The Perry Township Board of Trustees meets in Regular Meeting format on the first and third Tuesday of every month at 7:00 PM.
The meetings are held at the Township Hall located at
3111 Hilton Street NW
in Massillon. Regular Meetings include reports by Department Heads, the Law Director, and the Township Administrator. The public is welcome to offer comments during the Public Speaks portion of the agenda on township related matters.
Perry Township Board of Trustees
Early Start Time~6:00 pm
December 2, 2014 7:00 pm
Trustee Laubacher stated that it was 6:08 pm and the Perry Township Board of Trustees Regular Meeting would now come to order. Trustee Laubacher stated that this is an early start time for Department Head evaluations.
Trustee Laubacher made a motion that the Board adjourn into an Executive Session pursuant to ORC 121.22 (G)(1) concerning employment to include the Board and Department Heads as scheduled; Seconded by Trustee Haines.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Haines, yes.
The Board adjourned into Executive Session at: 6:08 pm
The Board adjourned from Executive Session at: 7:38 pm
Call to Order/ Pledge of Allegiance:
Trustee Chessler made a motion that the Board adjourn from Executive Session; Seconded by Trustee Haines.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes.
Additions/Deletions to Agenda:
Public Hearings/Invited Guests:
Weeblos Pack #264 – Den Leader Pat stated that their den was here this evening to meet requirements as to how local law works. Here this evening are: Jared, Owen, James and Miguel and helper from Boy Scouts, Ken and Weeblos Assistant Den Leader, Theresa.
Trustee Laubacher thanked Den Leader Pat and Assistant Den Leader Theresa and the Weeblo Scouts for being here this evening and stated that as the boys could see the Township meeting always begins with the Pledge of Allegiance because we are part of the United States and part of the government of the United States. Trustee Laubacher stated that we firmly believe in the flag of the United States and our country. Trustee Laubacher stated that the reason there are three (3) Trustees on the Board is that if there is something that has to be voted upon for the Township, there has to be a majority vote, meaning at least two (2) have to agree on that particular item and if two (2) of us do not agree on that item, then it cannot be passed. Trustee Laubacher explained that there are discussions about particular subjects and we try to find out what each of our ideas are and then vote on that.
Consider Scheduling Step II Grievance for Officer, John Locy
Police Chief Pomesky stated that he has received a grievance from Officer Locy and has since responded in regard to Article 22, eighty (80) hours. Chief Pomesky stated that he has set a hearing request for the Board to settle at the next scheduled Regular Meeting.
Law Director Hall stated that he understands that Fiscal Officer Schlegel has requested the required public hearing on the budget so if the Board should agree, would suggest that the hearing be scheduled on Tuesday, December 16th at 7:00 pm or immediately following the conclusion of the budget hearing.
Trustee Laubacher stated that in regard to the above referenced grievance and inquired of Law Director Hall if a motion needed to be made on this matter. Mr. Hall indicated that a date and time needed to be set on this. Trustee Laubacher stated that this grievance meeting would be at 7:00 pm on Tuesday, December 16, 2014. Mr. Hall stated that this hearing could also be set immediately following the conclusion of the budget hearing as well. Mr. Hall stated that as long as there is a greater consensus of the Board and indicated to Chief Pomesky that he would make sure that notification is given to the Grievant per the union representative.
Public Speaks on items up for Board Approval: None.
Township Business requiring Board Action: None.
Unfinished Business: None.
Trustee Laubacher made a motion to approve bills and payroll in the amount of $320,445.20 for week ending December 2, 2014; Seconded by Trustee Chessler.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes.
Consider Rescinding the Motion made on 11/25/14 to Consider Authorizing an Advance in the Amount of $250,000 from the General Fund to the Police Department to be Returned to the General Fund Upon Receipt of the First Half Property Taxes in 2015, no later than 4/2/15
Fiscal Officer Schlegel stated that at the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, November 25, 2014, he had the Board make a motion to pass an advance in the amount of $200,000 for the Police Department. Mr. Schlegel stated that after he had the Board authorize that advance and while running payroll realized that there are twenty six (26) pay periods and three (3) payrolls in December. Mr. Schlegel stated that he is asking the Board to rescind that advance amount to reflect a new amount of $250,000.
Trustee Chessler made a motion that the Board rescind the previously passed motion on November 25, 2014 authorizing the advance in the amount of $200,000 from the General Fund to the Police Department; Seconded by Trustee Laubacher.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes.
Trustee Chessler made a motion based on the request of the Fiscal Officer that the Board authorize an advance in the amount of $250,000 from the General Fund to the Police Department to be returned to the General Fund upon receipt of the first half property taxes in 2015 and no later than April 1, 2015; Seconded by Trustee Haines.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes.
Fire Chief Martin stated that the Fire Department requests the Board of Trustees to consider exploring the option of hiring a temporary maintenance man for the Fire Department for January through March 2015. Chief Martin stated that as he has indicated in a memo to the Board, there are a number of internal building projects or improvements that have not been done for a number of years. Chief Martin stated that he has estimated that approximately three (3) months would be needed to accomplish these projects. Chief Martin also stated that what he would like to do is hire a temporary person for twenty four (24) hours per week for three (3) hour days, starting wage to be $10.25 with that appointment to be terminated at the beginning of April 2015. Chief Martin stated that if the Board is so inclined to approve this position, added that he would report back to the Board at the next meeting or later in the month with a recommendation for hire.
Trustee Chessler inquired if Chief Martin would be the one to ensure that we would be in compliance with the mandates of a certain number of hours to avoid the provision health care benefits. Chief Martin indicated that he would. Trustee Chessler stated that based on what Chief Martin has outlined in his memo, attached before the Board, will come back to the Board with a formal proposal. Chief Martin indicated that was correct.
Police Department: None.
Trustee Laubacher inquired of Road Superintendent Masalko how the bids regarding the Summerdale Partridge project were coming. Mr. Masalko stated that Engineer Oprisch was on vacation and had not had a chance to go over the submitted bids yet.
Law Director: None.
Department Matters Not Requiring Board Action:
Fire Department: None.
Police Department: None.
Road Department: None.
Law Director: None.
~Perry Township Bicentennial Closing Ceremonies – Richville Community Park, 6655 Navarre Road, SW from 6 – 9 pm. Reservations at www.perrytwp.com
~Light Up Perry – Christmas Lighting contest – To register: www.perrytwp.com
Public Speaks-Open Forum:
Richard Zakrzewski, 1704 Ceder Knoll St. NW, Massillon 44646 – Mr. Zakrzewski stated that he sees a problem that has been generated by our Trustees. Mr. Zakrzewski stated that he thought the Trustees went off the rails when they forced three (3) of the local businesses, MCTV, Time Warner and AT & T to tax specific residents in Perry, not all residents, but a specific group. This was done without the approval of the residents. That happened at a reorganizational meeting of January 7, 2014. Mr. Zakrzewski stated that he sees some consequences from this action and because this action was taken without any input from the residents, there is nothing that says that this could not be done again and jack up that rate in the future. Also, it would be incentive that if this works for the TV companies, it might force some other businesses to put a tax on the residents. The consequence for the cable businesses is that some people may switch to alternate systems and that affects MCTV, Time Warner and AT & T. Mr. Zakrzewski further explained his displeasure in the franchise tax and summarized his opinion by stating that the Trustees are setting a precedent here that is very, very dangerous.
Trustee Haines inquired of Mr. Zakrzewski if he could interject and state some facts regarding this matter and explained that of all the communities, townships and municipalities that Massillon Cable currently serves, Perry Towsnhip was the last one to impose any franchise fees like this. Trustee Haines further explained that the franchise fee of 1% has been in existence for the past twenty five (25) years , but Massillon Cable TV has absorbed that in our rates. There has been a 1% franchise fee all along and Perry Township is the last township or municipality that Massillon Cable services that went above the 1% franchise fee. Trustee Haines further added that Mr. Gessner, President of Massillon Cable TV was the one who translated that message to us that all the communities that Massillon Cable services already have that franchise fee so this is not something new that the Board created.
Mr. Zakrzewski stated that he talked to Massillon Cable and others and they have indicated, the term they used, is that this tax was forced on them. Mr. Zakrzewski stated that this was not his word, but the word they used.
Trustee Haines stated that he does not know who Mr. Zakrzewski talked to at Massillon Cable but the information that he just shared are the facts of franchise fees with cable providers.
Mr. Zakrzewski stated that he would not argue with that until he could verify this information.
Trustee Chessler indicated to Mr. Zakrzewski that he was stating things incorrectly and he wanted to set things straight. Trustee Chessler explained that he has worked in this area for quite a long time and added that in 1984 the Federal Communications Commission authorized certain things for cable TV providers and also took away local control of many things. Trustee Chessler further explained that though the Federal Communications Commission took away control of many things, they did allow the localities where these cable companies were operating to charge what was called a franchise fee and it was allowed from anywhere between 0% up to 5%.
Trustee Chessler stated: fast forward to about 4 or 5 years ago when the State of Ohio came in and said they were going to completely take over regulation of this area and there would no longer be a franchise fee. However, local communities who relied on these monies were allowed to impose a video service provider fee. Trustee Chessler further shared that Perry Township, all the communities around us and many other municipalities, as Trustee Haines has indicated, have done it and are at 5% already. Perry Township had a twenty-five (25) year franchise that just ran out and this Board, after we discussed our budget last year and how our General Fund was becoming in the red, had to consider creative sources to bring in revenue and this was one of the ideas that we had. This is a video service provider fee that we charge the cable company and by law they are allowed to pass it on to their subscribers. Trustee Chessler stated that you cannot say call it what you will, this is exactly what it is, a fee that we can invoke here by our resolution and we charge everybody providing that service which is Warner Cable and Massillon Cable right now, those are the two that it’s imposed upon and they can not only pass it along but they have the right to put it on their bills that that is being passed along.
Trustee Chessler stated that to say that we are going to do it again, we are not going to do it again because we have already done it and it is at the maximum rate. Can other businesses do this, no. This is something that the Federal Government and now the State has granted local communities the right to do for cable TV providers and nobody else. We cannot do it for Tuffy Muffler, we cannot do it for the donut shop or anything like this, but the fee, and this is what it is based on, it is a community has right-of -ways, polls and things, and if someone, like a cable company is going to use those, they should pay for it. And that is what this fee represents, is the right of the use of right-of-ways in the community, but they are allowed to pass those costs along.
Mr. Zakrzewski stated that he thought that the Board could have been up front with everyone and not through a reorganizational meeting rather than a Regular Meeting.
Trustee Chessler stated that he understands this and added that this was a very good point that Mr. Zakrzewski is making and stated that he would like to address that.
Mr. Zakrzewski stated that he felt that this was really insulting the residents by acting like this, the Board did not want to put any light on it and just slide this thing through. Trustee Chessler stated that this is something that every December, the first or second meeting in December, the Board will be doing this on December 16, 2014 and you are invited to come. The Board discusses the budget every year, we discuss with each Department Head what they are going to need, how much money they are going to bring in and our Fiscal Officer goes over with them and us line by line, each item in the budget every year and we have a full discussion of everything that we do and we did discuss this, in detail and in length, and you were invited to that meeting too. There is a process by which we have to pass a resolution, which we did, and we followed that process. Are we required to send out, everytime we do something like that, a notice to each individual resident that we are doing something like that, it would be nice if we could do that, but we didn’t. Mr. Zakrzewski stated to put it in the paper. Trustee Chessler stated that it is part of our minutes and you had to look up our minutes to know that this was done on January 7, 2014, but we did do this in a proper and open way.
Trustee Laubacher inquired if it was Plain Township and Jackson that were at 5%. Trustee Chessler stated that yes, Canton City is 5%, Plain Township, 5%; Lake is 5%; Massillon is what he thought was 2 ½ % so the idea that people are going to move from one community to the other based on the video service provider fee, Trustee Chessler stated that he did not think that was much of an incentive because all of the communities are looking to this as a way to make up for money that has been taken out of our coffers because of the elimination of the estate tax and the money that used to come back to us from the estate. Trustee Chessler stated that the Board was trying to be creative and look for ways to bring in funding that were available to us.
Cheryl Berry (6216 Highton St. SW, Navarre, 44662) Ms. Berry stated that her question is how many homes is this affecting in Perry Township, 20,000, 10,000? Trustee Laubacher stated that every home that has cable TV. Ms. Berry inquired how many homes were in Perry Township. Trustee Haines stated that there were approximately 10,000 homes. Ms. Berry stated that on average the residents were probably giving out three to four dollars of their cable bill so that is 10,000 x $4.00 for everybody that has cable. Ms. Berry stated that she is assuming that satellite is not a part of this. Trustee Haines stated that was correct, that satellite is not a part of this, but the question is how many of those 10,000 homes subscribe to cable. Ms. Berry stated that was correct and inquired what the revenue was that was being pulled, knowing what her bill would be, by imposing this 5%, how much money is the Township trying to pull in to make up the differences.
Fiscal Officer Schlegel stated that this will generate roughly $200,000 dollars a year, that is the estimate. Ms. Berry verified $200,000 a year? Mr. Schlegel stated that was correct and added that he wanted to add to what Trustee Chessler said. Mr. Schlegel stated that the state took away from us out of the General Fund $436,236 dollars a year. Mr. Schlegel explained that the Governor actually took towards the State Legislature to balance his budget and added that this was an approximate 40% decrease in our General Fund. Mr. Schlegel stated that it is not like the Board is doing this because, Ms. Berry added in “they want more money”, Mr. Schlegel stated: “exactly”. Mr. Schlegel also stated that we still are not going to have enough money in our General Fund to maintain, but the Board has done a lot of other things as well. They have shut off lights, they have closed down the recycling station, they have done things that they could possibly do to try and make up some of this deficit.
Ms. Berry stated that in speaking of the recycling, commented that she loves the way it is now.
Trustee Haines stated thank you and added that not that he is proud of this, but the Board had to streamline the park department and laid off four (4) employees in our parks. Trustee Haines explained that the Road Department now helps maintain our parks with a part-time staff so that is less than it used to be. Trustee Haines asked: would we love to have better maintained parks and fulltime people to maintain those like a city or others? Yes we would, but we cannot do that right now. Trustee Haines stated that another thing that compares townships and municipalities; we do not have a motor license vehicle fee. There is a lot of advantages to living in Townships over municipalities regarding taxes and fees that are not paid.
Trustee Chessler stated that he wanted to apologize to Mr. Zakrzewski in that he gets a little passionate about this matter and added that it does bother him that this has all of the appearances as an imposed tax. It operates in the same way and Trustee Chessler stated that he does not like that either. Trustee Chessler explained that the Board did this in January of last year and again it came out of the discussions on how we could be creative to come up with replacement dollars for those that were taken away from us and this was one way to do it. Trustee Chessler stated that it does not follow the same course as most things where it goes before the voters and the majority rules and only after that can this take place, but that is the system and we did follow the system. Trustee Chessler stated that he does not like that aspect of it, but added that he could understand why one would get the appearance that this happened in a close door session, but it did not. This happened after some discussion, contemplation, and the lack of many other reasonable alternatives. Trustee Chessler explained that the Board did go to the voters about a year or two ago and asked for an approval of a General Fund levy, but that was defeated. Trustee Chessler stated that every year we see our General Fund shrinking and the number of things that come out of that increasing so this was an effort to try and replace something that has been taken away. Trustee Chessler stated to Mr. Zakrzewski that his point is not missed and it is well taken that to find out about it in December from the cable company, when it was imposed there, it has generated a lot of negative concern, and this is not missed.
Mr. Zakrzewski stated that on an up side to be straight forward and come to the people and say “hey we need the money”, he added that he would be the strongest advocate. Trustee Chessler stated that this was done. Mr. Zakrzewski stated that maybe there could have been a better job of selling it. Mr. Zakrzewski also commented that he has worked on a previous Perry levy, so he knows how tough this is. Mr. Zakrzewski stated that when you get the community behind you, there is nothing more powerful than that and added that we are here to help. Mr. Zakrzewski briefly stated another example of this.
Trustee Laubacher stated that the Board just finished talking to all the Department Heads in the Executive Session and discussed all the different things that are needed for the Township. One of those things that all three (3) Trustees are very much concerned about is our parks. We know we are getting this money in and we realize the problem where Massillon had where a Perry Township woman got killed from a branch falling off of a tree. There are some trees that we need to work on and try to get rid of some of the branches, but up to this particular point, we have not had the money to be able to clean up some of the park areas. With this money coming in, we are going to be able to do some of this, to have safer parks. Trustee Laubacher again briefly summarized the franchise fee matter. Trustee Laubacher stated that he cannot say that all the money generated from the franchise fee would be used to stabilize some of the issues in our Township parks, but added that this is one of the things that we are very much interested in using this money for.
Mr. Zakrzewski stated that one of the things that comes across as odd and is not being implied across the board, is that this fee only applies to certain residents and those who are using those three (3) business’ services. Mr. Zakrzewski stated that the Board has to be thinking about this, why isn’t everybody paying this.
Trustee Chessler stated that we are stuck with what the General Assembly allowed us to do. Mr. Zakrzewski stated that your concern here is the community and asked, how is that going to be perceived. Trustee Chessler stated that he did not understand Mr. Zakrzewski’s unequal treatment argument here.
Mr. Zakrzewski stated that the three (3) companies are collecting the 5%. Trustee Chessler stated that two (2) of them are. AT & T is not currently in but they will be. Mr. Zakrzewski stated that this leaves the satellite dish and so on, there are holes left in this matter. Trustee Chessler stated that we did not leave holes in this, the video service provider fee was established by the state legislature. I am not passing the buck, but we cannot change that.
Law Director Hall stated that Trustee Chessler is kind of the local expert. He led the implementation of this through his job as Assistant Law Director for Canton City, but the point to be made is that these cable providers are stringing hard wires, either from pole to pole or underground through the government’s road easement. And that is the theory of the FCC allows the state which allows the townships to apply this fee. Whereas the satellites are not using the poles, they are not using the roads, they are just broadcasting it through the air. Mr. Hall stated that if we could go back to 1983 and 1984, the arguments made to congress which were then made to the state legislature, you cannot apply a fee when they are not utilizing the government’s easements. In terms of whether it is a disparity between a cable provider versus a satellite provider, the answer is no because the satellite providers are not utilizing the public way.
Mr. Zakrzewski again briefly summarized Mr. Hall’s explanation, but stated that he is trying to explain what the perception is as to how this matter is coming across, and to be sensitive as to what the feeling is. Mr. Zakrzewski added that he thinks if the Board had been up front and laid it out since they had to go digging and rooting for the information they did get. If this had been spelled out, and it was stated as to this is why we’re doing what we’re doing, it’s not too late to do this.
Trustee Haines stated that it is not too late and they are working on this. Mr. Haines also stated that in his conversation with Mr. Gessner, since he received the same cable bill last Monday, inquired if this could not have been done in a better way. Trustee Haines stated that they wanted to communicate with Mr. Gessner again and ask him if they were able to put some better type of better explanation on the next bill. Trustee Haines briefly explained that he has had to explain this many times to his family and friends since this was an unclear explanation.
Ms. Berry stated that there is a newspaper reporter right here. Ms. Berry stated that this new fee would be instituted beginning in January 2015 and also inquired if this new fee would show how much I paid since the previous 1% fee is so absorbed into the bill, that you do not know where this is.
Trustee Haines stated that the fee will come across as VSF fee or it may say video service provider and it will be line item on the bill. It will not be hidden on the bill. Trustee Haines explained that when speaking to Mr. Gessner at MCTV, he did say that because it was 1%, that is how it was, but when other communities, townships and other municipalities increased above 1%, it was imposed on their bill in this same manner.
Ms. Berry stated so she can actually look on her bill and say this is what I am paying the Township for. Trustee Chessler stated that the cable company wants you to know that this is not their charge to you, it is the Townships.
Ralph DeChiara, 765 Delverne Ave. SW, Canton – Mr. DeChiara inquired how long the new contract was for. Trustee Chessler stated that the state law that changed about five (5) years ago and eliminated the ability of us to require a contract. We cannot insist on any contractual arrangement, the state now governs cable television and they go to the state for whatever approvals they need.
Ms. Berry inquired if the state is regulating this. Trustee Chessler stated that any regulation that relates to cable television comes at the state level, but the local governments that used to be able to require, we could require them to come to us and enter into a franchise agreement, but we’re not allowed to do that anymore. Trustee Chessler stated that his predecessors entered into a twenty-five (25) year arrangement that he thought was absolutely crazy since most other communities only would go ten (10) to five (5) year, with five (5) year extensions so that you could keep up with technology and change this if you wanted to.
Ms. Berry stated that this makes sense because it has been 1% for twenty-five years; had it been a gradual thing, we probably would still be at this plateau twenty-five (25) years later.
There was an effort to take this control, any control out of local courts and city councils and move it to the state level.
Tim Blythe, 2956 Bridgeton St. NW, Massillon 44646 – Mr. Blythe stated that in regard to the discussion Trustee Chessler referred to that happened before this present Board was established and Mr. Haines was not even a Board member when that discussion took place. Trustee Chessler inquired which discussion Mr. Blythe was referring to. The discussion about the franchise fee that took place in 2011 when Mr. Schlegel had suggested a General Fund levy and also raising the franchise fee. Trustee Chessler stated thank you but further explained that his point was that every year, we do have a discussion about our budget. Trustee Chessler explained that in the context of what the Board could do, knowing that those monies were going away, what we can do to increase the budget monies.
Mr. Blythe stated that having said that, at the reorganizational meeting, on the Agenda, it said revision of cable service provider, this was the topic. Mr. Blythe stated that when one looks at that, they would think that the Fire Department is considering going from cable to satellite or something like that. I attend every meeting and when read that I did not think anything of it, I figured we were going from Massillon Cable TV to Direct TV. Once the vote took place, I realized that this was the franchise fee that they talked about a year and half ago and I made the comment at the next meeting, that this seemed a little slippery. So when you say that there was a great discussion about this and it was very well noted, it really wasn’t. It was misleading to say the least.
Trustee Chessler stated to Mr. Blythe that he would concede that it happened when he said it did and wasn’t last year, but I do recall sitting at the table discussing it at some length and added that he also had talked to Fiscal Officer Schlegel outside the context of the budget hearing.
Mr. Blythe stated that he also wanted to inquire about a notice in the paper regarding a meeting at some point within the last week or two regarding water at the Isler Circle Development. Mr. Blythe stated that he knows that in the past, the Township has funded a water project to get a project into a development and then as people hook up, that money is reimbursed back to the Township. Mr. Blythe stated that at the present time, not talking about Isler Avenue, do we have any outstanding properties that should have paid us money and haven’t.
Trustee Laubacher stated that we are in the process and further explained that Trustee Haines is working with this. Trustee Haines stated that there is only one with anything outstanding and that is in Richville and when that was designed and those water lines were put in, we had to finance that up front and then we had to have a certain amount of residents connect before we got our money back and are finally close to getting those amount of residents connected. Mr. Blythe inquired if we knew what that amount is. Trustee Haines stated that the Township has our records and Aqua has theirs and we are comparing them right now. Trustee Haines also added that this project has been going on for awhile now and unfortunately Aqua Ohio or Consumers Ohio has kept focused on the Isler Circle water project and now that this has gotten approval and they are going to get water in that neighborhood, are focusing on this for us. Isler Circle is not financed by the Township at all, it is completely financed through Consumers Ohio and the individual residents.
Mr. Blythe stated that in reference to the point made regarding the Road Department and the parks, inquired what percentage of Road Superintendent Masalko’s and the Assistant Road Superintendent’s wages are paid out of the General Fund for parks. Trustee Haines stated zero. Fiscal Officer Schlegel stated zero. Mr. Blythe inquired if that was logged because levy dollars are used for the road levy for road employees and materials and things like that. Trustee Haines stated that in regard to the employees, the part-time park employees are paid out of the General Fund. Mr. Blythe stated that he understands that but added that obviously there is time spent with the supervision that we voted on a levy to pay for roads yet we are taking some of those dollars and paying for.
Fiscal Officer Schlegel stated that none of the salary dollars are coming out of the road levies. Law Director Hall stated that if the management time is minimal, the auditors and the internal revenue service use the phrase diminimus, if it is a minimum amount of their daily or weekly time, then it is not a violation of the state’s statutes, however, if Mr. Masalko and Mr. Young were required to spend 25% or 50% of their time or more, then yes, there may have to be a reallocation, and John could clarify this, it really is a minimal amount of time actually spent supervising the park employees.
Mr. Blythe stated that he also understands that in the wintertime there is not going to be hardly anything. Trustee Haines stated that normally it is a phone call in the morning to direct them to do what they need to do that day, as far as what parks they are mowing and where they are working or what projects they are on. Mr. Blythe inquired that also, when the four (4) employees that were laid off were referred to, weren’t they employees who really worked at the recycling center. Trustee Haines stated that they worked at both and added that we are still maintaining the parks but are not maintaining them with any fulltime employees at this point.
With nothing further to come before the Board, Trustee Laubacher made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:21 pm; Seconded by Trustee Haines.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes.
Lee Laubacher, President Joe Schlegel, Fiscal Officer