Regular Meeting
Perry Township Board of Trustees
Regular Meeting
November 22, 2011 7:00pm
Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance:
Excused absence: John Masalko, Road Superintendent
Additions/Deletions to Agenda:
Trustee Capaldi stated that due to the size of the agenda that the Department Head evaluations may need to be postponed until the first meeting in December.
Public Hearings/Invited Guests:
Robert Jones- Stark County Veteran of the Year Award- Purple Heart Recipient
The Board presented a certificate of acknowledgement to Mr. Robert Jones, Stark County Veteran of the Year and Purple Heart Recipient. Chief Martin also presented Mr. Jones with a ten (10) year anniversary, 9-11 coin. Mr. Jones stated that he is honored and grateful for the recognition.
Step II Sergeants Compensation Grievance
Mr. Hall stated that Mr. Charles Wilson is in attendance on behalf of the grievant. Mr. Wilson stated that he is representing the FOP Labor Council regarding the grievance that was filed by the Sergeants of the Perry Township Police Department regarding a pay structure that was recently initiated by the Township. Mr. Wilson stated that personnel received notice from Chief Pomesky approximately one (1) month ago stating that their pay was being cut based on their interpretation of the language in the agreement. The cut would be any where from $1.12 – $1.66 an hour.
Mr. Hall stated that the contract language is very clear and very specific in the Sergeants contract. Article 32 states that the Sergeants base salary should be fifteen percent (15%) more than the patrol officer’s salary as set forth in section 32.2 D of the patrol officer’s contract. During the administration of this contract, under the previous Chief and Administration, an error was made. The payment was made, not based upon fifteen percent (15%) more than 32.2 D of the patrol officer’s contract, but was based on a step increase which is not the correct contract language. Mr. Hall stated that Chief Pomesky did his research and discovered that the four (4) Sergeants are over paid. Chief Pomesky met with the Sergeants and adjusted their pay to the correct under the contract. The pay difference was any where from $1.12 – $1.66 per hour. When Chief Pomesky learned of this error he not only notified the Board and the Fiscal Officer, he notified each of the four (4) of the Sergeants affected. Mr. Hall stated that this is not a reduction or a take away. It is nothing more than making sure that the Sergeants are being paid the correct hourly rate based upon the specific contract language as it was negotiated.
Trustee Chessler stated that after this error was noticed, the Chief went to apply the rate of compensation that he deemed to be appropriate pursuant to the contract. This action was to be implied prospectively only so that the rates of pay would be made and applied from that point forward and not to seek over payments. Mr. Hall stated that is correct. All four (4) Sergeants affected were notified that the correction would be effective the next pay and that there was no request for any reimbursement of any over payment that had been made. Mr. Hall stated that the Sergeants are currently where they should be according to the expressed language of the contract.
Trustee Chessler inquired if Mr. Wilson thought that the accurate rate of pay is being applied. Mr. Wilson stated that he does not believe that the accurate rate of pay is being applied. During the negotiations for the patrol officer’s contract they added pay scales and eliminated longevity. They added sections E, F, G and H under 32.1 to account for people who have worked more that five (5) years and up to more than twenty (20) years. The language under the Sergeants contract has never been re-negotiated regarding rates. The Sergeants only make fifteen percent (15%) more than they ever did before. The rank differential has never been negotiated. New pay scales were only added for patrol officers in exchange for longevity being negotiated out. Mr. Wilson stated that he had this discussion with the previous Police Chief regarding what was going to happen with E, F, G and H because they were all working off the hand written pay scale to adjust everybody’s pay. The subject of rank differential for the Sergeants was always fifteen percent (15%) more than the topped out patrol officer. Mr. Wilson stated that he finds it interesting that Chief Pomesky himself benefitted from this for years. Once he became the Chief, he all of a sudden found the error. Mr. Hall stated that under the current contract it’s fifteen percent (15%) more than section 32.2 D. Mr. Wilson stated that the interpretation of the current contract is that a person makes fifteen percent (15%) more than the topped out patrol officer. It just takes a long time for a patrol officer to be topped out in Perry Township. Trustee Capaldi inquired why the language had never been changed. Mr. Wilson stated that a new Sergeants contract has never been done. Mr. Wilson stated that he originally wanted to multi- union bargain but the representative that he was presented with at negotiations and the Township refused. Mr. Hall stated that under the law, the contract continues until a new contract is negotiated and under the contract language it is 32.2 D. Mr. Hall stated that when the contract benefits the union they want a strict adherence and compliance with the contract. When the contract benefits management or effects management in terms of the budget they want liberal compliance with the contract. It’s either under the contract or it’s not under the contract. Mr. Hall stated that in 2011 there have been more grievances filed in the Police Department than ever in the history of the department because of contract negotiations or failure to negotiate. Every time it was the union telling management that they want strict application of the contract. Now management is complying with that by strictly applying the language of the contract- 32.2 D plus fifteen percent (15%).
Trustee Laubacher inquired what base is being used for the Sergeants pay rate. Mr. Hall stated that management is using D- $23.31 and the union is saying it should be H- $24.24. Trustee Laubacher inquired how all Sergeants are being paid the same amount of money when one Sergeant has nine (9) years, two have thirteen (13) years and the other has twenty-three (23) years. Mr. Wilson stated that is because the Sergeants do not have a set pay scale based upon years of service. They are paid merely fifteen percent (15%) more than the highest paid patrol officer. Mr. Hall stated that it is not uncommon for a patrol officer with fifteen (15) or more years to make more than a Sergeant who has five (5) years. That is what happens if you have a patrol officer who is at the H scale and has not been promoted to Sergeant. Whereas, if you have a Sergeant who has only been a Sergeant for three (3) years, he would get the D pay scale plus fifteen percent (15%). Mr. Hall stated that what he understands the substance of the Sergeants grievance to be is that they don’t believe that a patrol officer should ever make as much as a Sergeant and therefore the highest step should be used as a base. Mr. Hall stated that is not what the contract language says nor is it the practice of police agencies any where in Ohio as far as he knows. The steps were to compensate those officers with many years of experience and service. The Sergeants do not have steps in their contract. The Sergeants highest pay rate is 32.2 D plus fifteen percent (15%). If that is inequity to the Sergeants then the best way to address that would be through negotiations of a new Sergeants contract and the Sergeants have not done that. Trustee Laubacher inquired if Mr. Wilson agreed with what Mr. Hall said. Mr. Wilson stated that he agrees with some of what Mr. Hall said but it is unusual for a patrol officer to make more than a Sergeant. When you get promoted, with that comes pay. Trustee Laubacher inquired if there are currently some patrol officers making more than the Sergeants. Chief Pomesky stated that he was not sure but he would have to pull those figures.
Trustee Capaldi inquired what other factors get applied to the rate that is listed in the contract other than the fifteen percent (15%). Trustee Laubacher stated that he has a sheet that was given to him by the Chief that says that there is a fifteen percent (15%) rank differential. Mr. Wilson stated that is what the contract is based off of. Trustee Laubacher inquired if that would be a $3.50 an hour rank differential. Mr. Wilson stated only if you base it on the $23.31 which is a three (3) year patrol officer. Sergeant Hamilton has twenty- three (23) years of service with the department and his pay should be based upon the scale. Trustee Capaldi inquired why that wouldn’t be in the language of the contract. Mr. Wilson stated that it has never been an issue. Trustee Chessler stated that the contract says the highest patrol officer then add fifteen percent (15%) but there is qualifying language or a clause for the purpose of this agreement that base patrolman shall be the amount set forth in Article 32 Compensation – 32.2 D. Mr. Wilson stated that E, F, G and H had never existed before. The patrol officers negotiated E, F, G and H and when the Sergeants negotiate their position will be based on that. Trustee Chessler verified that had H been there the Board would have been referred to that in the Sergeants contract. Mr. Wilson stated that was correct. Mr. Hall stated that in essence the union is using the grievance to negotiate their next contract. Trustee Capaldi inquired what the term of the current contract is. Trustee Chessler stated January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009. Trustee Capaldi verified that there has not been another contract negotiated. Mr. Hall stated that is correct and under 4170.14 the old contract remains in play until a new contract is negotiated. Trustee Capaldi inquired why a new contract has not been negotiated. Mr. Wilson stated that he wanted to do multi union bargaining with all of them because of issues like this and they have had a terrible time getting this final draft. Mr. Hall stated that he has not received a notice to negotiate from the Sergeants. Mr. Wilson stated that the notice to negotiate went to the representative on record. Mr. Hall stated that Mr. Tscholl was handling that at that time. Mr. Wilson stated that they started multi union two meetings in and then they said they only wanted to do the patrol officers. They were prohibited from doing the Sergeants and patrol officers at the same time. Trustee Capaldi stated that doesn’t prohibit them from continuing negotiations. Mr. Wilson stated that they wanted to negotiate the Sergeants following the patrol officers because their language is based on whatever happens with the patrol officers. Mr. Wilson stated that they were never going to request that the rank differential be more than fifteen percent (15%). Trustee Chessler inquired if this is the universal way to pay Sergeants or if there is another way that doesn’t bring so much confusion. Mr. Wilson stated that it is pretty universal.
Trustee Laubacher asked Chief Pomesky to explain the step pay chart. Chief Pomesky stated that it was his understanding that it was negotiated for everyone across the board to be applied based on years of service. Mr. Hall stated that Chief Pomesky applied 32.2 D plus fifteen percent (15%) plus; Sgt. Berkey step increase of 2.5%, Sgt. Guist step increase of 2.5%, Sgt. Deitrick step increase of 2% and Sgt. Hamilton step increase of 4%.
Trustee Chessler stated that Mr. Hall is saying that 32.2 D literally means D. Mr. Hall stated that was correct. Trustee Chessler stated that Mr. Wilson stated that 32.2 D is interpreted to mean in this case H. Mr. Wilson stated that was correct. Trustee Chessler stated that he understands both positions.
Trustee Laubacher stated that in 2007, 2008 and 2009 there was an H in the contract. Mr. Wilson stated that is when H was first added to the agreement and then negotiations took place and they gave raises based on that pay scale. Trustee Laubacher inquired why 32.2 D wasn’t negotiated to make it an H if that is what the Sergeants wanted. Mr. Hall stated that in summary there has never been a round table negotiating session to address Sergeants pay since the expiration date of December 31, 2009 because they have never met to do so. Trustee Capaldi inquired why. Mr. Hall stated that nobody ever requested to sit down to negotiate the contract. Trustee Capaldi stated that Mr. Wilson said that the notice to negotiate was delivered to the Township. Mr. Wilson stated that notices were sent for each prospective union. Trustee Capaldi inquired who dropped the ball and what the process is for getting to the next step in the Sergeants contract. Mr. Hall stated that Mr. Wilson and his bargaining unit would have to pick a day to sit down and discuss this.
Mr. Hall stated that he didn’t feel that it was within the best interest of the Board or the Union to go to arbitration and spend thousands of dollars. Mr. Hall recommended that the Board affirm the denial of the grievance and tell the Sergeants to go back and negotiate a new contract. Trustee Capaldi inquired if during the negotiations a request can be made to make them retroactive. Mr. Hall stated that they can ask for whatever they think is fair and equitable and negotiations can be had. Trustee Laubacher inquired if Mr. Wilson agreed with Mr. Hall. Mr. Wilson stated that they are always willing to settle something out. Part of the reason why they are where they are is because it took so long to conciliate the patrol officer’s agreement. Mr. Hall asked Mr. Wilson and the Sergeants union to allow the Board to table this matter until such time as negotiations or impass. Trustee Capaldi stated that would allow the union the opportunity that if the Board does not make it retroactive then the union could still grieve it. Mr. Wilson stated that he would certainly ask.
Mr. Hall suggested that the Board either affirm the denial of the grievance or table this matter until the work session in December. The Board agreed. Trustee Laubacher inquired if the Board is at risk of a law suit due to over payment of employees. Mr. Hall stated no because there is no statutory provision for a tax payers law suit in the Township form of government.
Trustee Chessler made a motion that the Board keep the record open on this grievance and defer decision on the matter until December 14, 2011 in light of the fact that there are two (2) meetings scheduled to conduct negotiations on a successor agreement; Seconded by Trustee Capaldi.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Miss Capaldi, yes.
Bob Fisher & Lisa Brown- Huntington Insurance Brokers- Proposed Insurance Presentation
Mr. Fisher stated that he and Ms. Brown have been working with Administrator Fetzer and the Insurance Committee for several weeks for the Township’s health insurance for 2012. The Board received all documents explaining the results of the negotiations for health care. Aultcare originally came in with a renewal of fourteen percent (14%). Each year the employees are asked to complete a medical history form on a secure system called Form Fire. That information is then submitted to the insurance market place for firm quotes. Aultcare has had the Township’s business for years and they do not want to lose it. They were able to go back and recalculate their increase and brought it down to a three percent (3%) increase. Mr. Fisher also provided the Board with the two (2) most competitive quotes; Anthem and SummaCare. Anthem had a very competitive quote but they were unable to match the Township’s current plan. SummaCare did their best to match the Township’s current plan but there were two (2) areas that they couldn’t match up with; emergency room co-pay and prescription drug co-pay. Currently, the Township has a $5.00 co-pay for generics and $10.00 co-pay for brand drugs. SummaCare’s prescription drug plan is $5.00 for generic, $10.00 for preferred brand and $25.00 for non-preferred brand. SummaCare’s quote came in at three percent (3%) below what the Township is currently paying for health care and Aultcare came in at three percent (3%) above. Mr. Fisher stated that the difference in health care plans account for approximately two (2) or three percent (3%). Trustee Capaldi stated that the premium differential is $4,146.00 per month, Aultcare vs. SummaCare. The only difference is the emergency room co-pay and the prescription drug co-pay.
Mr. Fisher stated that the other issue is that the Township has a population of people who are used to dealing with Aultman and the Aultcare network so it would be a change. The preferred hospital with SummaCare would be Mercy Medical Center and most of the physicians should be in both networks. Trustee Capaldi stated that this has happened in the private sector thousands of times and she has never had to change providers. Trustee Capaldi asked Mr. Fisher to explain the “Yes You Can” program at Aultcare. Mr. Fisher stated that “Yes You Can” is a program where you can enroll at Aultman Hospital and in the event you have an elective hospital admission they will review your benefit coverage and they will work to eliminate your out of pocket penalty. Mercy Medical Center also has a similar program. Trustee Capaldi stated that the Township would be saving approximately $50,000.00 per year by switching to SummaCare. Mr. Fisher stated that the Insurance Committee collectively agreed that the Aultcare renewal was the lowest and best option.
Trustee Chessler inquired if it is possible for SummaCare to come in with an incredibly low offer and try to make it up on the back side with increases in the following years. Mr. Fisher stated that after being in the business for a long time that does happen. SummaCare had a lot of information to base their quote on so Mr. Fisher believes their quote to be fair. SummaCare is basing their factors on a population with risk factors. Aultcare is basing their factors on a population that has a history. Trustee Capaldi inquired what the loss ratio was for 2011. Mr. Fisher stated that the blended loss ratio was 93%. Trustee Capaldi inquired if the Township pulled out of Aultcare if there was a risk of not being able to get back in. Mr. Fisher stated that the only risk would be if the Township completed Form Fire again next year and the risk profile of the population changed. Aultcare would have to make an offer but they have a wide latitude of pricing.
Trustee Capaldi verified that the Board needs to agree on a provider and how the HSA’s would be funded. Mr. Fisher stated that was correct. Trustee Capaldi asked about the timing of when this decision needs to be made. Mr. Fisher stated that he would like to see it happen before the end of the week if possible.
Trustee Laubacher stated that one of the things that the Insurance Committee discussed was that the employees are comfortable with Aultcare. Trustee Capaldi inquired if they were comfortable with the fact that the Township could hire someone with the savings. The differential in the benefits plan are nominal and the savings to the budget would allow the Township to hire more people. Any other employer would have just made the decision to go with the lower plan and not even told or talked to their employees about it. The Township brought representatives to the table to have dialog but it seems that the big picture has been missed. Trustee Capaldi stated that she loves Aultcare but wished that they were lower. Trustee Chessler stated that he is leery of this because there is a business out there that is very aggressive and anxious to get the Township’s business. Trustee Capaldi stated that SummaCare provided an educated quote based upon the information in Form Fire. Trustee Chessler stated that Aultcare provided a quote based upon actual claims paid. The intangible comfort level of what you have and what you know compared to the devil that you don’t. There is a value in that. Trustee Chessler stated that he is looking over the plans which were explained very well but doesn’t want the Township to get back into the thicket of whether or not the plan is equal to or better than the current plan. Staying with Aultcare is safe in that it is a plan that is, as far as the language in the collective bargaining agreements, equal to or better than.
Trustee Capaldi inquired if the 90/10 Aultcare plan that the Township has is the richest plan on the market as far as benefits. Mr. Fisher stated that you can get a little bit richer but not by much. Trustee Capaldi stated that the current plan is a big plus for this employer to continue to offer 90/10 when not many people do anymore. Trustee Chessler stated that he agrees with that. Trustee Laubacher stated that he doesn’t believe the Township can get out of the 90/10 plan because of the collective bargaining contracts. Trustee Capaldi stated she believes that it can be done. Trustee Laubacher inquired how. Trustee Capaldi stated that the Law Director is not here and that would be a question for him. Trustee Capaldi stated that for $49,864.00 of tax payers dollars she is willing go through whatever the Board needs to go through to be responsible stewards by saving the Township money and responsible employers by offering a great benefits package.
Trustee Laubacher asked Mr. Hall if the Board could make this change to SummaCare with the current contract language. Mr. Hall stated that the contractual language is the level of benefit coverage shall be equal to or greater than the coverage provided under the plan currently in effect at the time of the collective bargaining agreements. If you compare Aultcare vs. SummaCare they seem to be very competitive plans. Trustee Laubacher inquired if and why Mr. Fisher needed the Board’s decision by the end of the week. Administrator Fetzer stated that last year the Board did not make a decision until the December 14, 2010 Work Session and inquired if it would be ok to wait until the December 6, 2011 meeting to make a decision this year. Mr. Fisher stated that would be fine.
Trustee Chessler stated that the Township has a group that has developed a relationship with Aultcare, Aultman Hospital, doctors and providers and he is trying to quantify that into his decision making process. Trustee Chessler stated that he has read over the minutes of the Insurance Committee and it appears that they are leery of walking away from Aultcare to go to a new provider. Trustee Capaldi stated that she once sat on the Insurance Committee and it was her idea to form it. Though she values the input from the committee, she has also learned by sitting across from the employees that they don’t have enough skin in the game. Trustee Chessler inquired if the Board should accept the committee’s recommendation or not. Trustee Capaldi stated that the committee has been engaged in the process but the Board has to do what they have to do to make a decision.
Trustee Laubacher inquired if the Board would like to table this matter until the December 6, 2011 Regular Meeting. Trustee Capaldi stated that she would like the Insurance Committee to reconvene and research their providers and prescriptions to make a proper comparison. Trustee Capaldi stated that she would also like the Insurance Committee to see the calculated savings that would go back into their department’s budget. Trustee Chessler stated for the record that he was ready to vote on this matter tonight and follow the recommendation of the Insurance Committee. Trustee Capaldi stated for the records that she values the recommendation of her fellow Board members as well as the insurance Committee but these are big numbers and it is worth a second chance when you are spending other people’s money. This matter has been tabled until the December 6, 2011 Regular Meeting.
Communications: None.
Public Speaks on items up for Board Approval: None.
Township Business requiring Board Action:
Unfinished Business: None.
New Business:
Trustee Laubacher made a motion to approve bills in the amount of $65,418.49 for the week ending November 15, 2011 and approval of bills and payroll in the amount of $331,469.05 for the week ending November 22, 2011 for a combined total of $396,887.54; Seconded by Trustee Capaldi.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Miss Capaldi, yes.
Fiscal Officer:
Records Retention Committee to Meet on December 6, 2011 at 6:45pm
Mr. Schlegel stated that there is going to be a meeting of the Records Retention Committee on December 6, 2011 at 6:45pm.
Mr. Schlegel reminded the Board of the 2012 budget hearing to be held at the December 13, 2011 Work Session.
Consider Requesting the Auditor to Certify the Amount Generated by .05 Police Levy Renewal
Mr. Schlegel stated that Chief Pomesky has a .05 police levy that needs to be renewed. The Board needs to approve this by December 7, 2011. Mr. Hall stated that this is step one of a two step process. The first step is asking the Auditor to certify the current tax valuation of the Township and the number that will be generated by a .05 levy renewal. The Auditor has ten (10) days to give the Township those numbers. Then, if the Board decides to put it on the March ballot then the second resolution would have to be approved and filed with the Board of elections by December 7, 2011 at 4:00pm.
Trustee Laubacher made a motion that the Board request that the Stark County Auditor pursuant to the Ohio Revised Code to 5705.03 B certify the current tax valuation of the subdivision and the dollar amount that would be generated by a .05 police levy renewal at the next primary election in March 2012; Seconded by Trustee Capaldi.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Miss Capaldi, yes.
Trustee Laubacher made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 8, 2011 Work Session; Seconded by Trustee Capaldi.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Miss Capaldi, yes.
Administration:
Consider Approval of Submitted Website Updates
Administrator Fetzer stated that the Board received documents regarding the homepage for the new website. The implementation date for the new website is November 30, 2011. Administrator Fetzer explained some edits that were still being made to the new design. Each Department Head submitted edits that they were requesting for their own perspective pages. Trustee Capaldi requested that under the emergency departments that 9-1-1 be listed as well as the nine digit phone number. Administrator Fetzer stated that change can be made. Trustee Capaldi inquired if the content on the new website was copied and pasted from the old website. Administrator Fetzer stated that edits were made to the old content to bring it up to date. The Board has received the newly updated content for their review.
Trustee Chessler inquired what the process is and who has access to change the content on the website. Administrator Fetzer stated that all Department Heads have access to change the “Community Alerts” on the homepage via Twitter. Trustee Chessler inquired if the Department Heads will have access to their own pages to make changes. Administrator Fetzer stated that they do not have access and that everyone will still comply with the current website policy that is in place. Trustee Chessler inquired who the current Township employee is that is the gate keeper of all of this. Administrator Fetzer stated that Miss Dean will be the website coordinator.
Fire Department:
Consider the Purchase of Radio Equipment
Chief Martin stated that the Fire Department is requesting that the Board of Trustees consider the purchase of twenty-four (24) portable radios and miscellaneous radio equipment from B&C Communications. The total purchase of equipment not to exceed $24,312.12. This is fulfilling the recommendations that were made by the Communications Committee to standardize and increase the number of portable radios.
Trustee Laubacher made a motion that the Board approve the purchase of twenty-four (24) portable radios and miscellaneous radio equipment from B&C Communications at a total purchase price not to exceed $24,312.12; Seconded by Trustee Chessler.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Miss Capaldi, yes.
Consider Accepting BWC Safety Grant Award
Chief Martin stated that the Fire Department and Township Administration in its entirety is asking the Board to accept the BWC Safety Grant award in the amount of $4,239.33 to purchase a tire changer machine for the fleet vehicle maintenance department. The current machine is over thirty (30) years old. Using some creative risk management principles and the potentiality of an injury was applied to the old machine and the Bureau of Workers Comp awarded the Township this grant. The Township has to pick up 1/3 of the cost. The total cost of the machine is $6,359.00. This machine could seriously reduce the risk of a back injury. The current machine will only hold up to a fifteen (15) inch rim and there are a significant number of tires that have to be outsourced to third parties which costs any where from $30.00- $50.00.
Trustee Chessler made a motion that the Board accept the BWC Safety Grant Award in the amount of $4,239.33 to purchase a tire changer as the Chief has outlined with a matching contribution to be done by separate motion; Seconded by Trustee Capaldi
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Miss Capaldi, yes.
Consider Purchase of Tire Changer
Chief Martin asked the Board to approve the purchase of the tire changer model #898-24T11-500 with adaptor and cones from Workman Auto Parts at a cost not to exceed $6,359.00. The Township’s portion will be $2,119.67 to be split between the Police and Fire Departments.
Trustee Chessler made a motion that the Board authorize the purchase of a tire changer at a total cost not to exceed $6,359.00 with the expectation that the Township will receive reimbursement from the Bureau of Workers Compensation from the previously discussed grant in the amount of $4,239.33 making the Township’s match $2,119.67 and further authorizing the Fiscal Officer to divide that amount equally between Police and Fire; Seconded by Trustee Capaldi.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Miss Capaldi, yes.
Consider Emergency Repairs to Engine 21
Chief Martin asked the Board to authorize the payment of $2,945.85 to Young Truck Sales for emergency truck repairs to Engine 21. This truck was not under warranty. The bulk of the cost was for the diagnostic features of the technician.
Trustee Laubacher made a motion that the Board authorize the Fire Department to pay Young Truck Sales for the emergency repairs of Engine 21 in the amount of $2,945.85; Seconded by Trustee Chessler.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Miss Capaldi, yes.
Police Department:
Consider Accepting the Third Grade Safety Belt Grant
Chief Pomesky stated that the Police Department has applied for and received the Third Grade Safety Belt grant from the Ohio Department of Public Safety. The total grant award is $1,800.00. This is a program that is taught by Officer Watson within the Perry Local School District.
Trustee Capaldi made a motion that the Board accept the Third Grade Safety Belt grant from the Ohio Department of Public Safety in the amount of $1,800.00; Seconded by Trustee Chessler.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Miss Capaldi, yes.
Consider Accepting the Emergitech Maintenance Agreement
Chief Pomesky asked the Board to consider accepting the Emergitech maintenance agreement. Emergitech is the Police Department’s record management system. This will allow the Police Department to continue to receive updates, support and maintenance to the system throughout the year. The total cost of the Emergitech maintenance agreement is $3,386.21.
Trustee Capaldi made a motion that the Board approve the Emergitech maintenance agreement at a cost not to exceed $3,386.21; Seconded by Trustee Capaldi.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Miss Capaldi, yes.
Consider Signing and Ratifying the FOP Police and Detective Collective Bargaining Agreement
Mr. Hall asked that this matter be tabled until the December 6, 2011 Regular Meeting. Chief Pomesky and Deputy Chief Carbenia found a couple of incorrect numbers. Mr. Hall stated that he would like to make those corrections and get the union’s approval before he presents it to the Board.
Road Department:
Discussion of OPWC District 19 Scores
Trustee Laubacher stated that the Township did not receive any OPWC funding. Trustee Chessler stated that the Township is within the range if other projects would be delayed or not going forward as planned. That money may go back into the pot and the Township may be re-considered for funding.
Law Director: None.
Zoning: None.
Parks: None.
Executive Session(s): None.
Department Matters Not Requiring Board Action:
Administration: None.
Fire Department: None.
Parks/Recycling: None.
Police Department:
October Monthly Stats
Road Department: None.
Zoning: None.
Law Director: None.
Announcements:
Public Speaks-Open Forum: None.
Adjournment:
With nothing further to come before the Board, Trustee Chessler made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50pm; Seconded by Trustee Capaldi.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Laubacher, yes. Mr. Chessler, yes. Miss Capaldi, yes.
LeeC.Laubacher,President
Joe Schlegel, Fiscal Officer