Minutes
LAFAYETTE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Special Meeting
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Meeting called to order: 3:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance
Members Present: Trustee Lynda Bowers, Trustee Lee Kehoe, Trustee Donna Young, Fiscal
Officer Shirley Bailey, Attorney Allan Michelson
Minutes:
5/21/07 – Ms. Bowers stated that Trustee Young had mentioned at the 7/16/07 meeting that she
had not received the corrected minutes for 5/21/07. The first minutes were issued to the Trustees
on 7/11/07 and the 2nd set came out the next day. All Trustees were copied on both of these
minutes. Ms. Bowers supplied a copy of the corrected minutes to Ms. Young. Ms. Young replied
that she had two sets already. She was unsure as to which set was correct. Ms. Young stated
that she finds it disheartening when she asks for any type of correction or verbatim comments put
into play in the minutes she is continually ignored by this Board and by the Clerk. However, on the
5/21/07 minutes there are verbatim comments from Ms. Shanley and her entire document is
attached to the minutes. Ms. Young stated that it appears that comments from the resident were
more important than those made by herself. Ms. Bailey stated that it was due to the issue at
hand. Anytime there is a strong issue, she tries to do verbatim. She felt that the effort that Ms.
Shanley had gone to in preparing this questionnaire made them worthy to be included in the
minutes. Ms. Young questioned as to why the answers were typed in by Ms. Bailey. Ms. Bowers
motioned to approve the minutes, Mr. Kehoe seconded. Ms. Young opposed.
6/18/07 –Ms. Young found a typo on pg. 6 in Ms. Neumeyer’s comments. “Work” will be changed
to “word”. Ms. Young motioned to approved, Ms. Bowers seconded. All voting in favor.
Old Business:
Mr. Kehoe asked to discuss the Parking Lot at Chippewa Lake Fire Department. We had put out a
request to get a proposal to have it chip and sealed and paved. The cost was $17,500 for paving,
rather than chip and seal. He feels that we need to put this out to bid rather than accept it as is.
Ms. Bowers motioned, and Ms. Young seconded. All voting in favor.
Sheriff Hassinger arrived to be available during the discussion of the Sheriff’s Contract.
Sheriff’s Contract:
Ms. Bowers passed out suggestions she received from Allan Michelson with regards to the
contract. Allan Michelson went through the contract line by line. He stated that this is a five year
contract, binding also on future Trustees for the full five years of the levy. Page 2, paragraph 1,
The officers will have full police powers as township policemen, although they’ll be Sheriff’s
Deputies. This is designed so that they can enforce all your laws and act for the township and be
vested with all the power of the township under the contract. Road patrol is a primary interest in
protection of the Township Hall and property and investigative and field work following a call would
be referred to the Sheriff’s Office, just as in a normal case originating with Sheriff’s Patrolling
Deputies at no additional charge during regular business hours of the Sheriff’s Department.
There will be follow up and the man power necessary for that at no additional expense. The
township can request Neighborhood Watch Programs and Safety Seminars at no additional cost
providing it’s available through the appropriate division of the Sheriff’s Department. A minimum of
three Deputies is mentioned. This locks the Township in to providing the three full time deputies
and the Township will not be allowed to dip below that level at any time during the contract without
breaching the contract. These deputies work within the unincorporated areas of the township, not
including Chippewa Lake Village, and are permanent full time officers and will be in the township
unless performing mutual aid according to existing protocol.
Page 3. Shift scheduling for these officers will be set up with the concurrence, agreement, of the
township and no overtime scheduled without prior approval, except in emergency. That gives you
control over the scheduling, gives you control over overtime. Initially this says that the current full
time deputies will be the initial officers. Replacement officers or additional officers can be used if
needed from a pool of officers submitted to the Trustees for approval. The Sheriff will submit
monthly reports to the township in regarding police activity. I think the idea is that this will be
similar to the summaries provided to Chippewa Lake. Ms. Young says that this states it would be
upon request. Mr. Michelson agreed that it is upon request. We would have to ask for it. If
desired, a request can be made so a deputy can attend township meetings to report on their
activities.
Paragraph 2, Separate Employees is in there to make it absolutely clear that the Sheriff is an
employer as is the township, but that these officers are employees of the Sheriff’s Office. There is
a clause that is repeated twice starting in paragraph 2, “The Sheriff’s Office and Township are
treated separately for payroll purposes”. If you go down 3 lines this line is repeated. The next
clause, “The Sheriff’s Office and Township are independent entities with full authority, etc.” that’s
also repeated. You need to eliminate one of those. 4th line down, 3rd word, “The Sheriff’s
Office… eliminate everything from there through two more lines down …necessary to their
statutory functions” because of repetition. This language is to show that this is a negotiated
contract; nobody is forcing the other side into it. It helps it be binding. This paragraph goes on to
clarify that the Sheriff’s Office and the Township are separate entities, separate budgets, separate
funding authorities to be seen in their own names. Being employed by the Sheriff is different than
being employed by the Township. The deputies are Sheriff’s employees. All that is designed to
show that under this contract the primary responsibility and liability is with the Sheriff’s Office. Ms.
Young asked if this meant we would cease to carry liability insurance on the officers through the
township. Ms. Bailey stated that the Township still has to carry liability insurance for the
Township. Ms. Bowers stated that the difference right now is about $22,000 down to about
$15,000 and then once we get past that, she thinks within two years, it should be down to a third.
Ms. Bailey corrected the number to $7,200. Ms. Young asked what the price is on the equipment
not directly furnished by the Township. What will we be directly furnishing at this point? Ms.
Bowers stated that there is nothing she could think of, but something could come up in the future if
something went wrong. It would be better to be covered right now. Mr. Michelson clarified that if
we wanted to add something extra in the future, we would be allowed to do that, but everything
they’ll need to perform their functions will be provided by the Sheriff’s Department. We could give
extras, such as a special radio or cell phone, which would be an extra. Ms. Bailey stated that we
do provide the modems and computers now. We own them. Ms. Young asked if we will have to
replace cars. Ms. Bowers responded that if the cars go out, we may look at a situation like some
of the other townships do, that might be more advantageous to lease. We will have to look at that
as it comes up. Not to lease rather, but to use the fleet cars. That’s what the other townships do.
Ms. Young asked if we would go with three cars. We only have one Lafayette Township Deputy
out at any given point. Why would we want to continue? We have one deputy every eight hours.
Ms. Bowers responded that we may get into a situation where we don’t want to replace cars and
just go with the police cars as those die out. We would have that choice. Ms. Young said that the
other contracts that the Sheriff has, if she’s not mistaken, don’t have three cars, one for each
deputy. Ms. Bowers replied that no, they do not. Ms. Young asked if Liverpool had their own
cars. Sheriff Hassinger replied “No. If you remember, when I first talked to you about that, I said
you people are very extravagant with the number of cars you have. The maximum you need in this
township would be two. Ms. Young said she was looking at the future and felt that there was no
reason to have three cars when you only have one deputy out at any given point. Sheriff
Hassinger agreed. He suggested that as one car is retired, it wouldn’t be replaced. Ms. Young
stated that it is not stated in the contract that we would not be replacing the cars. Sheriff
Hassinger asked if the contract didn’t address cars. Mr. Michelson stated that the next page does
address cars. Page 5 – The township will provide one vehicle for use by each deputy. One
vehicle for use.
Returning to page 4 – Mr. Michelson stated after the fees for salaries, pensions, etc, the Sheriff
gets reimbursed for all those costs. But the Sheriff is actually paying them for the deputies as they
incur them. The Township isn’t responsible for continuing education or training, unless it’s
something special that you request. There are no dispatch fees assigned to Lafayette Township
during the term of the contract (at the suggestion of Ms. Bowers and Mr. Michelson). The next
statement about payments under the agreement is what’s legally required to go into the Sheriff’s
Revolving Fund, where we pay into the fund and the Sheriff draws out the expenses from it, and
that specifies that that is how it will be handled. If there are any monies in there for Lafayette at
the end of the year, they are obligated to credit to the Township and roll over into the next year.
There is going to be an annual budget presented December 1st each year to let you know the
estimated cost for the Sheriff’s Department for the following year. Ms. Young asked for
clarification – she thought that any monies left in the account at the end of the year go to
Commissioners. Ms. Bowers replied that the Commissioners get it unless we have this in our
contract. This is exactly as it was in our last contract. Mr. Michelson stated that if there is money
in the account at the end of five years, we might lose it if we don’t re-up. That is something to
keep an eye on. Ms. Bowers said that we’ve been paying the bill as it comes in, so there shouldn’t
be any money there. Ms. Bailey said that we are paying the bill after the expense. Mr. Michelson
added that therefore there would never be a credit.
Paragraph 4 – the township responsibility. Township has to provide a vehicle for use by the
deputy on duty. One vehicle. This could be read that if you have two deputies on duty, you’ve got
to provide two vehicles. Mr. Kehoe stated that there could be situations where we might have two
deputies on duty. Ms. Bowers said that one of the ways we could provide a vehicle is by
agreement through the Sheriff’s fleet. Which is what we’ve done when we’ve had vehicles down.
He provides those at no charge. Ms. Young wanted to make sure that this contract does not hold
us to three cars. Mr. Michelson stated that he didn’t feel it would. Sheriff Hassinger was asked if
he would be holding us to three cars by that language. He replied “No”. Ms. Young said she
would feel better if we changed the language. Ms. Bowers stated that “as long as it’s in our
minutes what the intent is, that’s what they would go back to and we clarified that”. She did not
have a problem changing the language but wasn’t sure how to change it to make it less confusing.
Mr. Michelson suggested changing the wording to “The Township shall provide one vehicle for use
by each deputy on duty within the township” instead of permanently stationed. We have three
deputies permanently stationed. The Trustees agreed with that wording. Mr. Michelson continued
– The Township reimburses the Sheriff’s Office for cost of maintenance, insurance, fuel and oil for
the vehicles. That’s just operating expense. The vehicles will be painted with the Sheriff’s colors.
They already are now. If we replace the vehicle, we will have to do that. The bumper decal
“Lafayette Township” would be on the vehicle while in use. When a Township vehicle may be
temporarily out of service, the Sheriff will provide a fleet car for use at no additional charge, except
fuel. It was asked if all three cars were out of service, would that still be so. Sheriff Hassinger
stated that we could make the sentence simpler by saying “The Township shall provide a patrol
vehicle for use in Lafayette Township”. All agreed. Mr. Kehoe asked if we wanted to include the
“on duty deputy” clause. Sheriff Hassinger said they won’t be working in a patrol car unless they
are on duty. Mr. Michelson continued – The Township may supply, this is our option, deputies with
cell phones. Ms. Young stated it says “The Township will supply”, Mr. Michelson replied that we
have to request it. Mr. Michelson stated “At the Townships request, the Township will supply” to
him means that it has to be requested before it is supplied. We would have to request it to be
provided and decide to do it. Ms. Bowers said that the reason, as we discussed before, is that
those phones are only $10.00 a month. For the Service Department, and particularly the Fire &
Rescue to communicate directly with our Officers when they’re setting up traffic control, etc., it is
so much easier for them to have that direct contact. Mr. Michelson suggested changing the word
request to “At the Township’s option the Township may supply”. Meaning that if we decide to
supply them, we supply them, if we decide not to, we don’t. Ms. Bowers stated that we did decide
this issue a few months ago, the problem was we didn’t know whether we were going to have the
officers or not, so we did not put them on the new plan. Ms. Young asked if it was appropriate to
say “it’s deputies” when they are actually employees of the Sheriff’s Department. If Sheriff
Hassinger decides to promote one of the officers, then we are subject to change. The Sheriff
stated that they will be eligible to take promotional positions. Mr. Michelson stated that “It’s
deputies” is a fluctuating group. Ms. Bailey stated that if a promotion occurs, they would no longer
be a Lafayette Officer. We would hire a new one. Mr. Michelson stated that new deputies would
have to sign a use policy for using the cell phone.
Under Rules and Regulations, the deputies are subject to all the standards of the Sheriff’s Office
and disciplinary action by the Sheriff. They are employees of the Sheriff. They are given the
entitlement to work off duty and other work details outside their working hours in the township.
The deputies in our service aren’t subject to general department layoff due to seniority without
approval of the Township Trustees. This is a contractual obligation. Ms. Young was curious as to
how that could be so with all the officers being in the same union, with the same benefits. The
Sheriff stated that this is something that could possible be brought up in court some day. Mr.
Michelson stated that our intent is to protect our deputies.
Paragraph 6 is a Boiler Plate. This is the complete agreement; there are no side deals or verbal
agreements that either side can hold the other to. The term provides that it will be in force through
the end of collection of the levy which would be the year 2012. His suggestions are:
1) include the spelling out of dispatch services(included in the contract)
2) add language that goes beyond the terms of these trustees and be binding for the full five
years (included)
3) Five year term concurrent with the Levy (included)
4) possibly have a liaison officer. He is not sure that is necessary. Sheriff Hassinger does not
recommend having a liaison officer.
5) repetition of language (taken care of)
6) possibly include a clause that would allow you to reduce service or even terminate the contract
in the event of a fiscal emergency. Ms. Bowers says this is addressed under Purpose, first
paragraph, 3rd line, after three officers, it says the number of officers assigned to the Township
may be changed upon written notice from the Trustees to the Sheriff. Mr. Michelson stated that he
doesn’t think we would want a termination clause. We want it to be five years. Ms. Young asked
Mr. Michelson if he had written this contract. He replied no, he had reviewed the old contract and
rewritten parts of it.
7) A clause regarding insurance coverage with the Sheriff. Ms. Bowers checked on that.
Currently the Township has a lease agreement with the county where they lease our vehicles from
us because the insurance liability goes from $300 a month to $300 a year. There is a clause in
their resolution passed by the Commission that is very similar to what Mr. Michelson wrote. If we
want that identically, we would have to change that lease agreement with the county. She put that
aside for them to look at with Chris Jacob in the next couple days. Ms. Bowers stated she would
make those changes or actually we could replace them for the record and do the signature page
then make the changes after the meeting. Sheriff Hassinger stated that salary of the deputies is
not stated in the contract. Does that mean that it will be according to union contract? Ms. Bowers
said that the way we have been doing it has been by reimbursing all costs through the invoicing.
The Sheriff said that was fine. Ms. Bowers continued that we did include that we are asking the
Sheriff to provide an estimate of the budget in December of every year so that we could do our
budget, since he would know what the contract is.
The changes to the contract are: omitting duplicate language on page 3 of “The Sheriff’s Office
and the Township are treated separately for payroll purposes. The Sheriff’s Office and the
Township are independent entities with full authority to perform all acts necessary to their statutory
functions”. On page 5, the first sentence will read “The Township shall provide a patrol vehicle for
use within Lafayette Township”. The first sentence in the second paragraph will be changed to “at
the Township’s option, the Township may supply it’s deputies with cell phones for direct
communication with Township Administration, Service, Fire & Rescue personnel when necessary”.
Mr. Michelson stated that it is understood that when any of the Trustees signs the signature page
you are approving the agreement with those changes, and only those changes. Ms. Bowers
motioned to approve and Ms. Young seconded. Ms. Young stated that she did so as it was the will
of the people. Mr. Kehoe stated that there is a motion on the floor that’s been seconded to accept
the agreement for law enforcement services with the Medina County Sheriff’s Office. All voting in
favor. Motion carried. Ms. Young wanted “the record to show that the reason I am seconding and
I am approving it, is unlike the previous two ballots that the people voted on, where the board
members sitting to my left did not support, I won’t go that route”.
Resolutions:
Ms. Bowers moved for the adoption of Resolution of 21-2007: A RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE
COLLECTION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL TAXES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LAFAYETTE
TOWNSHIP POLICE DISTRICT.
Ms. Bowers explained that we currently collect two additional taxes that we previously stated in
Resolution 13-2007 that if the 2.5 mill levy were approved, the collection in 2007 would eliminate
those. Ohio Revised Code section 5709.19 authorizes the trustees to terminate those. Mr.
Michelson advised that the resolution needed to state that these levies were no longer necessary
and are terminated. Section 1 was changed to include this language. Ms. Young seconded, all
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ms. Bowers moved for the adoption of Resolution 22-2007: A RESOLUTION LIMITED
COLLECTION OF ADDITIONAL TAXES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LAFAYETTE TOWNSHIP
POLICE DISTRICT.
Ms. Bowers explained that this resolution is to guard against any excess collection over the
amount of $289,800. The Medina County Auditor is asked to establish a review process to ensure
compliance. The Treasurer’s Office would be utilized for Section 3. This is to cap the total
collection of funds at $289,800. The motion was seconded by Ms. Young, all voted in favor and
the motion carried.
Ms. Bowers moved for the adoption of Resolution 23-2007: RESOLUTION FOR THE
DISPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL TAXES COLLECTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE LAFAYETTE
TOWNSHIP POLICE DISTRICT.
Ms. Bowers explained that the Township currently has two existing 2 mill levies that have funds that
are currently collected. Those funds may or may not be exhausted with the repayment of the
2004/2005 audit findings. Currently the number for expenses paid directly out of the General
Fund for the purposes of the old Police District is a little over $200,000. That does not take into
consideration any transfers. Ms. Young asked if there was a breakdown of the expenses paid.
Ms. Bailey replied that she had a breakdown. Ms. Bowers continued stating that in the event there
are excess funds, those funds can be returned to the taxpayers of Lafayette Township who paid
them with this resolution. Ms. Young seconded, all voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ms. Young asked to see the documentation of the breakdown sent to the Auditor. Ms. Bailey
stated that what has been sent so far is not complete and is an estimate, not the final.
New Business:
Ms. Bowers motioned to address the railroad crossing. Ms. Young asked if the road signs had
been put up. Ms. Bowers replied that road is being repaved and would not make sense to put
them up right now. Ms. Bowers continued - a couple meetings ago we mentioned in the Carlton
Road Project where the cross section gates and lights were put up on the railroad crossing, that
cost was $175,000 approved with funding between the County Commissioners and the Township
and PUCO. Like the other three crossings that have been done, this required no participation
from the Township, funding wise. That particular crossing ran into difficulty that ended up having a
billing from Ohio Edison. Poles had to be replaced and other electric facilities along the route had
to be replaced that were not included in the grant fund. There is an outstanding bill of $7,530.43
for the work done to relocate those facilities. The Commissioners went ahead and did it, since
they were already into the project. They have no funding for that and were simply acting as the
fiduciary for the grant funding. The Township has already had three projects completed at no cost
to us and we’ve got another one under way. They are looking to us to see if we can cover that
cost. Ms. Bowers feels that with half a million dollars worth of improvement that we have received,
and the railroad crossings that we have to complete, we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if
we didn’t cover this expense. We are not required to, but as a moral obligation, we should. She
has not met with the Clerk to see where the funding would come from, but is anticipating
somewhere in the Service Department with a supplemental appropriation. Ms. Young asked if we
could have a copy of the request and address the issue on Monday. Ms. Bowers replied that the
Commissioners were anxious for a reply. Ms. Young stated that a few more business days would
not affect that one way or the other. Ms. Bowers said that they have had the invoice since August
of 2006, when they got it. Ms. Young asked why it was just now coming to us. Ms. Bowers replied
that they were trying to find a way to have it covered without coming to us. She had mentioned
this in a previous meeting. And the Trustees each received copies at that time. Ms. Young asked
if this was the $7530 in overages. Ms. Bowers acknowledged it was in addition to the $175,000
they already covered in grant funding. Columbia Road, Lance Road, and Carlton Road have
already been done and East Lake is currently under construction. Each one of the projects is
between $175,000 and $210,000. Ms. Young said it looks like it has already been paid. Mr.
Kehoe stated they wanted reimbursement from us. Ms. Young asked why they had waited a year
to ask for reimbursement. Ms. Bowers stated that they had attempted to go back and amend the
grant process and find a way to cover it without the Township being involved and they were not
successful. Ms. Young expressed confusion. In looking at the invoice she sees that we are only
paying for the removal of the cross arms and the installation of the alley arms and two poles. Ms.
Bowers explained that was electrical work not included in the grant that was done in the Townships
right-of-way. Ms. Young says it does not mention electrical work. Ms. Bowers asked who the bill
was made out from. Ms. Young replied it was made to the Board of Commissioners. Ms. Bowers
asked who they paid. The cover letter shows Ohio Edison. Mr. Kehoe read the cover letter. Ms.
Bowers stated that when the letter was first received, she mentioned it in a meeting, but did not
want to act on it until the background work was received. At that time she received the other
documents, and also the list on the front indicating the other projects that had been done. Ms.
Young said she assumed that Ms. Bowers had already spoken with Shirley and asked if the funds
were there. Ms. Bowers said that we would have to do a supplemental appropriation in the
unencumbered balance of the Service Department fund. Ms. Young asked again if it could not
wait until Monday. Ms. Bowers replied that the Commissioners were calling and she had told them
she would try and get it taken care of tonight in the meeting. Ms. Young seconded for the
supplemental appropriation of the funds as Shirley sees fit. Ms. Bowers stated the motion is to
approve making the payment for the Carlton Road crossing and making supplemental
appropriation from an appropriate balance. All voting in favor and the motion passed.
Public Participation:
Rebecca Steele – The comment that Ms. Young made when she accepted the resolution as being
the will of the people was not understood. To the gentlemen in the back, “I don’t appreciate being
basically called stupid.” He had made a comment of how could she not understand. She is sorry
to see that there is so much conflict in the meetings.
John Crawford – asked if he could respond. He stated that Ms. Young was honoring the will of the
people. He said to her, you don’t understand? He apologized to Ms. Steele.
Jack Blank – there is a light on Friendsville and 42 that for two years has been burning 24 hours a
day. Ms. Bowers said it was reported about a year and a half ago. Ohio Edison indicated they
were going to fix the sensor and we weren’t being charged. We are charged a flat rate regardless
of how much usage. It is an automatic sensor issue.
Ms. Bowers moved to adjourn.
Meeting adjourned: 4:30 PM