESTS ARE IN RESPECT TO THIS PROJECT.
[00:25:02]
AND THAT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF THOSE CONCERNS AND ISSUES TO BE AIRED PUBLICLY, SO THAT MEMBERS OF OUR STAFF, SO THAT MEMBERS OF THEIR STAFF WOULD BE ABLE TO HEAR THOSE, THOSE CONCERNS, UM, AND THOSE INTERESTS FIRSTHAND.AND THEN BOTH PARTIES WOULD STEP AWAY FROM THAT MEETING.
WE WOULD PUT TOGETHER OUR NEGOTIATING TEAM, UH, THEY WOULD PUT TOGETHER THEIR NEGOTIATING TEAM.
REMEMBER THEY'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED A REQUEST TO SIT DOWN AND NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT.
SO WE WOULD HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THEIR INTERESTS WERE AND WHAT THEIR CONCERNS WERE.
THEY WOULD HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT COUNSEL'S CONCERNS AND INTERESTS WERE.
AND THEN THAT WOULD ENABLE US TO HELP GET TO A POTENTIAL AGREEMENT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, SO THAT WHEN, UH, THE TIME CAME FOR THE CITY TO ENTERTAIN LEGISLATION ON WHETHER OR NOT, UH, IT WOULD OR WOULD NOT ACCEPT, UH, THE ANNEXATION, UH, WE WOULD HAVE SOME DRAFT OF AN AGREEMENT, UH, HOPEFULLY THAT BOTH PARTIES HAD AGREED TO AT LEAST IN CONCEPT, UH, THAT THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO FORMULATE ITS DUE DILIGENCE WITH RESPECT TO, UM, YOU KNOW, ANY PROJECTED COSTS FOR SERVICES AND HOW THAT WOULD RELATE TO ESTIMATED REVENUES SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE ALL OF THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
SO THAT COUNCIL WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THE MOST INFORMED DECISION THAT COULD AT THE TIME THAT THE FINAL VOTE CAME.
UM, ASSUMING THAT MIAMI COUNTY WERE TO CERTIFY THE PETITION.
AND I WOULD JUST SAY, I MEAN, SINCE, YOU KNOW, UM, MS. VAN HAREN HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, PUBLICLY HERE AT THE MEETING, I'M SURE THAT DISCUSSION IS GOING TO BE PART OF THAT PART OF THAT JOINT MEETING.
SO, AND THE QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION FROM ANYONE.
UH, FIRST I WANT TO PUBLICLY, UH, THINK, UH, COUNCILMAN KITCHEN, UH, FOR BRINGING THIS MOTION TO RECONSIDER BACKUPS.
SO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC DISCUSSION COULD OCCUR.
UH, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT.
I KNOW THAT WAS A PART OF MY COMMENTS LAST MONDAY AND UNFORTUNATELY, UH, UH, THAT FAILED TO OCCUR, BUT WE ARE HERE TODAY FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT MATTERS FOR THE FOLKS OF HUBER HEIGHTS AT BETHEL.
UM, BRIAN, COULD YOU, UM, COULD YOU ALLUDE TO SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? I KNOW YOU ALLUDED TO A BIT OF IT EARLIER WITH THE WATER AND SEWER.
UM, WHY THE SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2021 SERVICE, UH, AGREEMENT, UH, ANNEXATION LETTER DID INCLUDE WATER AND SEWER.
HOWEVER, THIS ONE DOESN'T, UM, WE HAD HAD AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL LETTER, WHEN THAT CAME IN, I BELIEVE BACK IN, WHEN DID YOU SAY THE DATE ON THAT PARTICULAR? SEPTEMBER 13.
UM, SO I WAS NOT PRIVY TO THE DISCUSSIONS OR THE CO AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE RELATED TO THAT LETTER AND IT'S SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.
SO I CAN'T COMMENT AS TO WHY THAT LETTER DID OR DID NOT CONTAIN THAT INFORMATION.
I CAN SAY THAT WHEN WE WERE, WHEN THE CITY WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED THAT THIS LETTER WOULD BE FORTHCOMING, THAT, UH, THE PETITION WOULD BE RESUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY, UH, THAT INFORMATION I DID REACH BACK OUT AND ADVISE THAT, UH, BETHEL TOWNSHIP HAD PROVIDED THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT AS A RESULT, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SERVICE UNDER THE INITIAL AGREEMENT, AT LEAST UNDER THE SERVICE LETTER, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE.
AND THAT'S WHY THAT WAS STRICKEN FROM THIS LETTER, BUT WHY IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE LAST LETTER AND NOT STRICKEN.
I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT.
SO IS IT ALSO YOUR, DO I WANT TO PUT THIS, HAVE YOU LEARNED SINCE THEN, OR PRIOR TO, UH, THAT NVR PC, UM, AS THE FACILITATOR OF THE FACILITIES, UH, BOUNDARY LINES WITHIN THE AREA THAT HAS BEEN OBSERVED, UH, THAT THEY ARE, UM, THE NINE, THE CHANGES OF THE BOUNDARY LINES UNTIL BOTH PARTIES COME TO AN AGREEMENT? I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS A MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE BACK IN JULY OF 2020 WITH OUR PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER.
AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT COMMUNICATION WAS, UM, RE-INTRODUCED HERE AS OF RECENT, UM, THAT MCRPC IS NOT COMFORTABLE GIVING THEIR BLESSING ON MOVING FORWARD ON THE BOUNDARY LINES, UH, FOR THE UTILITIES BECAUSE HEBREW HEIGHTS IN BETHEL HAS NOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THIS ANNEXATION.
I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THAT WAS A CONCERN, UM, DURING THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE BACK IN OF 2020.
AND I BELIEVE EVEN JUST AS RECENT AS FEBRUARY, UM, ARE YOU ABLE TO, I MAKE, UH, MAKE ANY CONSIDERATION ON THE, UM, STATUS OF, UH TRI-CITIES AND, UM, THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY THAT THEY HAVE AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME WITH RESPECT
[00:30:01]
TO DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY OR THE VOLUME TO CORRECT, BECAUSE NOT ONLY, I BELIEVE SINCE OUR LAST REVIEW OF OUR TRI-CITIES, UH, WE HAVE, UM, I BELIEVE PLACED, UH, ALMOST FIVE ADDITIONAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS, INCLUDING OF ADDITIONAL BUSINESS AND WHAT COULD BE A POTENTIAL.I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF NUMBERS THROWN AROUND OF ADDITIONAL HOMES.
UM, DURING THE LAST REVIEW OF TRI-CITIES, I'M WANTING TO SAY THAT THAT WAS NORTH OF 70, UM, PROBABLY CLOSE TO 80% CAPACITY.
UM, AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE, THIS COUNCIL SHOULD BE COGNIZANT OF ITS AGREEMENT WITH TRI-CITIES AND THE CAPACITY THEY'RE IN.
SO IN YOUR OPINION, WITH THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE TONIGHT IS TRI-CITIES CAPACITY AVAILABLE TO WITHHOLD A LARGE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS NATURE.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, UM, I CAN SAY THAT A ONLY HAVING SERVED ON TRI-CITIES FOR THREE MONTHS, I AM AWARE THAT THE PLANT IS APPROACHING CAPACITY.
I AM AWARE THAT ALL OF THE CITIES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT WE NEED TO BEGIN IMPROVING, UH, PLANNING THE EXPANSION OF THAT FACILITY.
AND WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BRINGING ON A BRIEFING FOR BOTH MYSELF.
WELL, FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, ONLY ONE OF WHICH HAS BEEN SERVING ON THE TRI-CITIES AUTHORITY FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD AMOUNT OF TIME TO KNOW WHAT THE POTENTIAL PLAN OR WHAT THE FUTURE PLAN IS.
THAT IS A B BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE RELATED TO, TO TRI-CITIES THAT IT INTENDS TO EXPAND THE PLANT AND ACCOMMODATE FOR FUTURE GROWTH.
IN THE EVENT THAT THE CITY WOULD WANT TO SERVICE THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION, THE PLANT WOULD BE DESIGNED TO INCLUDE THE APPROPRIATE CAPACITY.
IF THE COUNCIL AND BETHEL TOWNSHIP WERE ABLE TO COME TO TERMS AND THAT THE CITY WOULD TAKE ON THE SERVICE FOR THAT SUBDIVISION, I WOULD SAY YES, THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE TERM, WE WOULD HAVE AN ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICE CAPACITY AT TRI-CITIES BECAUSE THE PLANT WILL EVOLVE IN THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS TO EXPAND IT, TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE VOLUME, WHICH IS HOW THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT WOULD EXPAND OVER TIME.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE ANNEXATION IS APPROVED, THERE AREN'T 1500 HOUSES OR 1300 HOUSES, OR A THOUSAND HOUSES THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUILT AND OCCUPIED TOMORROW THAT WILL GROW OVER TIME TO MATCH THE INCREASED CAPACITY AT TRI-CITIES.
BUT I WOULD POINT BACK TO THE FACT THAT A, THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE SERVICE UTILITIES FROM THE CITY OF HUBER HEIGHTS TO THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
THAT IS A SERVICE THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED BY BAHRAMI COUNTY, BETHEL TOWNSHIP, PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM, AS WELL AS, UM, BETHEL TOWNSHIPS AGREEMENT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT THROUGH CLARK COUNTY.
SO THE FACT THAT THE ANSWER TO THOSE THREE QUESTIONS WERE PROVIDED THEY'RE IRRELEVANT BASED ON THE LEGISLATION THAT COUNCIL IS BEING ASKED TO APPROVE TONIGHT, BECAUSE THIS LEGISLATION EXCLUDES PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICES TO THIS PARTICULAR AREA, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT MCRPC HAS CERTIFIED OR NON-CERTIFIED THE PENDING FPA AGREEMENT, WOULD THE, UH, WOULD THE CITY, HAVE HE WRITES IN CITY ADMINISTRATION BE WILLING TO AMEND TONIGHT'S AGENDA TO GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE IN SECTION ONE THAT BETHEL TOWNSHIP WILL TAKE CARE OF THE WATER, AND THAT'S A POLICY DECISION FOR COUNCIL TO MAKE SIR.
BUT AGAIN, MAYOR, THAT IS, UH, THAT IS A QUESTIONABLE AMENDMENT THAT I'M LOOKING TO ADD TO TONIGHT'S AGREEMENT.
I KNOW THERE'S A FIRST AND SECOND ON THE TABLE.
UM, I WAS NOT PROVIDED THIS AMENDMENT RESOLUTION BY OUR CLERK OF COUNCIL OR THE CITY MANAGER PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S MEETING.
UM, AS, AS I ALLUDED TO LAST WEEK, I DID HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.
UM, BUT, UM, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT PUTTING THAT IN THAT BETHEL WILL, UM, UH, TAKE CARE OF THE WATER AND SEWER IS AS IMPORTANT.
UH, FOR THE SIMPLE FACT, I KNOW THE OHIO EPA HAS ALREADY PROVIDED GRANTS, UH, TO MOVE THAT, UH, THAT SYSTEM FORWARD IN ADDITION TO THEIR VOTERS HAS ALREADY APPROVED FOR THAT WATER TO BE DEALT WITH AND SEWER.
AND THAT'S A, THAT WOULD BE A, UM, A STRONG ECONOMIC, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, STRONGHOLD TO TAKE AWAY FROM BETHEL.
ADDITIONALLY, UM, I DO KNOW THAT SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ANNEXATION ITSELF, I DO KNOW THAT BETHEL WAS APPROACHED RECENTLY FOR ADDITIONAL ANNEXATION ON ANOTHER
[00:35:01]
SIDE OF THEIR TOWNSHIP, UM, AND RUNNING THE NUMBERS WITH SOME PROFESSIONALS AT MY DISPOSAL, UM, AND HAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT IF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE IN THE ONE IN NEW CARLISLE WAS NOT ANNEXED, BUT HOWEVER DID MOVE FORWARD.IT WOULD PROVIDE THE RESIDENT CAPACITY FOR BETHEL TO BECOME A CHARTER CITY.
UM, AND I, AND I BELIEVE MOVING THIS FORWARD, WOULDN'T NEGATE ANY FUTURE OR POSSIBILITY HISTORICALLY FOR BETHEL TO EVER BECOME A CITY.
SO MAYOR, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE SOME HOPES THAT I HOPE COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING, UH, TO, IN ORDER TO THIS FORWARD.
UM, AND I APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER.
UM, I WILL END WITH THE FACT THAT I APPRECIATE THE, UH, THE LAW DIRECTOR, UM, UPDATING THE, UM, THE LEGISLATION AND TRACK INDEED INFORMATION, UH, WITHIN THIS LEGISLATION, AS I MENTIONED LAST WEEK.
AS A MOTION, IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, A RANDOM QUESTION.
I'M SORRY FOR, FOR, UH, RICHARD'S AMENDMENT.
WHEN DID YOU FINISH THIS WITH THIS? EITHER WITHDRAW OR PROCEED WITH THE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT THAT'S THAT'S ON THE TABLE OR IS THE, UH, IS THAT GOING TO BE WITHDRAWN? OKAY.
SO WE NEED TO CALL THE ROLL FOR THE MOTION TO ADOPT.
I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING A MOTION TO WITHDRAWAL AND OUT OF THE WATER AND SEWER ON YEP.
WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE FOR ADOPTION.
CAN I CLARIFY IF THAT FAILS? CAN WE PUT THE WATER AND SEWER ON THERE AND THEN RE DO THIS? YEAH.
JERRY, WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT IS GOING TO ALSO BE ATTACHED TO THE LETTER, THE SERVICE LETTER, WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT IS THE SERVICE KINDER.
AND DOES IT ANYWHERE TALK ABOUT BETHEL PROVIDING THE WATER AND SEWER AND NO, IT DOES NOT.
WE DON'T KNOW SITTING HERE, IF BETHEL CAN PROVIDE THE WATER IN THIS SOUP.
HARVEY SAID, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE KNOW THAT BETHEL CAN PROVIDE THE WATER AND SEWER.
I THINK THAT WOULD ALL, I MEAN, BRIAN AND ME, COULD THAT BE ALL PART OF THE NEGOTIATION AND THE DISCUSSION IN THE MEETING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING? CORRECT.
I HAD PERHAPS IMPROPER, BUT I HAD ASSUMED THAT THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT WE WOULD COVER AS PART OF THAT NEGOTIATION.
AND IF WOULD THAT BE PART OF ANY FUTURE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT FOR WATER PORTION? SURE.
SO, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO NEGOTIATE FOR, OR AGAINST OURSELVES IN PUBLIC, BUT EFFECTIVELY BETHEL TOWNSHIP PUT FORWARD THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEY'VE, THEY'VE PUBLICLY ADMITTED.
THEY'VE PUT FORTH THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AS AN INCENTIVE TO LIMIT THE INTEREST IN ANNEXATION AND I, FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, JUST THINKING FROM A FIDUCIARY PERSPECTIVE, IF THEY'VE MADE THAT INVESTMENT AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE, THEY WOULD WANT TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.
AND IT IS THEIR SERVICE TO GIVE UP TO US.
IT IS NOT OUR SERVICE TO TAKE.
SO WHETHER OR NOT WHETHER OR NOT IT EVEN EXISTS IN THIS AGREEMENT.
AND THIS IS A QUESTION THAT THE LAW DIRECTOR COULD PROBABLY DEBATE, BUT EVEN IF WE PUT IT WITHIN OUR AGREEMENT, AS SOMETHING WE COULD PROVIDE SERVICE TO, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO AGREE TO ALLOW US TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
AND IF THEY SPENT 7 MILLION, I'M JUST MAKING A NUMBER UP.
BUT IF THEY SPENT $7 MILLION TO PAY TO BUILD THAT SYSTEM, AND THEY'RE WILLING TO LET THAT SYSTEM GO, IF WE PAY THEM $7 MILLION AND WE CAN THEN TAKE THAT SERVICE, WELL, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THEY'RE WILLING TO DO WHEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE WILLING TO ACCEPT IT, BUT WE COULD OFFER THEM $50 MILLION AND THEY COULD SAY, NO, WE, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE.
AND THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO TO STOP THEM.
AGAIN, I'LL DEFER TO THE LAW DIRECTOR.
[00:40:01]
ADD THE LANGUAGE IF YOU LIKE, BUT THEY MIGHT STILL DECIDE BETWEEN NOW.AND WHEN THIS MATTER COMES BACK TO COUNCIL, MAYBE THEY DO WANT THE CITY TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE.
AND THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF A SEPARATE AGREEMENT.
THEY MIGHT NOT WANT US TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE AND THEY MAY WANT TO HOLD ONTO IT.
AND THAT WOULD BE DEFINED IN A SEPARATE AGREEMENT THAT WOULD COME BACK BEFORE THIS BODY FOR APPROVAL.
RICHARD, MARY, I DO APOLOGIZE.
UM, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY, AS I MISSPOKE EARLIER, UM, THE, THE WATER AND SEWER WOULD NOT BE PROVIDED BY BETHEL.
IT WOULD BE ACTUALLY MIAMI COUNTY, UM, AS THE WAY THE BOND AND MY RESEARCH PROVIDED THROUGH THE OHIO EPA, UH, THOSE LINES WOULD BE SERVICED THROUGH MIAMI COUNTY ITSELF.
UM, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I CLARIFY THAT, OKAY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT WOULD HAPPEN DURING OUR MEETING THAT SHOULD HAPPEN WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS.
THIS, THIS IS A STATEMENT OF WHAT SERVICES WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE, NOT WHAT SERVICES ANYBODY ELSE CAN OR MAY OR MAY NOT PROVIDE.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPROPER TO PUT IN HERE THAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS GOING TO PROVIDE A SERVICE.
THIS IS JUST WHAT WE'RE GOING TO, WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO ENABLE TO PROVIDE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE CAN OFFER TO PROVIDE MORE.
IF THAT'S, WASN'T THE DESIRE OF COUNCIL AND THAT'S WHAT THE TOWNSHIP WANTED AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF, BUT THIS IS THE CITY'S STATEMENT OF SERVICES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE CONCENTRATING ON IS WHAT SERVICES THE CITY WILL PROVIDE.
AND IN THIS INSTANCE, WATER AND SEWER ARE SERVICES NOT INCLUDED ON THE LIST, WHICH MEANS WE ARE NOT INTENDING TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES BASED ON THE LEGISLATION THAT IS BEING PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.
ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION? OKAY.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR ADOPTION.
MR. OTTO AND MOTION TO ADOPT CARRIES FIVE TO THREE.
I REMEMBER FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION, NO REASON FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION THIS EVENING.
IT IS EIGHT 20 AND THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.