Regular Richfield Township Trustees Meeting, Monday, June 24, 2002
Richfield Township Public Hearing on proposed amendments to Richfield
Township Zoning Resolutions was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on June 24, 2002.
Roll Call: Trustees: Present – Shano Cica-Mraz, Laurie Gilmore, Robert Hooper
Clerk/Treasurer: Mark Uhrich
Others present: Linda Bowmer-Office Administrator and Laurie Pinney – Zoning
Inspector.
Ms. Pinney outlined the proposed amendments to the Richfield Township Zoning
Resolutions. After her presentation the meeting was open for public feedback.
Mr. Ralph Schneider, 5276 Black Road, Is a barn considered an accessory
building?
Ms. Pinney – No, if used for agriculture.
Ms. Stacy Sadar, 5044 W. Streetsboro, Many houses in Richfield Township have
been set way back. Say somebody has a ten acre lot and they set their house way
back so most of the ten acres are in front of the house, they couldn’t put an
accessory building in their front yard?
Ms. Mraz – That particular amendment to Zoning Resolution has been tabled by the
Zoning Commission and was not presented to the Trustees for consideration
tonight. I encourage you to attend the Zoning Commission’s meetings to express
your input on this matter.
Ms. Mraz made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Ms. Gilmore,
motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Mraz made a motion to approve the proposed amendments to Richfield
Township Zoning Resolutions, seconded by Ms. Gilmore, motion carried
unanimously.
Ms. Cica-Mraz made a motion to approve the June 10 and June 28, 2002 meeting
minutes, seconded by Ms. Gilmore, motion carried unanimously.
Ms Cica-Mraz made a motion to approve warrant report 6988 to 7022, seconded
by Mr. Hooper; motion carried unanimously.
Ms Cica-Mraz made a motion to reschedule the next regular scheduled Richfield
Township Trustee meeting from July 8 to July 11 at 6:00 p.m., seconded by Mr.
Hooper; motion carried unanimously.
Ms Cica-Mraz made a motion to cancel the regular scheduled Richfield Township
Trustee meeting scheduled for July 22, seconded by Mr. Hooper; motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Uhrich presented the Clerk’s report – The new Alternative Tax Budget law
that is now in effect does not require a Public Hearing or a Resolution prior to
submitting the budget to Summit County. The new forms are a bit more
streamed-lined and should save time. I’ll try and have the 2002 – 2003 budget
prepared for Trustee discussion at the next Trustee Meeting.
Ms. Mraz inquired in the state of the Clerk’s computer system. Mr. Uhrich will
review hardware requirements and possible new accounting software for use by the
Clerk.
Ms. Bowmer presented the Administration report – The recent Tire Collection day
was a huge success. The Chipping program has started in the Township.
Ms. Gilmore presented the Road report – The Black and Columbia Road resurfacing
project is scheduled to start with in a week. Resurfacing of Stubbins, Hecker
and Forest Run sub-division roads will immediately follow.
The Road and Bridge Levy is up for reconsideration this year. Over the last
couple of years, Richfield Township has upgraded many of the services it
provides to the community; use of salt instead of salt and cinder mix, use of
motor paving instead of chip and seal, brush chipping, three full-time employees
to name a few. The .83 mill levy set to expire has a current effective mill rate
of .63 and produces approximately $65,000 a year for the township. Other revenue
sources that Road department can draw from include Gasoline Tax, Motor Vehicle
and Motor Vehicle Permissive tax, which generate another $90,000. The 2001 Road
department expenses approximated $300,000. The $300,000 expenses less the
$155,000 in Road related source revenue leaves a shortfall of approximately
$145,000, which was paid out of the General Fund. The 2002 projections are for
$280,000 in expenses and $170,000 in Road related revenue with $110,000 coming
from the General Fund.
Other Townships Road Levies are:
Boston - .05 Northfield – 4.5
Bath – 3.5 Copley – 3.3
Coventry – 2.3 Franklin – 1.7
The Trustees are considering a 1.5 mill Road and Bridge Levy. This would
generate approximately $150,000 annually.
The Richfield Township office renovation project will be discussed at the next
meeting. Roger Swan of the Village, architect Dale Swearingen and Peggy Malone
Village Council President will be in attendance to discuss this project.
Ms. Gilmore expressed her thanks to Village for the use of their equipment to
grade out the ball diamond.
The CBDG applications for next year will be prepared for discussion at the next
Trustee meeting.
The trash-hauling contract is set to expire. The Township will put a three-year
contract out for bid with the Village.
Ms. Mraz reviewed the Special Meeting of June 18 and resolution 7-2002. Due to
scope of this project, one of largest scheduled projects this year in the State,
a Special Meeting was held to ensure Richfield Township had an opportunity to
submit a timely proposal in response to Sysco Foods Board of Directors dead
lines.
Mr. Hooper expressed his thanks to the Village for their assistance in removing
a tree from Harter Road.
Citizens Forum:
Ms. Stacy Sadar, 5044 W. Streetsboro, How does Richfield Township benefit from
Sysco Foods locating to Richfield Township with the tax incentives given to
Sysco?
Ms. Mraz – Annexation with Tax-Sharing: Richfield Township has to approve the
compensation for the loss of the property. We prefer the use of a JED agreement
with the Village, since the Township has no income tax authority we could share
in the collection of income tax with the Village. Eventually somebody would
develop this property, so the opportunity to partner with a Fortune 100 company
is an excellent opportunity. We will see increase in the property taxes we
receive. The School District could have a substantial financial benefit. The 50
percent real property tax abatement incentives are for 15 years and even with
those abatements the Township stands to receive significantly more revenue than
the current revenue stream.
Ms. Stacy Sadar, 5044 W. Streetsboro, is there anything we can do about the Real
Estate signs that are popping up all over Richfield? They look terrible. Aren’t
the signs supposed to be out of the right-way?
Ms. Gilmore – The Village is currently reviewing its sign ordinance and yes the
signs should not be placed in the road right of way.
_______________________ _________________________
Chairwoman Clerk