Burger called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. at the Jackson Township Hall with all Trustees, Clerk, Lyon, Fitzgerald and Boger present.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 A
Rich LaRocco from ME Companies presented the monthly update on the SR 241/687 Intersection project.

He also updated the Board on the Frank/Strausser/Applegrove project regarding a change in the plan requested by the Stark County Engineer.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 B
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to approve Budget Module No. 05-12 for Fire Prevention Educational Materials and Equipment in the amount of $5,300.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 C
Meeks moved and Burger seconded a motion to approve Budget Module No. 05-13 for Vaccinations for the Fire Department Personnel in the amount of $3,500.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 D
Budget Module No. 05-14 for Fire Hose Replacement in the amount of $10,900 was tabled.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 E
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to approve Budget Module No. 05-25 for Brass Goods Replacement/Upgrade in the amount of $2,500.

Heck:  The second item on the work agenda was to talk about the fire levy itself.  It’s eligible for placement on the November ballot.  We had talked last Trustee meeting in consideration along those lines.  I would suggest the Board do that, which will give us technically three attempts with the public, although we have been successful for the last 20 years with this levy.  I’d like to point out to the Board; we have not attempted at any time during those 20 years to increase the 5.6 mills, that’s been the entire millage that we’ve operated with.  I feel comfortable that we can stay there.  We’re missing the major reappraisement, because of that I would ask the Board to consider a 3 year time period with the levy.  That would keep us away from the Police Dept. or Highway Dept. on levies.  And at the same time allow us to have sufficient dollars along with the EMS funds that we would have I believe to maintain current operations.

Pizzino:  What I think that’s going to do is put you a year ahead of the Police Dept., Chief.

Heck:  That will put us a year ahead of the Police Dept. or we wait two more years and stay on our normal cycle which would put us, like I said, 5 years out.  I question whether we’ll have sufficient funds at the 5 year point for operations.

Gonzalez:  I do not believe that it’s financially possible for him to get a 5 year levy and live with that over a 5 year period.

Pizzino:  I guess I have a problem putting him ahead of the Police Department.  We’re going to have a Fire, then we’re going to have another Fire, then we’re going to have Police.  Hopefully, there’s some type of different funding by then, but when, we really don’t know.

Gonzalez:  Just to get a picture, I laid that in front of you, let’s jump ahead here for a second.  Look at the budget that I laid there and go to page 3. If you look at page 3, line 7, Fire District Fund.  It starts out this year which is 2005 column at the top with a carryover of $758,000.  Then you see his property taxes came in at $6,472,000.  His total incoming, after the utility taxes is $7,400,000.  If you look at what we’re projecting, he’s going to spend this year; he’s going to carry $333,000 at the end of the year.  Then go up to 06, you’ll see right next to the question mark there it’s on line 7 the last column over.  You see the $333,000 come in, we’re showing his levy at the same amount, because I don’t know what’s going to happen with the reimbursement.  He’s (indecipherable) next year, you see that line that shows the transfer from reserve balance, we have to bring his entire reserve balance account back in, which is $450,000, and it wipes that account out.  That takes him up to a total of $7,382,000 in his total receipts and then you look at his expenditures and at the end of the year he’s going to have $16,000.  Now the following year, what are you going to do?  You just transferred $450,000 to get through 06; you don’t have the $450,000 to transfer back in 07.

Heck:  The $450,000 that we pull out of the reserve to cover 06 will be replaced with the $400,000 to $500,000 increase on the levy.  But I don’t think that will be sufficient to carry us 5 years.

Gonzalez:  Correct.

Heck:  It will only carry us two or three.

Gonzalez:  That’s what I’m saying.  You’re only getting by, just enough to get through; you’ll barely make it through to three.  You’ll be scrimping at that.  I’m answering John’s question.  Five years would be, by the time he’s into his 5th year, he’ll be 1.5 million dollars short.

Pizzino:  Well, I think you’re going to have to look at the millage then.  I don’t like cutting him down to three years and putting him in front of the Police Department.

Gonzalez:  Then you don’t go for a replacement; you go for a whole new levy.  Or you go for another levy.

Pizzino:  I don’t know why we’d go for another levy.

Gonzalez:  You only have two options.  You go for a renewal levy or you try to increase the millage on the new one.

Meeks:  Chief, did you ever try to play the numbers without increasing the millage?

Heck:  When we put this in place, back in 85, the intent was we would only have one levy, hopefully, every 5 years in front of the public.  And we would be able to live within that.  We won’t bring up 96.  Why would I mention 96?

Heck:  We’ve been able to do that other than this year.  Doug Thorn did wave that flag that we missed the major reappraisement.

Gonzalez:  That’s another reason for the 3 years, John.  What will happen is, if he does this with 5 years he’s going to live with the money at 5 years the way it is without the reappraisal.  If you do it in 3 years, he’s going to hit the reappraisals and it will bring in a lot more renewing it in the 3rd year than it would have if you would have waited.  He’s going two years without it, but that 3rd year’s going to be a larger increase.

Pizzino:  How does it affect our Police Department, though?  Our Police Levy the following year.

Heck:  The Police will gather the reappraisment but the problem is we’re ahead of the Police.  Now when people get their tax duplicate I think we have an easier opportunity to pass a levy than the Police do.

Gonzalez:  Yes.

Pizzino:  I believe so.  That’s my whole point.

Gonzalez:  Well, fire levies always pass easier than the police do.

Heck:  Right, they have.  But I think we need to be cognizant of the other departments, too, and things that do happen there.  It’s just the fact that I don’t know how we address it without having to put on an additional levy.  And I don’t want to do that.  I don’t necessarily want to see us go for a higher millage because I think we’ve told the public that 5.6 mills, if they keep us as 5.6 mills we can do our job.  And basically we’ve been able to do that other than the year you don’t want me to talk about when we got extended for three more years.  And that’s what’s hurting us.

Pizzino:  You can see it’s coming back to haunt us.

Heck:  Yes, and that’s what we thought.  I felt at that time it’s going to haunt us.

Gonzalez:  You know, John, your concerns are absolutely right.  If we pass it for 3 years, and the Police come back in 2 years, and then you mix in a school levy and you’ve got Ralph’s renewal that will come up in that time.  It’s just a constant barrage of real estate taxes. That’s what it amounts to.  And we are working, I think this Board’s been working harder than anyone to try to look for alternative sources of funding but as of now, you either put it on for three years, you put it on for 5 years and increase the millage, or you put it on for 5 years and he’ll be broke after his 3rd year and Ted will be standing there saying I need a million dollars out of the general fund and when we go through the budget tonight you’re going to see the general fund’s not going to have that either.  We’re not going to have the luxury of giving what we did to the Police Department.  We don’t have that inheritance tax that we used to get them through all those years.

Meeks:  Well, that’s why, based on all the cuts that we’re facing and reality is setting in, that it is imperative that we look at other source of income generators.  And that is what we’re doing now.  We have a couple options out there and if we can hook into at least one of them we can retire our levies.  And that’s, at least our safety levy, that’s important to understand that because not only are we faced with it but the schools as well and they’re coming back at it and who are they asking the money from.  It’s our property owners.  We’re reaching that plateau that enough is enough.  And I’m telling you, I feel for our residents, I feel for the property owners, it’s up to us to try to forge agreements and partnerships that we can have those who use our services pay for our services in other ways, whether there’s a user fee, a sales tax, or an income tax whatever it may be, we have got to get some legislation changed or partnerships built so that we can take that burden off our property owners.

Pizzino:  There’s no doubt about that.  But I mean we’re still faced with the decision.  What do we do?  And again, you’re right, and if the school doesn’t pass their operating levy that they’re going to put on in May and they keep putting it on, it’s going to go against our highway, it’s going to go right back to our fire and right back to our police.  And I mean again, enough’s enough.  We’re living within our budget, our department heads are doing a fine job of living with the budget we set for them year in and year out, but the funding’s not there and Randy’s said it many times, our local funds, that funding mechanism is just drying up.  And, Randy, unless you have a crystal ball, I don’t know what to do.

Gonzalez:  You know I wrote an article this time in the Township Newsletter and I never got the responses back that I’ve got from this one.  And if you look at our township newsletter there’s a big thing on the front that says levy passes and I think we’re all happy to save the police department.  But in my addressing the residents, I addressed the fact that there’s about 15% of our township that are retired and they’re on fixed incomes.  And they absolutely voted against that levy and they didn’t vote against it because they didn’t like the police department they voted because they couldn’t afford any more taxes.  And as much as we all sit here and discuss this, Steve hit it right on the head, we have to absolutely look at alternative sources and try to keep our levies, even though, you know, we need the money, the fire department’s, we have to keep them at the absolute minimum, there’s people who have lived in this township for 30 years that will literally have to put up their house for sale because they can’t afford to pay their property taxes.  I mean you look at it on a monthly basis, I just looked at my mother’s, I had another resident that called me, an elderly person that was retired and they have it figured out to a monthly bill, because they’re used to paying so much.  Their taxes are $250 a month, that’s more than their electric bill, that’s more than anything that they pay.  That’s the largest bill they have.  It is a tough thing for you guys to deal with, but John, I guess, I would think it would be fiscally irresponsible to say to the voters that we need it for 5 years and know that we can’t make it through 5 years.
Pizzino:  I’m not saying that, I’m saying that we put it on for 5 years; we’re going to have to be upfront and honest and say we can’t do it at the 5.6; this is what we’re going to need.

Gonzalez:  That’s a new levy, that’s new levy language.

Pizzino:  Well, replacement is a new levy anyway, Randy, let’s face it.  It’s additional income.

Gonzalez:  You tell the voters that when it goes on the ballot.  It’s on the ballot and it says replacement there’s a big, and I agree, that is definitely more money.

Pizzino:  It’s an increase.

Gonzalez:   It is a tax increase, absolutely, it’s a tax increase.

Pizzino:  Unless it says ‘renewal’ it’s a tax increase.

Gonzalez:  Right.

Pizzino:  You call it what you want I’m not the attorney.

Heck:  Our experience has been when we did renewals, the general public for years couldn’t understand why we did a renewal, and then we had to ask for another mill or another levy.  And then we had to ask for another levy because it was their belief that when we did the renewal our millage stayed where it was supposed to be.  I think the public now understands that a replacement levy does bring it back up to that millage, there is an increase in taxes but it’s not as though we’re having to get additional millage on top of it.  The other unknown that the Clerk and I have talked about is the personal property tax.  If it’s just taken at face value, we lose a half million dollars, we’ll lose about a half a mill of our operational expense based on what the State’s proposing to do or what they are going to do.  They are supposed to make us whole, but I think experience has shown us in the past; the townships at least, end up with, if they are fortunate, 50% of that.  So we’ll lose two hundred fifty, three hundred thousand dollars.  I think we have to anticipate that as reality off our budget.  Which is about what we get in our budget change over a period of two, two and a half years.

Meeks:  We haven’t had an increase in anything.

Pizzino:  Well, I guess we really need three tries then.  That’s the first thing.

Gonzalez:  Neal, can you put on a replacement with increased millage?  Ballot language, I don’t think you can.  It would have to be a new levy.

Meeks:  It would have to say ‘additional tax’ at the top, wouldn’t it, Neal?

Fitzgerald:  Sure.

Gonzalez:  But what I’m saying, I think you have to either put on a new levy with all of them and the same thing you did with the Police, saying this one would go away or you put on a levy that’s an additional mill or whatever it is and then you have two that you’d have to pass.  You’d have to vote for the replacement and the new one.  Is there a way of incorporating both of those into one?

Fitzgerald:  I think there’s a method for where it says renewal and you increased the mills, but I’m not sure about the replacement.

Gonzalez:  Renew and increase.

Fitzgerald:  The language says renew and

Gonzalez:  As long as it’s only one ballot issue.

Fitzgerald:  We kicked that around with the Police Levy a little bit but it was too complicated.

Heck:  Why don’t we research that and next Trustee Meeting come back with suggestions.

Fitzgerald:  You’re talking replace and increase.

Pizzino:  We have 75 days before the elections so you’re going to have to have it – when, Chief?

Heck:  Sometime in August.  We have to have the auditor’s certification.

Fitzgerald:  Yes.  It won’t be the last meeting before August 24, it would have to be before.  We have to start the paperwork early August.  Unless there is a special meeting.

Heck:  It just shows again all these mandates, we have a number of state mandates coming to us in the Fire Department for operations.  We have them coming at us for EMS operations, non-funded.  We talked when we did budget preps, it’s just other items we were spending about $29,000 a year a couple years ago on EMS supplies, and we’re spending $90,000 because those are no longer exchanged with the hospitals.  I think we all recognize what’s happening with fuel costs, our fuel bills have tripled in the last three years.  So those type of things that are coming back and the bottom line, it stops with the local resident.

Pizzino:  And that’s what we have to change.

Heck:  We don’t have the grants that we had available.

Gonzalez:  That percentage, as I said numerous times, that has changed and that’s the problem.  When this new tax goes on, just like it did in the Police Department, that number one question, why are we paying so much more, but the Police aren’t getting that much more.  That’s exactly why, because the shift of the burden is on the residents.

Pizzino:  Right.  From the business.

Gonzalez:  If we do what Neal says we might be able to do, it’ll probably be and I don’t know the percentage I’m just throwing a number at you, it might be a 70% increase to the resident but it’s only going to be a 40% to the businessperson because they’re picking it up.

Burger:  Obviously that’s put Station 6 way back in the back of the pile.

Heck:  Don’t even talk about Station 6.  I think there was a good, good budgetary process on the part of the Board to do our 10 year plan that we did.  I think we’ve stayed fairly close to it.  The growth of our community is showing that it’s bearing that out but we also know when we buy land, people start to say ‘well, when are we going to get the fire station’.  We’re still a few years out based on runs in that area, so I feel relatively comfortable there.  But again our activity is increasing about 5% a year.

Pizzino:  Well, hopefully we get some type of different funding mechanism.

Meeks:  We’re working on it, John.

Gonzalez:  Senator Schuring’s been helpful, we’ve been working on deals with some other options but right now it’s a sad thing.  It really is.  I mean, it’s got to be effective.  Every township across the state and the ones that are going to get hit worse are the school districts.  They’re going to get worse than we are.  When you figure 62% of every one of your tax dollars out there goes to the school, you can imagine what the increase they’ll need.

Meeks:  And that’s my concern, if we wait until May, Chief, and we’re up against their operating levy, I mean, and I agree with the people, how much more can we ask them for.  We’re all in the same situation no matter what side of the table we sit on.

Pizzino:  Right.

Meeks:  And I’m not trying to give you a hard time, but I know what

Heck:  No, no.  I think we’re all trying to work through a resolution to it.  What’s equitable for the community, what’s going to maintain the safety level of the department?  One advantage we do have from the fire service is the insurance classification we enjoy.  And that does save dollars to both residential and commercial people.  And I don’t want to see that jeopardized.

Gonzalez:  John was thinking this from the aspect of politically passing the levy and it’s very well thought out, I mean, the aspect of the whole township and passing all those levies that are going to need to be passed as the years go on but I agree, John, I mean putting it in front of the Police is tough because the Police is a harder sell than Fire and after there’s a big increase in fire it would be harder for the Police to sell their levy.  But the bottom line is we’re going to be hit with these no matter what.  Whether you move them or not the taxpayers are still going to see whether it’s the Police before or after or we increase the millage, I think there’s a lot of people out there would say live within your budget means, the budget you have now, don’t come back, you increased that budget when you asked for a levy, want more money.  And as much as people support it, again, if they can’t afford it, they can’t afford it and they’re going to start saying no.  And we’re going to get hit with that.  Whether it’s police or fire.

Pizzino:  In defense of the fire department or any of our departments we can’t control fuel costs.  So if we live within our budget that means the only thing we could do, or the only thing Chief Heck could do, is cut services.  If we tell them to live within that same amount of money.

Gonzalez:  I think that’s what Steve and I have been saying for the last year.  The State’s left us with one of two things.  Either you decrease services or you hit the taxpayer for more money.  That’s where we’re at and if we don’t find another way of getting more money besides property taxes.

Pizzino:  What we could do is consider possibly a three year that the Chief’s asking and then like Mr. Meeks said earlier, some other source of funding maybe we could partner off.  Or whatever, we’re going to have to do something.  We know this Board, and this Board’s not the only Board in the same, every township in the State’s in the same situation, unfortunately, we’re a lot larger and our numbers are a lot more.  But it doesn’t matter if it’s a small township or a large township or Jackson it will still have the same effect.

Meeks:  Yes, it does.

Gonzalez:  Just to show you the difference in the make up when Chief Neftzer and I were working on the comparisons for the Police Levies, in Boardman, they don’t have police and fire levies, they pass theirs as general operation levies and the money all comes into the general fund and then the trustees decide who’s going to get what.  You know, the police get this much, fire gets that much.  That wouldn’t have a chance on the ballot around here, could you imagine people voting on something like that, but they have, they spend far more than we do on their police department.  I think their fire was less but their police was way more.  It just shows the difference in the makeups of the community but they’re going to get hit with the same exact thing, they’ll never pass theirs.

Pizzino:  Why don’t we look into it and re-discuss it next meeting.

Fitzgerald:  The statute, just to answer your question, I looked at the replacement levy statute.  It does offer the alternative of replacing the existing levy and increasing the rate of the existing levy.  That’s an option.

Gonzalez:  Well, that would do it, get him through five.

Heck:  I would suggest the possibility that the clerk and I, also, and maybe Neal, can meet with the auditors office again and verify where we are.

Gonzalez:  And we’ll have to calculate what that additional amount would be and bring it back to the Board, that’s the hitch.

Burger:  Very good.

At 6:04 p.m., Burger called the General Session to order with all department heads present.  He requested that all cell phones and pagers be turned off at this time.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

John Phillippi introduced Mike Stevens from Stark County Auditor’s Office and who has been working with the GIS.  Mr. Stevens gave some background information on the program and a brief update on where they would like the program to go in the future.  After a slight delay during the election last year, the program is once again moving along.  Jackson Township is ahead of most other entities in the area as far as completion and use.

 Public Speaks – No one came forward.

Fire Department
ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 F
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to approve the appropriation transfer of funds from account code 210.210.5387, Cont. & Disc., to account code 210.210.5240, Uniforms, in the amount of $8,000 and from account code 210.210.5387, Cont. & Disc., to account code 210.210.5120, Overtime, in the amount of $75,000.

Highway Department
RESOLUTION 05-055, ATTACHED
Pizzino moved and Meeks seconded a motion that Centerline Striping is the lowest and best bidder for the Paint Striping of Roadways and hereby award a Contract to them in the amount of $33,059.80 in accordance with the Company’s proposal and the Specifications and authorize the placement of the Board’s signatures on the Contract.

RESOLUTION 05-056, ATTACHED
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to adopt and authorize the placement of a stop sign at:  Beatty Street N.W. to stop eastbound at Shady Knoll Ave. N.W.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 G
Pizzino moved and Meeks seconded a motion to adopt the Highway Superintendent’s attached ranking of qualified firms, determine that ME Companies, Inc. is the most qualified and direct the Highway Superintendent and Law Director to establish with ME Companies, Inc. a proposed Agreement and recommend rates for presentation to the Board of Trustees for our approval.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 H
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to table the Engineering Services Agreement
Amendment for Frank/Strausser/Applegrove project.

Legal Department
RESOLUTION 05-057, ATTACHED
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to adopt and authorize the placement of the Board’s signatures upon the attached Amended Investment Policy.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 I
Pizzino moved and Meeks seconded a motion to adopt and authorize the placement of the Board President’s signature upon the attached Waiver of Notice of Hearing on Inventory.

Zoning & Planning Department
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to set the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan on July 25, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 J
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to notify the Stark County Auditor by Certified Mail of charges for the cutting of noxious weeds at 8529 Wonderland N.W., Lot #27, Wonderland Hills #4, Parcel No. 16-03388, N. E. Qtr. Section 6, to be entered upon the tax duplicate and to be a lien upon the above real estate.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 K
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to notify the Stark County Auditor by Certified Mail of charges for the cutting of noxious weeds at 5075 Dressler Road N.W., Lot #37, Belden Village #3, Parcel No. 16-15168, S.E. Qtr. Section 24, to be entered upon the tax duplicate and to be a lien upon the above real estate.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 L
John Phillippi presented a letter confirming his date of retirement.  Each Trustee thanked Mr. Phillippi for his service, dedication and commitment to the Planning & Zoning Department.

Clerk’s Office
ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 M
Burger moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to pay the bills in the amount $262,584.03.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 N
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2005 Board of Trustees meeting.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 O
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to approve the financial reports for June.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 P
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to approve the appropriation transfer of funds from account code 101.150.5110, Regular Salaries, to account code 101.150.5114, Temp. Service, in the amount of $1,992.72.

ATTACHMENT 7/11/05 Q
Meeks moved and Burger seconded a motion to approve the appropriation transfer of fund from account code 101.110.5387, Discretionary, to account code 101.150.5480, Telephone, in the amount of $1,700.00.

Routine Business
Announcements

• Next regular Board of Trustees meeting, July 25, 2005, 4:00 p.m.  Executive Session and/or Work Session, 6:00 p.m., General Session, Township Hall.
• CIC, August 1, 2005, 5:45 p.m., Township Hall.
• LOGIC, August 4, 2005, 9:00 a.m., Safety Center, Chiefs’ Conference Room.
• Zoning Commission Work Session, July 14, 2005, 5:00 p.m., Township Hall.
• Board of Zoning Appeals:
• July 14, 2005, 7:00 p.m., Township Hall.
• July 28, 2005, 7:30 p.m., Township Hall.
• Citizens Advisory Committees:
• Park, July 19, 2005, 6:30 p.m., Township Hall.
• Community Celebration, August 10, 2005, 6:00 p.m., Township Hall.
• Highway/Traffic, August 17, 2005, 6:30 p.m., Township Hall.
• Community Celebration, July 13 – July 16, 2005, North Park.

RESOLUTION 05-059, ATTACHED
Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion that the Board hereby adopt and authorize the placement of the Board’s signatures upon the attached Agreement with Earth N Wood Products, Inc.

New Business
Burger moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to accept a $50 donation to the Fire Department from Dayton & Betty Mullen.

Public Speaks – Open Forum
Robert Webb of 9524 Cliffview St. off Mt. Pleasant has been plagued for the last five years by fireworks being discharged by neighbors.  The pool has firework debris in it and two chairs on the back porch have been damaged, one is valued at $80.  The Webbs called the police but received no response, although they waited until 1:30 a.m.  They have lived there since 1965 when tract 4 of Wonderland Hills was developed.  Several families in the neighborhood are participating.

Chief Neftzer asked if there have been ongoing problems or if this is specific to the 4th of July.  He admits this is becoming more of a problem due the law allowing people to buy fireworks with the state although they are supposed to sign a statement stating the fireworks will be discharged out of state.  The police have some enforcement problems with the law and they are being inundated with calls, especially on the 4th of July.

Chief Neftzer said he would speak to Mr. & Mrs. Webb privately to get more details so he can look into the matter.

Pizzino moved and Burger seconded a motion to go into Executive Session for Fire Department Personnel (Appointment/Employment/Compensation).

Upon return from Executive Session, Burger opened the Public Hearing on the 2006 Tax Budget at 7:00 p.m.

Gonzalez presented the township’s tax budget for 2006.

No one spoke from the audience.

RESOLUTION 05-060, ATTACHED
Meeks moved and Burger seconded a motion that pursuant to ORC Sections 5705.28 and 5705.30, we hereby adopt the attached Tax Budget for Fiscal Year 2006, authorize the Township Clerk to sign the Tax Budget and authorize the Township Clerk and / or Law Director to file said Tax Budget with the Stark County Auditors Office.

Meeks moved and Pizzino seconded a motion to adjourn.