By WARREN DILLAWAY - Staff Writer
ASHTABULA — City Council voted 4-2 Monday night against the annexation of Wade Avenue property, where a campus of elementary schools is being constructed.
Council members cited the need for a more specific agreement with Saybrook Township over maintenance of Wade Avenue.
The vote occurred during an extension of an Oct. 27 special meeting during which a memorandum of understanding concerning annexation was passed by council.
Four members of council attended the Oct. 27 meeting and voted unanimously to approve the memorandum of understanding relating to the Ashtabula Area City School Board’s application for annexation into the city.
Council President Rodger Altier called the Oct. 27 meeting and attended with council members August Pugliese, Julie Lattimer and James Trisket.
Altier was out of town on business Monday and City Manager Anthony Cantagallo was unable to attend because of an illness.
Altier, reached by telephone, said he was astounded that council voted against the annexation.
Altier said his first thought after hearing about the vote was: “I need a glass of wine. It was a tragic vote for the city. What they did was very tragic and (will) have long-ranging consequences. If I was the school board or the township, I wouldn’t deal with the city,” he said.
Lattimer and Trisket voted for the annexation, and Pugliese, Ericka Severino, Joseph Rose and Betty Kist opposed the resolution.
Severino and Pugliese expressed concerns that the language of the annexation was not clear on who would pay for the maintenance of Wade Avenue because the legal paperwork states that only half of the road would be annexed.
“I want to support (the annexation), but I do not agree with the language of the memorandum of understanding,” Severino said.
Severino was sick on Oct. 27 and asked for clarification on the details of the legal language and what extra costs the city might incur.
“Those were not answered (by e-mail),” she said.
Jim Schoren, assistant solicitor for the city, attempted to address the concerns of Severino and Pugliese, stating that it would be possible to deal with the road maintenance question after the annexation was approved but that it would probably be better to do so ahead of the annexation.
“It may be a better practice to do it that way (ahead of time), but it is not legally required,” Schoren said.
Lattimer said she believed that the wording of the resolution allowed for the issue to be addressed in negotiations after the fact because the city was only committing to annex half the road.
Pugliese expressed concern about potential extra costs to the city since negotiations with Saybrook Township were never put in writing. He said a cave-in of Wade Avenue, or another major road maintenance issue, could fall on the city.
Norman Jepson, chairman of the Saybrook Township Trustees, reached by phone later said he was unaware of the concern about the lack of a written agreement. He said the township’s offer was to share in general maintenance of Wade Avenue and plow the whole street.
Following the second negative vote relating to the annexation, Jepson said the board probably will have to discuss the issue before deciding on the next step.
“I’m willing to move ahead if we have something in writing with the township,” Severino said.
Trisket also questioned how funds that have been released to the township by the county, relating to road related projects, would be addressed if the property were no longer in the township. Schoren said that issue would have to be researched further.
