The Garrettsville Village Council held its first meeting of the year Tuesday evening, focusing on organizational matters, financial updates, and legislative measures. Present were council members Deb Wordell, Tom Hardesty, Sheri Johnson, Richard Beatty, and Jeff Kaiser; Mayor Rick Patrick; Solicitor William Mason; Fiscal Officer Donna Love; Assistant Fiscal Officer Tara Beatty; and police representatives including Chief Tim Christopher, Sergeants Keith Whan and Tim Vecchio, and Officer Emily Ahrens. Councilman John Chambers was unable to attend.
The meeting began with the election of Tom Hardesty as council president for 2025. The council approved the minutes from its Dec. 11, 2024, session and reviewed the village’s financial reports, including income tax receipts. Bills paid over the past month were also accepted. Mayor Patrick also presented his list of mayoral appointments for the year, which received approval.
Two pieces of legislation were introduced for their first readings:
Compensation Rates Ordinance: Ordinance 2025-01 proposes adjustments to the compensation rates for village employees and trustees of public affairs. Declared an emergency measure, the ordinance seeks to ensure timely approval and implementation. Hardesty proposed moving the effective date to the first full pay period of 2025, a suggestion Fiscal Officer Love confirmed as feasible.
The ordinance was amended to exclude Assistant Fiscal Officer Tara Beatty, allowing Richard Beatty to vote on its suspension and approval. Additionally, the phrase “to facilitate recruitment in the police department” was removed as irrelevant to the rates being amended.
A discussion arose when Richard Beatty compared the street department’s compensation with neighboring communities (Mantua, Hiram, Nelson, Windham), expressing concerns that Garrettsville’s pay for Street Superintendent exceeds those of other communities. Hardesty and Beatty disagreed over the issue. Wordell asked asked if Beatty focused on the street department specifically, or if he had compared wages for other departments (water/sewer, fiscal, zoning, etc).
The ordinance was passed by all members present, with Beatty noting his concerns about the budget, in voting yes.
Dispatch Services Agreement: Ordinance 2025-02 authorizes an agreement with the Portage County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) for dispatch services. The three-year contract, valued at $43,590 annually, ensures 24/7 emergency and non-emergency dispatching for the Garrettsville Police Department. Payments will be made semiannually, with the agreement running through Dec. 31, 2027. Declared an emergency, the measure aims to prevent service interruptions. Chief Christopher noted that there was no price increase in the contract. Hardesty explained the history of how changes in state laws had lead to Garrettsville ending its dispatch service, the move to a partnership with Mantua, and the current agreement with the Sheriff’s Department. Using the PCSO has save the village a significant amount of money.
The agreement details PCSO’s responsibilities, including staffing, equipment maintenance, and backup solutions. Either party may terminate the contract with 30 days’ notice.
Police Chief Christopher updated the council on a quote for equipping a new police vehicle which came in at approximately $30,635, aligning with the 2025 budget. Christopher also informed council of Ohio House Bill 315, which outlines processes for fulfilling public records requests. The bill now allows police departments to charge $75 per hour, up to $750, for redaction efforts when videos are requested, with a 50% deposit requirement. Council members deliberated on whether to charge the maximum rate or determine costs based on officer wages. Sergeant Whan explained that the redaction process is extremely tedious, and most time requires days of work as each frame of video must be redacted (faces pixelated, audio of social security numbers silenced, etc.) and the video must be reviewed multiple times to ensure nothing was missed. Chief Christopher gave the example of a situation where footage was requested from body cameras, and the cruiser — three sources with multiple moving people that needed to be blurred frame by frame. As only the leadership of the Police department handles this process, Solicitor Mason and Fiscal Officer Love recommended just using the state’s $75 hourly rate to streamline the process and discourage frivolous requests.
Excerpt from Ohio House Bill 315: When considering whether a state or local law enforcement agency promptly prepared a video record for inspection or provided a video record for production within a reasonable period of time, in addition to any other factors, a court shall consider the time required for a state or local law enforcement agency to retrieve, download, review, redact, seek legal advice regarding, and produce the video record. Notwithstanding any other requirement set forth in Chapter 149. of the Revised Code, a state or local law enforcement agency may charge a requester the actual cost associated with preparing a video record for inspection or production, not to exceed seventy-five dollars per hour of video produced, nor seven hundred fifty dollars total.
As used in this division, “actual cost,” with respect to video records only, means all costs incurred by the state or local law enforcement agency in reviewing, blurring or otherwise obscuring, redacting, uploading, or producing the video records, including but not limited to the storage medium on which the record is produced, staff time, and any other relevant overhead necessary to comply with the request. A state or local law enforcement agency may include in its public records policy the requirement that a requester pay the estimated actual cost before beginning the process of preparing a video record for inspection or production. Where a state or local law enforcement agency imposes such a requirement, its obligation to produce a video or make it available for inspection begins once the estimated actual cost is paid in full by the requester. A state or local law enforcement agency shall provide the requester with the estimated actual cost within five business days of receipt of the public records request. If the actual cost exceeds the estimated actual cost, a state or local law enforcement agency may charge a requester for the difference upon fulfilling a request for video records if the requester is notified in advance that the actual cost may be up to twenty percent higher than the estimated actual cost. A state or local law enforcement agency shall not charge a requester a difference that exceeds twenty percent of the estimated actual cost.
Other roundtable topics included:
Mayor Patrick proposed a council dinner at The Mill on Jan. 15 or Jan. 29. Council decided on January 15 at 6:00pm — council and their guests will pay for their own meals/drinks.
Mayor Patrick shared he received positive feedback on the village’s Christmas decorations and the street department’s efforts with snow removal.
Richard Beatty thanked the police for assisting a seasonal UPS driver who had locked keys inside a delivery truck on Garfield Drive.
Jeff Kaiser inquired about improving sightlines on Brosius road and Center streets, particularly addressing safety concerns. Mayor Patrick will talk to the street department about getting a “dangerous intersection” sign installed on the village’s approach to the intersection. Converting it to a four-way stop was suggested, but the jurisdiction over the intersection is split between the village and Nelson township, so both entities would need to agree on any action. Moore noted the high number of reckless drivers that “hit at least 50 mph by the time they crest the hill” going into the intersection. Tara and Richard Beatty noted aggressive drivers along that stretch of road near Garfield Drive.
The next council meeting is scheduled for Feb. 12, 2025.
