|
WEIRTON CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL MEETING - REGULAR SESSION March 08, 2004 7:00 P. M. A regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Weirton, Hancock and Brooke Counties, was held on March 08, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the Rose Room at the Millsop Community Center. Mayor Miller called the meeting to order. Councilmembers in Attendance: Henry DeMasis Councilmember Ward 4 Harold Miller Councilmember Ward 2 Dale Moore Councilmember Ward 3 Steve Dorich Councilmember Ward 1 Dave Dalrymple Councilmember Ward 6 Frank Veltri Councilmember Ward 7 George Kondik Councilmember Ward 5 City Officials in Attendance: John Brown Public Works Superintendent Brae Bryant Public Works Director Kessler Cole Fire Chief Gary DuFour City Manager Thomas J. Maher, Jr. City Clerk A. D. Mastrantoni Utilities Director Valerie Means Finance Director Robert Riccelli Economic Development Director Rod Rosnick Building Inspector Lance Scott Police Chief Terry Weigel Parks and Recreation Director John Yeager City Attorney Mayor Miller led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Councilmember Kondik and second by Councilmember DeMasis to approve the minutes of the: February 09, 2004 - Regular Council Meeting The motion carried, 7/0. MAYOR'S AWARDS AND PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Miller stated that there were two awards to present, one award for former Weirton City Councilman, Mr. Bernard Kelley and the other for the Girl Scouts, represented by Ms. Sherry Dowdell. The Mayor asked Mr. Kelley to approach the podium to accept an award of recognition. Mayor Miller stated, "Bernard, my boy, we go back a long ways. I'll tell you what. I think the City owes you a debt of gratitude for a man who has dedicated a lot of his lifestyle and ambitions toward the City. We have a recognition award to you, Bernard Kelley for serving the City of Weirton as Councilman from 1951 to 1963 under Mayor Thomas Millsop. We would like to take this opportunity to recognize you, Mr. Kelley, for being the oldest living Councilperson to serve the City of Weirton with a debt of gratitude that this Council and this Mayor thanks you for your past indulgence and past support of this City. You're a man to be idolized, and we thank you." (Applause) Mayor Miller thanked Councilman Kondik for his involvement in generating the award for Mr. Kelley. Recognition Award Awarded to: BERNARD KELLY For serving the City of Weirton as Councilman from 1951 to 1963 under Mayor Thomas Millsop. We would like to take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Kelly for being the oldest living councilperson who served the City of Weirton. Mayor William Miller The Mayor asked Ms Dowdell to approach the podium to accept a notice of proclamation. WHEREAS, Girl Scouts throughout the nation have rendered continuous service to their communities and their country since the founding of their organization on March 12, 1912, by Juliette Gordon Low, in Savannah, Georgia; and WHEREAS, we are aware of tremendous growth of the Girl Scout movement, which has become the largest organization for girls in the free world; and WHEREAS, Girl Scouts of the United States of America, through its continue program for girls seven through seventeen years of age, provides its members with a bridge to the future by developing good citizenship, teaching important skills, encouraging career exploration and increasing world understanding; and WHEREAS, all Girl Scouts make a solemn promise to do their duty to God and Country, to help other people at all times, and to obey the Girl Scout Laws. NOW, THEREFORE, I, William M. Miller, Mayor of the City of Weirton do proclaim March 7-13 as Girl Scout Week in the City of Weirton and ask all citizens to give this organization their continued support, interest, and cooperation, in its purpose of inspiring girls with the highest ideals of character, conduct, patriotism, and service. (Applause) COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Miller announced that the Department of Public Works would be conducting a Spring Clean Up Week from April 26th through April 30th. Mayor Miller added that the Department of Public Works announced that on March 9th, weather permitting, Green Acres Contracting will be working on the Marland Heights guardrail replacement project. Mayor Miller recognized Councilmember Kondik for his involvement in the project. (Applause) The Mayor asked that the citizens have patience and that they understand that there will be some delays as there will only be one lane open. Mayor Miller announced that the 2004 Weirton Independence Day Celebration will be observed on July 3rd and will include both a parade and fireworks. Councilmember Kondik commented, "I'd like to ask the City Manager to start to look into the levies for the library and for the parks and recreation for this upcoming election November to see what our alternatives are to see if we can get it on the ballot to see if there's some interest with Council as to umm, for umm, to take a look at those umm, avenues of umm, raising revenue. So, for the next Council meeting, if you could have something in our packets, I'd appreciate it." Councilmember Moore commented, "In response to Councilman Kondik, I believe that we did have a meeting with the Parks and Recreation Board about possibly placing a levy to generate funds for that. I recall that meeting. What was that Henry, two or three months ago?" Councilmember Miller responded, "It was in December." Councilmember DeMasis responded, "Yes." Councilmember Kondik replied, "What have we done with it." Councilmember Moore replied, "Well, what have they done with it? They're an autonomous board. Am I correct?" Mayor Miller replied, "That is correct." Councilmember Kondik replied, "I'm asking the City Manager what we, as City Council, if there's anything that we can't do to place a levy on the November ballot to raise money for the Parks and Recreation and for the Library." City Manager DuFour replied, "In accordance with State law, we can't place excess levies on the ballot for the General Election in November. The Library Renewal Levy is scheduled to go on the ballot this November. We've talked, as Councilman Moore has mentioned, to the Recreation Board about the potential of doing an Excess Levy to fund capital improvements to community parks. They're still looking at what they wish to do. They were going to come back to us with some proposals. I'm providing to them, at their request, tomorrow, information about how they proceed to file to place an excess levy on the ballot. That was a question that we had from the Recreation Board. The issue, then, for Library, is it a straight renewal of the existing levy or a request of the Commissioners to increase the levy for library services since the levy proceeds are shared by two other libraries, Murry and Swainey in Chester and New Cumberland, as well as Mary H. Weir. For Recreation, an excess levy would be new. The Board is investigating it, and my understanding is that the recreation director, Mr. Weigel, will be taking that up with the Board. I've offered to meet with them, or be a resource to assist them in any way that I can. So that is exactly where we are at to this moment." Councilmember Kondik replied, "I think my question, or me questioning this, is because of the fact that we are funding them out of the General Fund. That's probably why I'm asking that for us as Council, for us as the City, to look into this." Councilmember Moore added, "Well, we can always not fund them." Councilmember Kondik replied, "No, No, No." Councilmember Moore continued, "They're an autonomous board." Councilmember Kondik continued, "That's not my intent. My intent is to find out what us, we, as the City, with the levies, OK. If you're saying what you were saying, we'll be fine, and I'll accept that for now. OK. Thank you." Councilmember Dalrymple added, "We were in many discussions with these meetings for the last 7 or 8 weeks, and we covered that in a meeting. You weren't there. That's why you don't know what's going on." Councilmember Kondik replied, "That's why I'm asking. That's why I'm asking." Mayor Miller commented, "Councilman Miller would like to say some things." Councilmember Miller commented, "I think the biggest issue here, and the reason it was brought up for those who don't understand. There's two autonomous boards, the library and the park board that aren't self-sufficient, and they drain about 900,000 dollars from the City budget. That's the ultimate reason why we are looking at the service fee. Let's get it all to the point real quick. Now, we can elect not to send $450,000 to the park board and $330 some thousand to the library, and they can choose to put it on the levy, and the citizens can vote for it. If the citizens vote it down, then you won't have the Community Center and the Library. The City continues to fund those two organizations to keep them viable in our community, because we need them in our community. That's exactly why we continue to do that. That's why we need the service fee, to generate capital to do the improvements that we're going to need in the community, for street paving and other projects. So, yes, we can take it, and we can refuse to send the money to the library and park board, and they can put it on the levy. And, keep your fingers crossed that the citizens approve it, or you're not going to have the two facilities. Plain and simple." (Applause) Mayor Miller thanked Councilmember Miller for his comments. CITIZEN COMMENTS Karen Orler, 3901 Claremont Place - City of Weirton Employee: Ms. Orler commented, "My name is Karen Orler. I am a lifelong resident of Weirton, and I have worked for the City of Weirton for over 30 years. I have a petition, which has been signed by City workers that I wish to read. I would like to preface this with a few remarks. I believe that all City workers were very disappointed by the actions taken at the last budget workshop by Council when they agreed to start taking deductions out of employee's pay for health insurance starting in July. This move was not made to balance the budget. The budget had already been balanced. These funds will be put into capital projects. While I realize the importance to the City of various capital projects, I feel this could be funded in a more effective way such as new revenue sources. The City workers have not received any raises in over three years. We have not had any cost of living increases. We are subject to the same utility costs, grocery costs, mortgage and car payments as everyone else. We also pay and will pay any City fees. While City workers have been expecting this change in health insurance, we felt we would not be looking at this until the end of 2004 when the City can look for alternate plans such as having a basic policy and also richer policies for which the employees would pay the difference. I respectfully request that the Council members rethink this action and delay any changes in insurance until the end of the year. I will now read the petition. The employees of the City of Weirton strongly disagree with Council's decision to penalize them with additional deductions from their paychecks to cover what is supposed to be a contribution to our health insurance but, in reality, is going toward contingency. Employees have not received even a basic cost of living raise in three years, but are expected to take further deductions from already dwindling salaries to pay a city user fee, health insurance premiums, and the police and fire service fee. City staffing is being reduced, whether it is by lay offs or by attrition. Employees will be expected to work harder because of staffing changes in their departments. Employees are doing more than their share by taking these deductions. What about the rest of the City? ALL residents and, particularly, businesses MUST be responsible in supporting the needs of their city. Residents expect all services, but they have an unrealistic idea of how these services are paid for and provided. Everyone has to pay their fair share for services, be it residents or businesses. No one should be exempt! We respectfully request that Council act for the future of their City and look for revenue options instead of balancing shortfalls on the backs of the City employees. I have the original and enough copies for all Council and the Mayor and the City Manager. I'll give them to Mr. Maher." (Applause) Mayor Miller commented, "I'd like to thank Karen. As Mayor of the City of Weirton I just want to say a few things. I believe that we have a strong City workforce. I believe that they are very dedicated, and I sympathize with what is going on at this point in time. Action will be forthcoming. I'm not sure what it is. To me, I salute you as City employees. I've seen in the short tenure that I've been in office, and you do well. You are working in a capacity that is very efficient and very meaningful for the City of Weirton. You are truly dedicated, and I applaud your efforts. I am very proud of you. Thank you." (Applause) Councilmember Moore commented, "I'd like to respond." Mayor Miller responded, "Sure." Councilmember Dorich commented, "This is their time!" Councilmember Moore asked, "Can I answer their comments?" Councilmember Dorich replied, "Afterwards. This is their time." Councilmember Moore responded, 'Fine. I'll wait till the end. I just felt it might be appropriate since the other comments might deal with this." Mayor Miller commented, "Go ahead Councilman Moore. I know you have a few things to say." Councilmember Moore commented, "Well, I can make it short and sweet. I support everything that this petition says!" (Applause) Councilmember Dalrymple commented, "So do I, by the way." Mayor Miller commented, "Councilman Dalrymple also supports this." (Applause) Sharon Byers-Pepper & Dan Jones - Historic Landmarks Commission: Ms. Pepper commented, "Mr. Jones and I are going to speak together. Mr. Jones is the Chairman of the Weirton Historic Landmarks Commission, and I, Sharon Byers-Pepper, the Secretary to the Commission. I'd like to present you with a resolution that we passed some ten years ago concerning the property of Cove School. We had only been a Commission for a few short months when we passed this resolution. We are still interested in the future of Cove School and other buildings that are considered historic assets to our Commission and to the citizens of Weirton. We'd like to talk to you about Cove School and if you don't mind I'll read this. WEIRTON HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION RESOLUTION: COVE SCHOOL WHEREAS: The WEIRTON HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION was established under Chapter 8, Article 26 A of the West Virginia Code by the City of Weirton and WHEREAS: the purpose of the said Commission is to preserve and protect historic buildings, structures and sites and to aid the development of education and the economy in this community and WHEREAS: the City of Weirton finds that it is in the best interest of the education, economy and general welfare of the people of this city to identify, study, preserve and protect historic buildings, structures and sites in this city and WHEREAS: the WEIRTON HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION is charged with the responsibility of designating historic landmarks of local, regional, state or national significance and WHEREAS: the WEIRTON HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION has by vote of its members identified the Cove School property as representing historical, cultural, economic and social history of Holiday's Cove / Weirton; therefore, be it RESOLVED: that the WEIRTON HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION pursue it's interest in the Cove School property as a local historical landmark and be it further RESOLVED: that Mr. Robert Wirgau represent and pursue the feasibility of the WEIRTON HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION obtaining the title to the Cove School property and be it further RESOLVED: that Mr. Wirgau seek to coordinate the future use of the Cove School property with the City of Weirton's Economic Development Coordinator, Mr. Chuck Svokas, and be it further RESOLVED: that the Cove School property be used to promote the history, education, economic development, social and cultural interests unique to the City of Weirton" Note: The following portion of the Weirton Historic Landmarks Commission resolution was not presented in the meeting. However, it does appear in the documentation that was submitted to Council. [and, be it further RESOLVED: that the WEIRTON HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION maintain control and set standards over proposed renovation and/or remodeling of the structure so that all changes to the structure conform to accepted standards of historic preservation. Dated this 23rd day of September, 1993 (Signed Shari Pepper) Shari Pepper WHLC Chairman] Ms. Byers-Pepper continued, "There was others, but we find that we can't actually do that last resolve. I'd like to take one moment to tell you why we came to this conclusion ten years ago. The school building was built. There was a school building there in 1790, and the Panhandle Book, the History of the Panhandle, has in it names of the people who served as teachers in that building. During the early times, education was very important. We have a valley. It's called the Presbyterian Valley because it was settled primarily by Scotch-Irish Presbyterians, and their building a school building or church were equally important. The school was used by the Methodists, the early group that was here, and the Presbyterians as a place for education and community service. In 1850 this was identified as School Knoll on old maps in the area. It was also the first high school. It is an important building to the community because of its long-standing site of being a school building. I think the school is one of the things that Weirton expresses well in their history. We've always held education highly. We are also concerned with other buildings that could possibly be affected in the changes that are happening in our community. We are concerned about the MAB building, the Quality Control building up in Weirton, because it represents a very good art deco, 1950s style. We are also concerned with the old city building. It's also the property where a potential site of the Underground Railroad is located. We hope that with seeing this again you will consider the uses of Cove School and its future. We can't move forward unless we preserve our roots. I think the people that come after us deserve very good stewards of their historic assets. We thank you very much for your time." (Applause) Diana Mikula, 167 North 15th Street - Hancock County Schools: Ms. Mikula commented, "OK. I'm here to address the issue of two dollar a week fee. I've been a resident of Weirton for quite a few years since I've been married. A lot of things that I'm not really sure of, that we're not clear on, I just thought I'd bring these questions to the Council tonight to see. First, a lot of people do not realize this two-dollar fee is going to be put into effect. Of course, as we look around, the City does know, and we have all the City people here, but there are a lot of people that are not aware of it. If they do not get the Weirton Daily Times or get a local newspaper, they do not know this fee. There are people that believe that only the City workers are going to be paying a fee. They don't realize this fee is for everybody. I think that's a big concern for a lot of people. I know where I work I've mentioned this to quite a few people. They are not aware of it. They are like, 'what fee, what are we going to be paying.' They do not realize they have to pay for this fee. I'm not even sure. I know you're going to take it out of our paychecks. But, how legal is it? You know? Are we going to have to sign a (unintelligible), or are you just going to take it out of our paychecks. You have people that live in Weirton that have, are self-employed in their homes or do things out of their homes. Are they going to be paid, or are you just going to the people that work for a particular business or for the Board of Education, or whatever it may be. That is a concern of ours. We'd also like to know as state workers, we do work for the State of West Virginia. Do we have to pay? Cause in Charleston, they do not have to pay. These are a lot of issues that we're very concerned about, and we'd like to address the Council. I also figured this out, that my husband and I both work, which we'll be paying, we're both City workers, 208 dollars a year. And then there's people that, umm, don't even live in Weirton. I mean they live in Weirton, but they work in Pennsylvania, Ohio, a few miles up the road, and they're not going to be paying anything for the same thing we're supposed to get from the City. Now, is it fair, people that are living out of state to pay for what we have? Now, I live, like when, I live on 15th Street, and I have one road that is nothing but potholes, and we pay our 50 dollars like everybody else. You know, and it's just not fair, and then you have these people that aren't even working in Weirton that have all this money. They're not even going to be paying anything. Then you have people that have, and I know personally people that have two children that are working just to get ends to meet. They're going to be paying 416 dollars a year. That's a lot of money if your figuring out they've got to buy groceries, and they have a lot of medical bills and things that they have to pay. I'm not against the City workers. I would not want to take anything away from the City workers. That's not why I'm saying this. I'm just saying for concern that I feel other people should have to pay from the City also, not just the few people that are working in the City, but the majority out of the City. I just feel that we need to do this. I have friends that work here in Weirton that live in Ohio that already pay a wage tax. They're coming here. They're going to have to pay our fees. We want to bring people into Weirton. I don't know how we're going to do it. They're not going to want to pay. People are not going to want to pay. This year you're going to have 2 dollars. Next year you're going to say it's 4 dollars. The following year you're going to add more. Our fees are going to keep going up. People aren't going to want to come to this area. And, I read the paper. I've been following this, and I see that the budget seems to be balanced at this point. And, I also read in an article about the Commission going to put money into the video lotteries. And, if that's the case and the budget is balanced, why don't you wait to see what ISG does, cause that's where you get a lot of your money, and go from there next year. But, right now, this fee's going to be hurting a lot of people in this area, and I don't think it's a lot of them that make the money. It's going to hurt the people that do not make the money. And, so, that is my biggest concern. I just thought I had to voice my opinion, and I felt that this is something that I needed to do, and that's it. And, we also had this suggestion. Since the video machines are making so much money, we could just put a few in the City building or somewhere and maybe get the revenue from that." (Laughter) Mayor Miller commented, "We've talked about that." (Applause) Mayor Miller added, "We'll have some of the Council, but I would prefer that perhaps Valerie and our City Attorney could give you some answers. But, first of all, I want to cover a few things that you brought up. In looking at the situation, we feel that there will be at least six thousand people affected by this two-dollar municipal service fee. Out of that, 2000 will be employed at Weirton Steel. This is a number that we're getting from ISG. It's not a sound number, but it will be 2000 or above. We have 1100 people working at Weirton Medical Center. We have another 1100 people down at Birch Drive. I feel certain that all of these people can afford a two-dollar user fee. All right? We move on to…" Ms. Mikula commented, "I can't believe that." Mayor Miller replied, "Well, I can." Ms. Mikula added, "I'm sorry. How about medical bills that people have?" Mayor Miller continued, "Let me finish, and then I'll turn it over to our Finance Director, and she can answer some of the other questions. We have perhaps a total of 6000 people and the only way that we can keep the City moving forward, continue with the services, is try to enact the two-dollar municipal fee. However, it hasn't passed the second reading. That's up to Council for them to determine weather they want to pass it or not. But, it is quite necessary to maintain what we have. The City is facing over a 2 million dollar shortfall. We will be laying off people, and if we don't get it, we will have no money for capital improvement. We'll end up laying off probably more people, and that's going to be less City services that you're going to look at. You talk about potholes now. Wait until you see them then." (Applause) Mayor Miller continued, "Val, if you could, just answer some of her questions." Finance Director Valerie Means commented, "Well, as far as any questions that deal with legality, I'll have to defer to our City Attorney, Mr. Yeager, on that. One of the biggest concerns seems to be, 'If I work more than one job, Ill have to pay more than one time.' The ordinance itself says that it will be maximum two-dollars per week. That means two-dollars per week. It doesn't mean four-dollars per week if you have two jobs, or six-dollars per week if you have three jobs. It's two-dollars per week. If someone works more than one job, they will have the right to decide which employer they would like to remove the fee from their wages. All they will need to do is to show one employer the proof that the fee is coming out of the wage from the other employer. So, that needs to be clarified, once and for all. You will only pay two-dollars per week, and it's only out of one job. Some of the other questions about, you know. Is it fair? Is it not fair? The City has to do the best that they can to come up with an ordinance or a law or a way to earn revenue that is as fair as possible. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has recognized that no system of assessing the cost to all users can possibly be absolutely perfect. The municipality is required to install a reasonable system of distributing the cost to all the users. This Council has found, through their first reading of it, that this is the most reasonable system that they can actually try to charge users for using some of the municipal services. Of course, by all means, they're recognizing that it's not perfect, and no system is going to be perfect in such a fee such as this. In some of the other questions, I recognize that you are talking about the discrepancies between wage earners. You're right. There is not going to be a proration of this fee. It's not based upon how much you make per hour. We are not allowed to do that. The fee was based on the fee that was passed in Huntington. We pretty much based our fee and our regulations on that ordinance that did make it through their Circuit Court in the City of Huntington. Our fee is based on that. I don't know what other questions in particular you may have." Mayor Miller added, "The legality of it. It's passed through the lower courts. I think Charleston was going to take it to the Supreme Court." Councilmember Dorich added, "They have." Mayor Miller continued, "OK. And, there is not decision out of there. You can attest that the Federal Government is paying this two-dollar fee. As far as the State workers, I'm not sure of that, but we'll find out once it goes through the upper courts. John, do you have anything more to add?" Mr. Yeager commented, "You're exactly right on the legal part of it, Mr. Mayor. But, I noticed there were two assertions that I thought were incorrect. First of all, if someone was living here and working in another town and paying a tax there, well, they're not going to pay this tax. They may pay it where they're at, but they're not going to pay it here. Second, I saw a notation in the newspaper that it was going to be hard on the senior citizens. If, by that, you mean retired people, it's not, because they're not working. They're unemployed, so they're not going to be paying the tax. I guess if you retired or if you just have never retired yet and are still working a job, then, yes, it's going to cost two dollars a week. But, it's meant to get at people who can afford to pay it which are people who are working. I don't know what more to say about it. Not everybody's going to like it. You know. I've come to the conclusion that all modern politics have to do with the people that are an attempt to tax the political base of the other side. That's the only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. They both spend. But you know. When the Republicans are in, they try to lay the taxes off on the working people, and when the Democrats are in, they try to lay the taxes off on the wealthy. That's the only difference. We're just trying to get people that don't live here to contribute to fixing the roads and doing the other things that need to be done." Mayor Miller continued, "Thank you John. At least 50 to 60 percent of the people that fall under this municipal user fee will be those that are from out of town that work in the City of Weirton. So this is some of the data that we have, and if you want to speak you can go up to the podium. Just wait your turn. We're going to keep order here. I'm done, and we'll go on with the next one." Ms. Judith Friend, RD#1 Box 155-A-14 - Manuel's Dry Cleaners Employee: Ms. Friend commented, "Dear Mayor Miller and Councilmembers. My main reason for asking to speak to you this evening is my vigorous objection to the two-dollar per week service fee you want to implement against the employees of the City's businesses. There are several things not clearly stated in the ordinance such as, if a person holds two jobs will be assessed the fee twice in which that has already been addressed. But, I had that in my letter, so I just continued to read it. Will the U. S. Army Reserves based in Weirton be required to pay this fee because of their monthly military obligations? That hasn't been addressed. Why can't a cap be installed on the fee for, let's say, five years so there won't be any increases guaranteed for at least five years. Recently, in a letter to the editor of the Weirton Daily Times, the point was raised as to how much this fee, if instituted, would cost the city. In another article it was stated that the finance department would handle the bookkeeping of this fee. I find it difficult to believe that another employee would not be hired to accomplish the added work for the finance department. No one seems to know exactly how much money this fee would generate. The round figure of $600,000 has been stated, and I have never heard these figures before Mayor Miller presented them tonight. I don't know how this figure was arrived at since the number of employees at the city's businesses has not been revealed or even calculated, that I am aware of, until this evening. I do not live in the city limits of Weirton, although my address is RD#1, Weirton. I am employed in a city business but see no real advantage for my $104.00 a year fee, since a state road takes care of my road, New Cumberland Sanitation collects my garbage, and Oakland Public Service District provides my water. I think this would be, clearly, taxation without representation, since I do not live in the City and cannot vote for any one of you Councilmen or the Mayor. I challenge you to seriously consider not voting this unfair fee into being. You are always wanting to attract new businesses to enhance the City's economic future. I think this fee would truly be a deterrent to any new business. Even some smaller businesses might be forced to close, which would certainly not enhance Weirton's economic image. Since this money is mainly earmarked for capital improvements, I suggest that put your capital improvements on hold until the economic future of the city improves at which time you may be able to afford them. If I can't run my household on my income, I have to make drastic cuts in my spending and postpone plans for improvements until such time as my budget can afford these things. Making the already financially strapped employees of your city's businesses endure this new financial burden is both unnecessary and inconvenient. I would like to commend Councilman George Kondik and George DeMasis for voting against this fee. If Councilman Steve Dorich sees fit to vote against this fee tonight, I would also commend him. But, I understand that he has other agendas that do not enhance the economic outlook of the city. I hope that I have encouraged at least one or two of you to vote against this unfair tax. Thank you for your time and your attention." (Applause) Ms. Denese White, 2440 Alexander Manor, Steubenville, OH - Hancock County Schools: Ms. White commented, "My name is Denese White. I'm from Steubenville, OH, the home of the 2% income tax. Right, Mr. DuFour?" Mr. DuFour replied, "That's right. I hope you pay here too." (Laughter) Ms. White continued, "That was my question today. I do pay a 2% city income tax off the top of my income to Steubenville, and it is for services, etc. Because of that, do the people that pay that 2% income tax? Will they have reciprocity in any way? For example, I would pay your $104.00 fee. Can that be subtracted, because we do have reciprocity from the Steubenville City income tax?" Councilmember Moore replied, "No, because a reciprocity only applies to a city with wage taxes which the State of West Virginia does not allow. So, therefore, they would not send us a check from Steubenville, like they send to Toronto, like they send to Mingo Junction, like they send to Bellaire, for those people that work in Ohio in different communities. No, they'll just keep taking your 2% and spending it on their roads and their public improvements!" (Applause) Councilmember Moore continued, "Where is my representation and where is yours on that 2% that they take?" Ms. White added, "I'm not disagreeing with you." Councilmember Moore continued, "OK. I just want to make some points clear here. The at-large councilman in Steubenville does not include across the river! Those who want to argue that they're not represented in this have the same argument that I have, but I don't have a choice, and since it happened to be a wage tax, that makes it all the better. I don't understand that." Ms. White added, "This is citizen's comments, not a debate." Councilmember Moore replied, "I'm not debating. I'm thanking you." Ms. White added, "It's close." Mayor Miller commented, "He's not disagreeing with you." Councilmember Moore added, "I'm thanking you." Ms. White continued, "But, anyhow, you do see the problem. It's just in the language. I mean. Actually, the wage tax I pay is a service fee. Only, we call it an income tax. You have to call it something else, because you live in West Virginia, but the bottom line is I have to pay it everywhere I go. That's the tough part. I'm not against it. I have a nephew who works for the city. He works hard, and he is underpaid in my opinion." (Applause) Ms. White continued, "And I was happy to see Mayor Miller commend the City workers. I know what he does everyday, for not a lot. But, I still have my problem too, and there's many of us that do work here. We live in the City of Steubenville, and we want to know about that reciprocity, and who do we see about it? Can we see somebody about that? Thank you." (Applause) Mr. DuFour commented, "If I could Ms. White?" Ms. White replied, "Yes." Mr. DuFour continued, "The problem that we have is that West Virginia by its constitution does not permit municipalities to have so called income taxes. So, the only way that we have to raise dollars is by fees in those areas we're allowed to tax. So, there is in effect no reciprocity, because I do believe that your $2.00 fee cannot be deducted say in Steubenville when you go to pay income tax for that community. It is regrettable. It is the problem that we will continue to have in West Virginia, and they have it in Pennsylvania. So long as we are real estate tax driven as a state, we will always have to work fees. That is something I am personally opposed to. I would rather not have to do fees. I think they are a mistake. I think they are the wrong basis. Most of West Virginia will not add real estate value and loses it over time. However, to your central point. We cannot have anything that looks to be an income tax. Therefore, we cannot differentiate age groups, where you work, and where your income levels are. Else wise, that would have the appearance of being an income tax. All we can do is simply ask for a flat fee. But, I do know exactly what you're talking about. I empathize with that very situation you are talking about." Mayor Miller thanked Mr. DuFour for his comments. John Koval, 205 Country Club Boulevard: Mr. Koval commented, "My name is John Koval. I live at 205 Country Club Boulevard here in Weirton. Mr. Mayor and gentleman of Council, I came here tonight to speak in favor of the $2.00 per week tax. The reason I did is I was looking over what the average citizen pays in this community to keep it going. You know when they took away Weirton Steel from us, and in essence they did, it leaves only we citizens. All of our income basically is fee based, as all of you are aware. That is to say we pay a fire and service fee. We pay water to get water brought to our house. We pay sewage to take it away. We pay a fee to get our garbage hauled away. The taxes we pay are actually minuscule. We basically pay a 2% utility tax. Mine runs, I figured out, about $10.00 per month. And, of course, we get back about 15% of the property taxes we pay. I checked with the county to see what the average was, and I was surprised to find out that the average property tax in Weirton is $470.00 per year. 15% of that is $70.50. Obviously, some are going to pay more, and there are going to be some who pay less. One of the things that I compare it to, and I talked about this many years ago. We're paying $70.50 plus $10.00, etc., $80.50. The street light in front of my home costs $84.00 per year. That does not leave a lot of money for new projects such as street paving, snow removal and other like services. I know you guys have worked long and hard on this, and I commend you. There are people in this community who are for this $2.00 tax. There are many people here obviously who are not. I really don't think I'm going to be voted Mr. Popularity tonight. Thank you." (Applause) Mayor Miller thanked Mr. Koval for his comments. Gary Heaston, 3942 Hanlin Way: Mr. Heaston commented, "Mayor. Gentleman. Valerie. My name is Gary Heaston. I live up on Marland Heights. Boy, I tell you. That's a really tough one to follow, that gentleman that just talked. OK. So, I'm not even going to try to. That was very good. Anyway, I'm here to express my support for this, and also to, and in my concerns after listening to all the talk tonight and questions and it was very, very enlightening. But, I think too is a lot of people are failing to recognize is are we going to be a penny wiser and lose a dollar down the road in a couple of years, because really, economics and the city go together. One of the reasons I came to this city. I've been in this city now for twelve years, and it's a great place to live, and the services have been very well for us. That's an attraction. OK. And, also too is business that come in. The services that bring businesses in. You're going to have to have that for new businesses to come. You can't shrink that. You're going to shrink this, and a couple of years down the road, my property's going to shrink. My values are going to shrink. I'm going to lose thousands of dollars. And, this is the part too is where I think where we forget. I think too is we're not talking just in importance of the city but we talking importance of our future moving on. I'd like to be here a little longer, and I'd like to see my property values continue to rise to some extent, and I'd like to make my investments here. And, if the city shrinks and we lose those opportunities and the ways for us to promote our businesses, then I'm going to lose. OK. So, anyway gentlemen, I really appreciate your time, and think you do an excellent job, and thank you." (Applause) Mayor Miller thanked Mr. Heaston for his comments. J. J. Bernabei, 4009 Palisades Drive: Mr. Bernabei commented, "Mayor and Councilmen. I am a lifelong resident of Weirton, and I'm here today, not a businessperson. I'm here as a father, and I do want to address the $2.00 fee. My children use the parks. They use the center every week. I believe that this is a matter of principal. Two dollars a week. You will always have those that can't afford it, but $2.00 a week. It's a matter of principal. Do I feel that it's right to pay $2.00 a week? I'd like to say this. What has the city done to cut their budget? It's clear. You guys have had record cuts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that the amount of money that you cut from the budget, that's the largest amount ever cut from a Weirton City budget in the history of Weirton. I believe that the amount of people that you're going to lay off is the largest amount of people that the City has ever laid off in its history. That tells me that you've done your job, and I commend you that you've done your share to trim your expenses. And now you're asking us to contribute to that for capital improvements, for the parks. Whatever you want to use that money for, I think you've shown us good faith. That's what, as a resident, I want to support the $2.00 fee, because I feel you've done your job, and I will gladly pay $2.00 a week to preserve the services that are in the city now. I want to be able to bring my kids anywhere in the city and feel safe. If you continue to have to cut policemen and cut firemen and cut city services, I cannot continue to feel that way. I will be here the rest of my life, and I hope the direction that you're taking the city continues, especially what you've done the last few months. I commend you again. Thank you." (Applause) Mayor Miller thanked Mr. Bernabei for his comments. Ralph Barone, 1045 Barone Drive - Attorney: Mr. Barone commented, "Mayor, Council, City Manager. First, I'm here, of course, to oppose the service fee. But, I would like to commend Councilman Kondik, Councilman Dorich and Councilman DeMasis for voting against it. And, now we're going to get into the service fee. We have a $50.00 service fee on households, fifteen cents per service square foot on businesses, and one of the speakers here tonight doesn't have a business in Weirton. We have a $110.00 garbage service fee per year. Now, he will have a storm water service fee, and I want to commend Brae Bryant for bringing it up, because it's going to happen ladies and gentlemen. You will be paying a service fee, because I own a home in Morgantown. And, I have in front of me, my Morgantown water bill which is my latest one of January 5th, 2004, which has storm water service fee, and that is 10.89 for three months or it's $3.63 a month. So, we have service fee upon service fee upon service fee. I don't know when it's going to end. But, anyway, I did want to bring that up tonight, because we aren't through with service fees. I pay one in Morgantown for the storm water. According to the article, Brae Bryant says that's about to happen here. Is that right Mayor?" Mayor Miller replied, "That is correct." Mr. Barone continued, "OK. So, there we go again." Councilmember Moore commented, "Why? Why does it have to happen Mayor? It is federally mandated." Mayor Miller commented, "It's federally mandated." Mr. Barone commented, "It's mandated." Mayor Miller continued, "It's mandated by both the federal government and the state government. So you have no choice. And Ralph, let me just say one more thing." Mr. Barone replied, "Yes." Mayor Miller continued, "When it comes about. They tell the cities that, 'you have to do it. We're not going to supply you any funding.'" Mr. Barone continued, "That's correct. I agree with you on it. That's the reason I'm saying if you keep it up, we've got to stop some of the service fees. Because, if we keep adding up right now without the $104.00 or $208.00 per year per family where two people are working, we're going…Right now, we're at $268.00 a year in service fees. And beyond that, then we're going to have the other service fee, the storm water runoff fee, and then we're going to have the $104.00. We're up to over $400.00 a year in service fees in this city. You're going to attract people? Come on. It's not going to happen. We're losing businesses. In fact, with the 15 cents per square foot service fee, we just lost another business according to the Weirton Daily Times. That's Scooters, downtown. And, you know, at one time we had eight automobile dealers in this town. Now we're down to three, and of course, I understand that may be shrinking. Then, there, and of course, again as I state there is no limit to the service fee, and I think the City Attorney well knows that. But, I do want to bring up some legality questions that I will address, and I think that I'm right, and I think the City Attorney should possibly look into it a little further. And that is putting a service fee on non-residents. Number one, we have 8-13-13 which is a service fee which you are trying to introduce as a second reading tonight. The service fee, as far as I am concerned, is, as an attorney speaking, is would not apply and indifference to the fact that out of city, out of municipality residents aren't going to have to pay it. They're going to fight it. Because 8-13-13 in the suit of nine versus Grantown, 190-WV-86 or 437 Southeast 2nd 250 and in particular, John, page 253, it states that 'applies directly to the citizens of the municipality and the supreme court in using the words,' they used the word tax, not a fee where they did state this. What they meant, I'm not sure. But the taxes authorized by West Virginia Code 8-13-13 are not limited to a specific statutory amount and are born directly, born directly, by the citizens of the municipality. So, again, the article appeared in the newspaper, and I will state that any resident, uh, nonresident that works in the city, and their employer starts docking their pay. Check with your attorney. I mean, I could be wrong. I'm not a judge. I'm not a jury. I mean, we read the law. Judges interpret it differently. Uh. We have the fact of. You talked about capital improvements. You know. This city, in 1947 when it first became a city, didn't have roads. What they did, they paved the entire city by assessing the property owners, which they could do per front foot. Now, that, that is a statu… that is an ordinance that could be indoctrinated and not involving the service fee. Now, I saw in the paper somebody else tonight talk about health deductions. Well, my wife works for Eat-n-Park, and I don't mind telling you that she has $308.00 a month taken out of her pay. So, she's, and that's gone from $160.00 a month up now to $308.00 this year beginning in 2004. And, as to the limitation on the fact of one job, the way your ordinance reads there's, it's, one phrase knocks out the other. I agree with you what it says Valerie. But, also, you defined an employer, 'an employer located within the City of Weirton.' There's a lot of employers. And, of course, I'm going back to the one thing I've stressed for a long time. You have employers that come in here, employees that come in here from Pittsburgh, Wheeling, Charleston, that are in here for a couple hours and leave. Service may be every day. That's your cable television people. You have all this. So, I still say that I haven't seen your method of assessing the $2.00, but I would be very careful in the non-residents." Mayor Miller commented, "You want to wrap it up?" Mr. Barone continued, "Yes. I'll wrap it up right now, Mayor. In your blueprint for Weirton, we call it the benchmark, administrative expenses you wanted taken back to 1997 levels. Thank you." (Applause) Jeremy Davis, 443 Thompson Avenue - Oasis Lounge: Mr. Davis commented, "Mayor and City Council. I heard the young lady talk about enhancing Weirton's city image. I'm actually living in East Liverpool, Ohio, but I spend most of my day in Weirton, a large portion of it. I've been here for three years. I'm a local disc jockey. This is Ronald Hirkala, the owner of the Oasis Lounge. Basically, why I'm here is I'd like to set a world record for the longest running club DJ. The record right now is 74 hours. I want to go to 96. All the proceeds for this go to Make-A-Wish Foundation, and we're looking at quite a large sum of money. During the planning of the event we experienced a lot of different hurdles, which we are tying to overcome. Some of these issues include state laws and community support. But we want the community involved in it, because it affects everybody. Any parent in this room that has ever had a child fallen ill to brain cancer or any other type of terminal illness will tell you the Make-a-Wish Foundation for children helps out a lot. My sister was a Make-a-Wish child, which is why I want to do this. So, we're asking for the community's blessing and support in this attempt. It's a once in a lifetime thing. Any guidance that you might have or suggestions we are more than willing to hear. Thank you." (Applause) Mayor Miller commented, "Thank you Jeremy, and I think you can come over to the city building, and we can talk about it. I think it's a worthwhile cause." Mr. Davis commented, "Thank you Mr. Mayor." Councilmember Dalrymple commented, "Whatever help you need with something like that. We will definitely be in support of anything that helps the Make-A-Wish Foundation." Mr. Davis replied, "Thank you sir." OLD BUSINESS Ordinance: Second Reading No. 1413: UPDATING AND AMENDING THE BUILDING CODE FOR THE CITY OF WEIRTON. Motion was made by Councilmember Dorich, second by Councilmember DeMasis. Motion carried by majority, 7/0. Ordinance: Second Reading No. 1414: INSTALLING A STOP SIGN ON THE EAST SIDE OF S. 16TH STREET TRAVELLING SOUTH AT THE INTERSECTION OF WETZEL STREET TO ESTABLISH A 4-WAY STOP. Motion was made by Councilmember Dorich, second by Councilmember DeMasis to accept the ordinance. Councilmember Dalrymple commented, "Being that I am the sponsor of that, of this ordinance. And, I know we've already read it once. There were some individuals that lived in the area that would be affected by this stop sign or this intersection by this ordinance and the one that is coming up next. They requested, or they said they didn't have an opportunity to speak in front of the Traffic Commission. I really do feel that, with government, everyone should have the ability to speak and let their opinion be heard. So, I would like to ask my fellow Councilmen that I'd like to table this and the next one that's coming up to let the Traffic Commission give the citizens an opportunity to let them know what they think and how they feel about it, and go from there. What I am asking is that I make a move to table the motion. Councilmember Dorich commented, "This went before the Traffic Commission at one time." Councilmember Dalrymple continued, "What I said, Councilman Dorich, is that the people that live in the area were unaware of the Traffic Commission meetings, and they did not get an opportunity to speak, and they asked me personally if I would hold off on trying to pass the ordinance, so they would have a chance to talk to the Traffic Commission, because they have some suggestions other than a 4-way stop they would like to have looked at." Mayor Miller questioned, "So you're making a motion that we table this until they go before the Traffic Commission?" Councilmember Dalrymple replied, "Yes." Mayor Miller continued, "OK. So, you're going to amend the ordinance to be tabled. So, we'll take a vote on that. We need a second on your motion to table." Councilmember Veltri made a second to table the ordinance. Mayor Miller stated, after asking for any comments, that we would be voting to table item 2 and item 3. City Clerk Maher requested a Point of Order. Item 3 would have to be brought to the floor and voted upon as an individual agenda item, independent of item 2. Motion to table the ordinance carried by majority, 7/0. Ordinance: Second Reading No. 1415: INSTALLING A STOP SIGN ON THE WEST SIDE OF S. 16TH STREET TRAVELLING NORTH AT THE INTERSECTION OF WETZEL STREET TO ESTABLISH A 4-WAY STOP. Motion was made by Councilmember Dorich, second by Councilmember DeMasis to accept the ordinance. Councilmember Dalrymple made a motion to table the ordinance. Councilmember Veltri made a second to table the motion. Motion to table the ordinance carried by majority, 7/0. Ordinance: Second Reading No. 1416: ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL DISABILITY PARKING SPACE AT 3340 ORCHARD STREET. Motion was made by Councilmember Dorich, second by Councilmember DeMasis to accept the ordinance. Motion carried by majority, 7/0. Ordinance: Second Reading No. 1417: ESTABLISHING THE WEIRTON MUNICIPAL SERVICE FEE. Motion was made by Councilmember Moore, second by Councilmember Miller to accept the ordinance. Councilmember Kondik commented, "I've been opposed from day 1 to this fee, and it's not because we don't need the money. Yes, we need the money. Are our city employees underpaid? Sure they are. Am I underpaid? Sure I am. John, your comments were terrific. If you remember back then in the day, when we had all those car dealerships, and we had all those pharmacies, and we had everybody on Monday and Thursday nights shopping downtown. What were we doing in the daytime? We were going to merchants and asking them for five and ten and fifteen dollars to be a part of our merchant's association. J. J., before your time, we were doing that, and now that you're involved in the community, we're asking you for thousands. And, thank God for you, because you do give us thousands in your generosity. The $600,000 that this fee's going to raise. I'm sorry. It's just, it's nothing for what we need. It's really nothing that we can say, 'hey, we're going to pave all of Marland Heights, Mr. Eastham.' It's not going to get done. Are we going to pave 3 or 4 streets? Yea. Maybe. Are we going to buy 2 or 3 cars? Yea. Maybe. But, guess what? In a year's time we're going to come back in, and we're going to say, 'hey, we need a million and a half.' And, I honestly believe the time is not right. We need 30 days. We need 60 days. I asked Valerie, and I asked Council that we can prolong and ask for an extension on the budget to the State on March the 30th. We need. We need to finish what we started. Yes, we cut two million dollars out of the budget. Yes, we've got to lay off employees. We're not done. We're not finished. As of today, this afternoon, we found out that there's 4 bills in the House that may add in aid to cities with tax problems. We need to discuss those things. It's not finished. It's Saturday before they're done with that. My objection is it's not the time, it's not enough money, and I have to vote against it. Thank you." (Applause) Councilman Moore commented, "I guess we'll start at the top. In reference to the $50.00 the resident paid, yet her streets were in disrepair. The $50.00 paid is the Police and Fire Service Fee. That is dedicated to Police and Fire protection along with the 15 cents a square foot as noted. The amount that brings in is barely 60% of the cost of police and fire protection in this city. It doesn't nearly come close to covering the cost of your police and fire services, much less anything else that you think it may take place for you. We did have a balanced budget. We do have a balanced budget on the agenda tonight, whether this $2.00 passes or fails. However, that balanced budget has been balanced by taking money out of the coal severance fee, which will go dry in 3 years. It's been balanced with a $700,000 carry over from the present year budget we're in, that there won't be after next year's budget. So, in that regard, Councilman Kondik is correct. The $600,000 isn't enough to cover all those bills. But, I'm sure that, as he said in the last meeting, ISG will come, and will contribute something to the City. I don't believe they'll contribute near what their predecessor had, but they'll pay for their building permits. They pay to keep us from going inside their building and inspecting their improvements. (Unintelligible) They'll pay us a fee to stay off their property. But, the fee that Weirton Steel pays us now for that is $100,000. That's what they pay for that. Now, why would ISG pay us anything more? Second thing. There's really not money for capital improvements or for capital replacement. Add up the street. Add up the potholes. I mean. We're trying to replace the capital that isn't just (unintelligible) I mean, to pave by the square foot, you don't know what neighborhoods would get paved. I mean. When you go to house to house and have the residents pay for the square footage of pavement in front of their house. I mean. I think that would only be very limited area, very limited neighborhoods would afford to be paved if we re-instituted that type of funding. We are aware that 4 bills have been forwarded to their respective legislative bodies in Charleston that would allow municipalities new means to generate funds to cover the cost of local government. We applaud this effort. We ask that each and every one of you here tonight to contact Senators Bowman and McKenzie, and Delegates Schwartzmiller, DeLong, Ennis and Yost to support those bills that give municipalities more and fairer options to raise revenue. That being said, we must move ahead. The funds to not only operate the basic services of the City, but the money for capital replacement that every business, and the City is a business, must have. I don't, I mean I don't like this fee. I don't. People out there think that I am in someway enamored with this. I wish I had other options. I wish I could exempt those that earn below a certain level. I wish I could exempt those who this will hurt the most. It is clearly unfair. The lower the wage earner, the unfair it is. But, I have to deal with reality. The State gives us very few options. Now, hopefully, before the session ends on Saturday night, maybe we'll get another option. Maybe we'll have something where we won't need this. But, of the options we have, I believe this is the best one of the bad choices that are at our disposal. That's why I am in favor of it at this time. Now, if we get something new on Saturday night from the State, this may be mute point. This does not go into effect until July 1st. If they give us an option come Saturday night, a sales tax or something else, some other way to raise money that would be more equitable, then we will gladly look at it. But, honestly, the State has never done that, and I don't expect them to do it now. So, I have to move forward on the assumption that they won't do it again." Councilmember Miller commented, "I think it's time that we stand up and take responsibility for our community. We've had big brother for a long time in this community, and it hasn't cost us very much at all to have the services that we enjoy in this community. I grew up in this community. I have three children that have grown up in this community. We are self-employed now. We have a business here. We've been employees. Now, we are employers. This community provides a safe solid community with a great, great area to sell to businesses. Our location is a positive location. We're close to an international airport. One of the committees that I'm working on is business development. I've had individuals from business come to this community. They like the community, because we have the community center. We have a library. We have a good school system. We have a tremendous police force and fire protection. We have all of the amenities that a community has to have to create business development, and that's why we have to take hold of this community. We have to take ownership. And, I, like Councilman Moore, I'm against service fees. I'm against taxes, generally, and I don't want to pay anymore, but we're going to lose business, and we're not going to be able to attract new business unless we have these services and provide these services. And, I think it'll be a windfall, whatever comes from ISG and additional business that they will bring to town, because they outsource a lot of jobs, the way they, way I understand they operate in other communities. And, I really believe the support that we pass this fee. Saturday night, the legislature passes an opportunity for us to collect some kind of sales tax increase, and that's all a benefit, and as Councilman Moore said, it's a mute point." Councilman DeMasis commented, "You know, I never knew this was ever happening in this town. Of course, I've grown up and lived here all my life also. My family is here. I guess I'm lucky there, and they like the town just as well as I do. Single parents. Never heard of that. Single parent. I said, 'What in the hell is a single parent.' I'm single. My wife is single. We're just married. That's all. But, the thing is that this one woman has two children. Her job pays barely enough. I don't want to tell you where she works. But, she said, 'When I go to the store, I can't shop.' She doesn't have the money to shop. When she goes to the store, she buys the necessities only. There's nothing extra. She told me that. After that, I went on to another, then another. I said, 'What in the world's going on here?' A lot of them are divorced too. I guess, basically, they're divorced. That's kind of tough. How could I do that, consciously wise? How can I do that to somebody like that? And, there's quite a few of them. Never seen it in my life. And, quite a few of them are in the downtown area. They're renters. That's why I stand against it. I have to. I've even seen too much of this in the military. Little kids, nothing to eat, just one female, husband's gone. I don't want to see that here. So, that's the reason why I'm against it." (Applause) Mayor Miller thanked Councilmember DeMasis. Councilmember Dorich commented, "We're examining the person who's in charge of Make-A-Wish Foundation. I think it might be a cousin." Mr. Davis commented, "Really?" Councilmember Dorich replied, "William, William Dorich?" Mr. Davis replied, "I'm not in contact with him. I believe I'm in contact with, uh, I think his last name is Glendon, down in Morgantown. That's the nearest chapter." Mr. Dorich continued, "I too am against this tax. It's unfair. We just honored the man, Mr. Kelley, Bernard Kelley, who is sitting back there. He was the first man to propose a B & O Tax in the City, and they passed it on the gas and the electric. Look at the money he made for the City. The City was in hard press then. It's worse now. We got suckered in with this company. They lost. We lost four million some odd dollars that went in somebody's pocket. Where the hell did it go to? Why didn't they pay our bills? Why didn't they pay their bills? I told them here that I talked to a commissioner on the road. We blocked traffic for three blocks. The City of Weirton's not going to receive their money. And, sure enough, in the 9th meeting that we had, we lost $253,000 from taxes in Hancock County. I don't like this tax. Somebody said, he was here in this audience, 'If you raise the service fee, I'm going to have to be forced to move out of the City of Weirton,' because everybody who retired under National Steel lost their retirement. They lost everything. We have 21,000 people that are going to lose their benefits from this company. This company that we worked, I worked there for 43 years. I'm not a spring chicken. I'll be 73 in May. And, these guys here are trying to say our savior is gone. Our savior may come in, but he may not pay like the other one. Somebody asked me why the B & O Tax that I proposed at the last meeting was going to be presented. You can't believe how much work is there. I spent 6 hours, 2 days in a row at the library. It's in the hands of a lawyer. He doesn't practice, but he's studying it. And, at the next meeting, we may have it, I propose." Mayor Miller thanked Councilmember Dorich. (Applause) Councilmember Dalrymple commented, "I have something to say too. I mean. I can see where Steve's coming from in some ways. But, talking with Dale and Bubba about this. It's $2.00. Come on. Now, be honest. It's $2.00. I understand that it's not a, it's not fair. And, there's no ta… I don't like it either. I have to pay it also. I work at Half Moon. I have to pay the bill. It's two bucks. It will help out the City of Weirton. It will help. The citizens will actually take control, somewhat, to help out the city. We're not depending on Weirton Steel anymore, obviously, and ISG is coming into the box now, and we can't depend on them to come in here and save us. We have to save ourselves, and the only way to do that is to implement what the State lets us do, and this is it, the $2.00 fee. I wish there was another way to do it. Hopefully, the State government this Saturday gives us another way to take care of the situation. But, as Councilman Moore says, it's highly unlikely, because they've never done anything like it in the past. Why would they do anything about it now? We send a lotta money down there. They don't send a whole lot back. I'm for this, and I've been for it since the very beginning just because it is $2.00, and it is a way for us to sever our ties from being dependent on the mill, and I'm hoping that down the road that the mill will contribute. We will get another opportunity from the State, whether it's an income tax or whatever it may be. I'm hoping that we do get that windfall that Councilman Miller talked about, cause we're going to need it. The time is now to do it. It's not time to wait. We had 8 meetings for this, 8 meetings, 8 budget meetings. It was a lot of work going into it. There's going to be a lot of people in the City that are going to be hurting, meaning the City employees. Talking about the insurance contributions and whatnot. I don't think we should do it right away. I think it should be something they should have the choice of. Waiting until January, it's inevitable that there may be an increase in insurance premiums, but I don't think they should be hit right away. I don't think it's fair. We've gone down a road cutting, as Mr. Barnabie said, $2 Million plus out of the budget, the biggest ever in the history of the City. We've laid off more people ever in the history of the City. We've done our part as best as we can without affecting services that much. This summer, you will see, I am sure, the effect of having these lay offs. So, I ask you to be patient then. The $2.00 fee will help us, will enable us, to be able to pave roads, to trim the weeds, to pick up the garbage. And, without it we're not going to be able to do much of anything. And, we won't be able to bring anybody into this town because the roads are going to be worse than they are now. There's going to be garbage everywhere. It's just not going to happen. I am in support of the $2.00 fee, and I am in support of the City employees also. (Applause) Mayor Miller thanked Councilmember Dalrymple. Councilmember Veltri commented, "The other Councilmen said it all. I don't have much more to say, but I support this $2.00. And, it's a need. I know it's probably not going to be enough money to do all that we want to do here. Our streets are terrible. I know Ms. Mikula there. She was telling us about her streets, how bad it is, and how bad the other streets are. We don't have enough money." Ms. Mikula commented. However it was unintelligible. Councilmember Veltri continued, "We cannot pave your street yet, because your street will get fixed." Ms. Mikula commented. However, it was unintelligible. Councilmember Veltri continued, "Well, we have to wait and see, because most of the streets will get fixed. When we get this money. This is going to go work to capital improvements, and it's going to go to work to fixing our roads. And, I'm supporting it, because it's the right thing to do. We have no other choice." (Applause) Councilmember Dalrymple commented, "There's also, along with the $2.00 fee, I understand that the $2.00 is a burden, $2.00 a week is a burden. But, there are a lot of individuals in here that play lottery pools, and you all know who you are." A citizen from the audience commented, "Yea." A citizen from the audience commented, "No we don't." A citizen from the audience commented, "No. I don't." Councilmember Dalrymple continued, "I didn't…no. Wait. Wait." A citizen form the audience commented, "I don't have money to play the lottery." Councilmember Dalrymple continued, "I'm not saying you. I'm not saying you. There are people that play lottery…" A citizen from the audience commented, "I don't have money." Councilmember Dalrymple continued, "…that they throw $2.00 away on the lottery." A citizen from the audience commented, "I can't go grocery shopping." Councilmember Dalrymple continued, "They throw $2.00 away on the cigarettes. I'm not going to argue with you maam. $2.00 away on a pack of cigarettes." A citizen from the audience commented, "I don't smoke cigarettes." Councilmember Dalrymple continued, "$2.00 away on a couple of boxes a week, or whatever it might be." Mayor Miller commented, "All right. Let's keep it down. Let's move on." Councilmember Moore made a motion to amend the ordinance to make typographical changes. Councilmember Miller made a second to the motion. Councilmember Moore commented, "I'd like to change the ordinance title to indicate the year 2004. In section 1, change title to the year 2004. In section 3, change several of the letters under definitions. The letter h will be changed to letter a. The letter i will be changed to b, j will be changed to c, k to d, l to e, m to f, n to g, o to h, and p to i. In section 4, we'll make an addition. It presently reads, 'Council finds that holding employment with an employer with a place of business located within the City of Weirton….' We need to insert after that, 'for at least thirty (30) days….' Then it is followed by, '…during a calendar year….' In section 5, item a, we need to change the date, the effective date from January 01, 2004 to July 01, 2004. In section 9, change the date where it reads, 'appointees shall serve a term to commence on January 01, 2004….' We need to change that to read, 'appointees shall serve a term to commence on July 01, 2004….'" Mayor Miller commented, "Councilman Moore has made a motion to amend the ordinance because of typographical changes and had facilitated them. Do we have a second to that?" Councilmember Miller made a second to the motion. Mayor Miller commented, "Second by Councilman Miller. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor signify by saying I on the secondary motion. Councilmembers commented, "I." Mayor Miller inquired, "Those opposed?" Councilmember commented, "Opposed." Councilmember Dorich commented, "Discussion." Mayor Miller commented, "No discussion. We've had motion made and seconded, and we had vote, 4/3." Councilmember Dorich asked, "What are you talking about?" Mayor Miller commented, "Pardon me." City Clerk Maher commented, "Point of Order on the second motion." Mayor Miller responded, "Point of order. Go ahead." City Clerk Maher continued, "On the secondary motion. You can have discussion on the secondary motion. Mayor Miller inquired, "You can on the secondary?" City Clerk Maher replied, "Yes." Mayor Miller commented, "OK. Go ahead. You're up." Councilmember Dorich commented, "I want to bring up this regulation that Mr. Moore brought up last month, or a month ago, that it's within 30 days of the last meeting. In other words, between each meeting there's supposed to be 30 days. This one is only 28 days, and it's illegal." Councilmember Moore questioned, "What 30 days?" Councilmember Dorich replied, "The same thing you read the other day." Councilmember Moore added, "That's 30 days after it's been influenced. An ordinance will be implemented within 30 days of passage." Councilmember Dorich replied, "That's right." Councilmember Moore commented, "We didn't pass it at the last meeting." Councilmember Dorich replied, "Yes we did. Yes we did." Mayor Miller commented, "We passed the first reading." Councilmember Miller commented, "It was only read once." Councilmember Dorich commented, "It was read twice. It was read twice that night. You check. You check the tape. You check the tape." City Attorney Yeager added, "The second reading sir was not…that didn't affect…it didn't go into effect, because you can't read it twice in one meeting, and pass it." Councilmember Dorich added, "We did." City Attorney Yeager added, "Well, then that's invalid. This is the second reading." Mayor Miller added, "This now Steve is the second reading. The first reading was made at that point in time. The subsequent subsidiary amendments that were made were not intact. What we have is the primary reading made the last time, and now we're into the secondary reading with the amendments attached. We've had the amendments made and the secondary motion. They've been passed 4 to 3. Now, we're going to have to move on to the main motion. But, we accept the amendment of the primary motion with the amendments being made. We have to pass on that now or reject it. Councilmember Kondik commented, "Excuse me Mayor. Do you have a count on the amendment, on the vote?" City Clerk Maher replied, "4 to 3." Councilmember Dorich commented, "We never voted on it." Mayor Miller commented, "4 to 3, in favor, on the secondary. Councilmember Dorich commented, "On the amendment. Only on the amendment." Mayor Miller replied, "That's right." City Clerk Maher added, "On the amendment." Mayor Miller added, "Now, we're moving on to the primary. We passed the secondary motion, 4 to 3. OK. And, we've had our comments, and now we're going to move to the main motion to accept the secondary and pass the main motion. So, the secondary motion has been passed, and now, we're going to go to the second reading of the principal motion, as amended. So, I'm asking for… City Clerk Maher added, "Roll call. Roll call." Mayor Miller continued, "…movement from…" City Clerk Maher added, "Roll call." Mayor Miller continued, "…Council to accept or pass on." Councilmember Moore commented, "I so move." Mayor Miller continued, "So moved by Councilman Moore." City Clerk Maher added, "No. It's already been done." Mayor Miller inquired, "Pardon?" City Clerk Maher replied, "We just need to make the vote now. We just need to make the roll call vote now." Mayor Miller replied, "OK. Roll call vote on the principal motion as amended." Councilman Kondik: No Councilman Veltri: Yes Councilman Dalrymple: Yes Councilman Dorich: No Councilman DeMasis No Councilman Miller: Yes Councilman Moore: Yes Motion carried by majority, 4/3. NEW BUSINESS Resolution: No.: TO PLACE LIENS AGAINST REAL PROPERTIES FOR COSTS INCURRED IN DEMOLITION OF UNSAFE PROPERTIES PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 250 (KURTRIN - 107 S. 12TH STREET, MAP# W39P, PARCEL# 010). Motion was made by Councilmember Moore, second by Councilmember DeMasis to accept the resolution. Motion carried by majority, 7/0. Resolution: No.: TO PLACE LIENS AGAINST REAL PROPERTIES FOR COSTS INCURRED IN DEMOLITION OF UNSAFE PROPERTIES PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 250 (JAMES AND FRED CACASE - 3134 MAIN STREET, MAP# W42M, PARCEL# 0088). Motion was made by Councilmember DeMasis, second by Councilmember Moore to accept the resolution. Motion carried by majority, 7/0. Resolution: No.: TO APPROVE THE 2004-2005 FISCAL YEAR GENERAL FUND AND COAL SEVERANCE FUND BUDGET WITH THE NEW MUNICIPAL SERVICE FEE. Motion was made by Councilmember Moore, second by Councilmember Miller to accept the resolution. Councilmember Kondik made a motion to amend the resolution in support of the City employees to suspend the change in their healthcare contributions until January 2005. Councilmember Moore made a second to the motion. Finance Director Valerie Means presented the newly modified numbers. Ms. Means stated, "Your revenues, of course, will remain the same. Under your expenditures, your Office of the Mayor will be $9,136.00. Council will be $45,930.00. Office of City Manager will be $250,653.00. Finance will be $320,056.00. Police Court will be $71,616.00. City Attorney will be $162,733.00. Community Development will be $438,512.00. Civic Contributions will be $22,500.00. Inspections will be $262,491.00. Data Processing will be $110,797.00. City Hall will be $806,054.00. Electricians will be $148,330.00. Public works will be $243,339.00. Contingencies will remain at $340,000.00. Police will be $2,460,822.00. Fire will be $1,465,525.00. Animal Control will be $43,800.00. Dispatch will be $144,367.00. Street Department will be $1,261,260.00. Street Lighting will be $29,706.00. City Garage will be $267,567.00. The Transit Grant Contribution will be $170,000.00. Sanitation will be $1,055,088.00. Visitors Bureau will remain at $110,000.00. Community Center will remain at $400,000.00. Library Contribution will remain at $265,000.00. Beautification will remain at $5,000.00, and Capital Projects will remain at $600,000.00, leaving your Total General Fund Expenditures at $11,510,282.00. Mr. Kondik's amendment did not change in total. What happened was the dollars will be added back to the hospitalization line items in each of those departments and subtracted from the other contingency line item." Mayor Miller added, "So, we've heard the finance director. A motion's been made and seconded, I believe, to go ahead and drop out the insurance portion by the employees until a new budget, or until January 1st. OK. So, I asked for a motion, and it's been made and seconded. Those in favor of the amendment signify by saying I." Councilmembers replied, "I." Mayor Miller continued, "Those now in favor. I entertain a motion to now…" City Clerk Maher commented, "Mayor, those opposed." Mayor Miller replied, "Go ahead." City Clerk Maher added, "You need to call opposed on the amendment." Mayor Miller questioned, "Are there any opposed on the amendment? Now, I will call for the main…" City Clerk Maher added, "As amended." Mayor Miller continued, "…main resolution as amended. I'll entertain a motion to accept that." Motion was made by Councilmember Miller, second by Councilmember Moore to accept the resolution. Mayor Miller commented, "Those in favor signify by saying I." Councilmembers replied, "I." Mayor Miller inquired, "Those opposed." Councilmembers commented, "Opposed." Mayor Miller inquired, "Opposed?" Councilmember Kondik repeated, "Opposed." Mayor Miller replied, "Two opposed." Councilmembers commented, "Three." City Clerk Maher commented, "Roll call, please." Mayor Miller commented, "Roll call." Councilman Moore: Yes Councilman Miller: Yes Councilman DeMasis: No Councilman Dorich: No Councilman Dalrymple: Yes Councilman Veltri: Yes Councilman Kondik: No City Clerk Maher commented, "It's 4 to 3." Resolution: No.: TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF TWO PRE-OWNED VEHICLES FOR THE WEIRTON POLICE DEPARTMENT. Councilmember Dorich commented that the Finance Committee did recommend that we purchase these two vehicles. Motion was made by Councilmember Miller, second by Councilmember Dalrymple to accept the resolution. Councilmember Moore commented, "The Weirton Daily Times printed a headline that said we were buying two new vehicles. We are buying two used vehicles, a 1999 Ford and a 2000 Ford. We are not buying a new vehicle." Councilmember Dorich stated, "We just purchased two new ones." Mayor Miller stated, "That's in the past. These are used." Councilmember Moore stated, "Councilman Dorich, are these the ones we are voting on right now in reference in the headline in the Weirton Daily Times, 'New Vehicles?'" Councilmember Dorich replied, "No. These are…" Councilmember Moore commented, "That's the end of discussion." Councilmember Dorich replied, "They will be for us." Mayor Miller commented, "Let's move on gentlemen." (Laughter) Motion carried by majority, 7/0. Resolution: No.: TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF TWO CANINE INSERTS FOR TWO POLICE CRUISERS. Councilmember Dorich commented that the Finance Committee also recommended this purchase. Motion was made by Councilmember DeMasis, second by Councilmember Dorich to accept the resolution. Motion carried by majority, 7/0. Resolution: No.: TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF TONE-OUT PAGERS FOR THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DIVISION. Motion was made by Councilmember Dorich, second by Councilmember Moore to accept the resolution. Motion carried by majority, 7/0. Ordinance: First Reading (EMERGENCY READING) No.: ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL DISABILITY PARKING SPACE AT 4112 BROOKE STREET. Councilmember DeMasis commented, "I asked the City Clerk if he would go through the motions and so forth so that we could put this on an emergency reading. I'm telling you. The parking on that street is awesome. It's terrible. This gentleman. If he doesn't get a parking place soon, I don't know if he'll be able to walk much longer. That's the reason for that." Motion was made by Councilmember DeMasis, second by Councilmember Moore to accept the resolution. Councilmember Kondik commented, "Henry. I'm sorry. Excuse me, Councilman. You're asking for an emergency reading on this?" Mayor Miller replied, "Yes, that's what he's doing." Councilmember DeMasis replied, "It has been cleared by the Traffic Commission." Mayor Miller commented, "It has been taken care of, and it has to be unanimous. Motion has been made and seconded. Let the minutes reflect it's 7/0 and it's unanimous." Motion carried by majority, 7/0. APPOINTMENTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS There were no appointments. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Fire - Chief Kessler Cole Chief Cole commented, "Nothing to report from the Fire Department." Police - Chief D. Lance Scott Chief Scott commented, "Nothing to report." Public Works Department - Brae Bryant Mr. Bryant commented, "Nothing to report from Public Works." Parks and Recreation - Terry Weigel Mr. Weigel commented, "Nothing to report from Parks and Recreation." (Laughter) Code Enforcement - Rod Rosnick Rod Rosnick reported, "Nothing new. There are still some delinquent building and business licenses out there that we will be enforcing. " Mary H. Weir Public Library - Rick Rekowski Mr. Rekowski reported, "I have nothing to report. I do request, please use your library card." Economic Development Directory - Robert Riccelli Mr. Riccelli reported, "Public meeting, March 30th, right here in this room, 11:00 A. M. to 1:00 P. M. and 5:00 P. M. to 7:00 P. M., concerning Brownfields and redevelopment. Thank you. That's my report." Sanitary Board / Water Board - A. D. Mastrantoni Mr. Mastrantoni reported, "We still have water, and we're still taking care of sewage. That's the end of my report." (Applause)
TREASURER'S REPORT Valerie Means provided the Treasurer's Report for February 2004: Beginning Cash Balance: $811,545.41 Interest on Checking: $423.20 Deposits: $688,593.53 Disbursements: ($1,232,176.19) Deposits to Investments: ($0.00) Ending Cash Balance: $268,385.95 Beginning Investment Balance: $722,478.21 Interest on Investments: $337.79 Ending Investment Balance: $722,816.00 Petty Cash Fund: $700.00 Total Cash / Investments Available: $991,901.95 Motion was made by Councilmember Dalrymple to accept the Treasurer's Report, second by Councilmember Miller. Motion carried by majority, 7/0. Motion was made by Councilmember Dalrymple to pay all of the bills and accept the Administrative Reports as they were presented, second by Councilmember DeMasis. Motion carried by majority, 7/0. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before this March 08, 2004 regular session of the Weirton City Council the meeting was adjourned after the closing prayer.
|