City Council

March 11, 2025 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fairmont was held at 7:00 p.m. on the 11th day of March, 2025, at the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street in Fairmont, West Virginia. Mayor Bolyard called the meeting to order. Roll call of members was taken by the City Clerk. Councilmembers present were: First District Joshua D. Rice Second District Anne E. Bolyard Third District Rebecca Moran Fourth District Anthony T. Horton Fifth District Charles “Chuck” Warner Sixth District Daniel “Dan” Weber Seventh District Julia “Julie” Sole Eighth District Bruce McDaniel Ninth District Kandice “Kandi” Nuzum Also present were: City Manager Travis L. Blosser City Clerk Janet L. Keller City Attorney Kevin V. Sansalone Communications Manager David A. Kirk Finance Director Priscilla A. Hamilton IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES Sean Moore of South Ridge Church gave the invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by Councilmember Horton. IN RE: PROCLAMATION PRESENTED Mayor Bolyard presented a proclamation to Retired Sgt. David Tucker in honor of the 106th Birthday of American Legion Post 17. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Bolyard noted that each member of Council had received a copy of the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on February 25, 2025. She asked if there were any corrections, deletions, or amendments. Councilmember Weber moved to approve the February 25, 2025 Regular Meeting 1 minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Nuzum. The Mayor declared the minutes approved as submitted by voice vote of Council. PUBLIC HEARING S IN RE: FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 GENERAL FUND BUDGET Pursuant to a notice duly published in the Times West Virginian on February 28, 2025 and March 7, 2025, a public hearing was convened to obtain citizen input on the 2025- 2026 City Budget. The Mayor asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor of the proposed budget. PRISCILLA HAMILTON , Director of Finance, spoke in favor of the budget. She thanked City Council, the City Manager, and Department Heads for all of the collaboration and hard work that they put into bringing this budget to fruition. As stated in the City Manager’s budget message, the property tax evaluations were received from the County on March 5th. The Ad Valorum revenue and the Contingency expense lines were adjusted to account for the increase of $62,376.00. She noted that number was calculated in higher than what we estimated our budget would be. This puts the fiscal year 2025-2026 budget at $22,661,340.00. The budget is due to the State by March 28th and Council’s approval tonight will let her meet that deadline. Mayor Bolyard asked if there was anyone present to speak against the budget. No one spoke against the budget. Discussion: Councilmember Moran said thank you to all of staff for preparing the budget. Councilmember Weber said that he went over the budget again this past weekend and he is concerned with the amount of money the City pays to Republic Services and the amount they charge for recycling. He said that he has a problem with the recycling. He explained that when it is time on the date for the recycling (he held up a calendar from Republic Services) of when they are supposed to be picking up the recycling. He said the last of February and first of March they missed again, twice, and he is concerned about how much we pay them for recycling and if they actually do recycle. The Mayor said that she understood his concerns, however, the City Manager has addressed them in his previous reports. Mr. Blosser said that the City is looking at putting out a new bid for services while that line pays for Republic Services that is essentially, if there would be another company selected that would be within the same line for them and specifically the concerns over recycling that is something that needs to be looked at when that new RFP is put out because of the 2 fact, based on the statistics, that he has seen provided to him by Republic Services is that we are seeing that out of entire residents population about a 20% utilization of that. Councilmember Weber asked if it is possible to bring a representative from Republic Services to a Council meeting so we can ask about these things. Mr. Blosser said that he can inquire with Republic Services of their schedule and whether or not a representative can attend a Council meeting. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was called to a close at 7:12 p.m. IN RE: AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE AND ADOPT CURRENT REPLACEMENT PAGES TO THE FAIRMONT CITY CODE Pursuant to a notice duly published in the Times-West Virginian on February 28, 2025, a public hearing was convened to obtain citizen input on an ordinance to approve and adopt current replacement pages to the Fairmont City Code. The Mayor asked if anyone present desired to speak to the proposed ordinance. There being no one to speak, the public hearing was called to a close at 7:13 p.m. IN RE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 2.0 DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT ’S CODIFIED PLANNING AND ZONING CODE AND MORE PARTICULARLY 2.2 INTENT TO DEFINE, REDEFINE, RELOCATE AND/OR COMBINE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS, NAMELY ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, BOARDING HOUSES, LODGING HOUSE AND CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES, DWELLING TYPE, FAMILY FUNCTIONAL AND FACTUAL EQUIVALENT, GROUP RESIDENTIAL HOME, HOUSEKEEPING UNIT, TOWNHOUSES, CONSUMER FIREWORKS, CONSUMER FIREWORKS RETAIL SALES ESTABLISHMENT, WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENT, AND WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENT CONSUMER FIREWORKS. Pursuant to a notice duly published in the Times-West Virginian on February 28, 2025, a public hearing was convened to obtain citizen input on an ordinance amending Article 2.0 Definitions of the Planning and Zoning Code to define or redefine certain definitions. The Mayor asked if anyone present desired to speak to the proposed ordinance. The City Manager said that this is one of a set that was forwarded to us by the Planning Commission based on the work that they had done and that we also discussed on February 11th at the work session. He said that he encouraged its passage. George Boyle, with Compassion Central Recovery House, stated that he understood recovery houses, Compassion Central is a recovery house for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and that they would fall under the category of boarding house. Currently 3 there is no space in the Code for recovery housing and he thought this was some of the fuel behind these changes. He went on to say that State Code, if you look at the definition of hotel, it says that a hotel is a boarding house. He said that recovery houses have nothing to do with boarding house and he was not concerned with the Code but he is concerned with the lack of language for recovery houses, recovery residence in the Code because it is left undefined and they will fall under the category, as per Shae Strait, of boarding houses, which they are not. He added that they are transient, our clients will be for a year to two years, they do not pay rent, they do pay a program fee, they share space. He did not know how to advise Council concerning this Code but this Code leaves them dangling out there as something that they are not. He said again that they do not qualify as a boarding house. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was called to a close at 7:17 p.m. IN RE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 3.0 ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY’S CODIFIED PLANNING AND ZONING CODE TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT THE USE CHART, TABLE 3-A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES, AS SET FORTH BELOW: 1. TO REFLECT CLARIFIED LANGUAGE REGARDING DETACHED DWELLING, ATTACHED DWELLING (SINGLE-FAMILY DUPLEX), ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE DWELLING, BOARDING HOUSES, LODGING HOUSES, AND CONGREGATE FACILITIES; 2. TO REFLECT CERTAIN STYLISTIC CHANGES FROM CHILD CARE HOME, CHILD CARE FACILITY, AND CHILD CARE CENTER TO DAY CARE HOME, DAY CARE FACILITY, AND DAY CARE CENTER; AND 3. TO ADD CONSUMER FIREWORKS RETAIL SALE ESTABLISHMENT, WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENT, AND WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENT, CONSUMER FIRE WORKS. Pursuant to a notice duly published in the Times-West Virginian on February 28, 2025, a public hearing was convened to obtain citizen input on an ordinance amending Article 3.0 Zoning Districts of the Planning and Zoning Code to supplement the Use Chart. The Mayor asked if anyone present desired to speak to the proposed ordinance. The City Manager said that this is one of a set that you will see before you that was forwarded to us by the Planning Commission based on the work that they had done and that we also discussed on February 11th at the work session. He said that he encouraged its passage. He mentioned that back on August 13, 2024, Council adopted several changes related to child care centers based upon our forthcoming projects and a change did not get made into that was changing basically three different words within the section so this is a stylistic change to correct that and to incorporate the overall changes that Council made on August 13, 2024. Councilmember Horton said that he is not in agreement with changing child care facility 4 definition. He said if it is not broken, you should not fix it. He said that his daughter runs a day care center and that is the name of the service that she provides, a day care center, and he did not think the name should be changed. Mayor Bolyard said that is what we are changing it to, from a child care to day care and it will not affect anybody’s business title and the way they can conduct their business. This will not affect the title. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was called to a close at 7:20 p.m. IN RE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 3.4 NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL (NR) OF THE CITY’S CODIFIED PLANNING AND ZONING CODE TO PROVIDE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS AND TOWNHOUSE PARKING IN SAID DISTRICT. Pursuant to a notice duly published in the Times-West Virginian on February 28, 2025, a public hearing was convened to obtain citizen input on an ordinance amending Article 3.4 Neighborhood Residential of the Planning and Zoning Code to provide for supplemental regulations with regard to pedestrian pathways and townhouse parking. The Mayor asked if anyone present desired to speak to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Blosser said again that the Planning Commission forwarded these changes and ultimately Council had a work session on February 11th regarding those. He said, on behalf of staff, he encouraged its passage. He added that there are several different developments and these changes would help with facilitating those. Councilmember Moran said that, on behalf of the Planning Commission, she said that during the meeting this was discussed at length and they got to a really good point that is going to meet the needs of the existing community and (inaudible, could not be heard). There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was called to a close at 7:22 p.m. IN RE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 4.0 USE STANDARDS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY’S CODIFIED PLANNING AND ZONING AND MORE PARTICULARLY SECTION 4.18 FAMILY FUNCTIONAL AND FACTUAL EQUIVALENT AND 4.35 TEMPORARY USES TO ESTABLISH AND/OR MODIFY THE USE STANDARDS RELATING THERETO. Pursuant to a notice duly published in the Times-West Virginian on February 28, 2025, a public hearing was convened to obtain citizen input on an ordinance amending Article 4.0 Use Standards of the Planning and Zoning Code and more particularly Section 4.18 Family Functional and Factual Equivalent and Section 4.35 Temporary Uses to establish and/or modify the Use Standards relating thereto. 5 The Mayor asked if anyone present desired to speak to the proposed ordinance. The City Manager said the Planning Commission forwarded this these items to Council based on their work and Council had a work session on February 11th and he is speaking to encourage the passage. George Boyle, Compassion Central, spoke against the proposed ordinance. He said that the Fair Housing Act protects people with handicaps. The term handicap is defined broadly and includes those individuals with physical or mental impairments which substantially limit one or more of their major life activities. Persons who are recovering from substance abuse are also considered to have a disability under the FHA. The FHA prohibits a broad range of discriminatory activities, for example, under the Act, it is unlawful to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The legislative history of the FHA makes plain that Congress sought to prohibit the application of state and local zoning and land use laws when they limit access to housing for people with disabilities. While the Act prohibits intentional discrimination, it also prohibits zoning laws which, although neutral on their race, have a discriminatory effect on persons with disabilities and requires municipal officials to reasonably accommodate the needs of these individuals. One type of zoning law that often has been held to be discriminatory on people with disabilities is a definition of the term “family” that allows any number of related persons to live together but limits the number of unrelated persons who may live together. Although such laws apply to groups of unrelated, non-disabled persons, such as college students, nuns, etc., such laws may be deemed to have a discriminatory impact on persons with disabilities because usually such individuals need to live in group settings for both programmatic and financial reasons. Mr. Boyle went on to say that cities need to provide reasonable accommodations to such individuals. Failure for zoning officials to allow for reasonable accommodations in policies allow persons with disabilities to live in communities will violate FHA regulations whether the official act of has official intent or not. The failure to provide reasonable accommodations is an independent form of discrimination under FHA. The reasonable accommodation requirement of the Act mandates the officials change, waive, or make exceptions in zoning rules to afford people with disabilities the same opportunity of housing to those without disabilities. Until 1995, many municipalities defended FHA challenges to the limited number of unrelated persons who may live together by arguing that such restrictions were exempt from the FHA because they constituted maximum occupancy limitations. In 1995, the Supreme Court settled the dispute and definitively ruled that such zoning ordinances were not exempt from the FHA’s search and reach. Therefore, individuals in a recovery house are living as a functional family in a single-family dwelling. They are not a group home, a boarding house, or any other type of commercial property. They are a family according to the FHA and the ADA and need accommodations accordingly. Mr. Boyle went on to say that there is a bad taste in the City of Fairmont from the former Oxford House that did not go well here. He appreciated that bad taste but they are being defined as something they are not and there is danger of discrimination even though it is not the City’s intent. He said that he would like to have further conversation and would 6 like for Council to afford that accommodation and he knows that comes after today. The City needs to re-examine what it means to open a recovery house and change the drug cultural that is in Fairmont and seek change in dealing a life instead of death, sadness, and despair. He stated that they are not here to be adversarial, they want to see Fairmont change for the better. They want to follow the FHA and ADA guidelines. Councilmember Horton asked if he was saying that the service they provide is covered under the American Disabilities Act. Mr. Boyle replied yes, correct. He said that substance abuse disorder is a covered disability. Councilmember Weber asked Mr. Boyle if he would consider non-English speakers under the Disability Act. Mr. Boyle said that he cannot speak to that, he does not have enough expertise in that area. Jerry Dooley , assistant professor of counseling at Marshall University, spoke against the proposed ordinance. He said that he lost an older brother to alcohol addiction. He said that substance abuse disorder, disability, functional family, reasonable accommodations and single-family. He asked Council not to adopt this ordinance and lead rather than follow. He said according to the American Society of Addiction Medicine, this is a treatable addiction, addiction is treatable and zoning is the foundation not code and we work with zoning and move forward when it comes to recovery houses. When we look at recovery itself through the substance or recover authority, we see the functional family though support peers, through relationships, and through culturally based influenced relationships that happen in the house. That is the definition of a functional family. It involves individual family and community strengths and responsibility, functional family. That is why it is covered under the Americans Disabilities Act. It is a disability and they can assemble to work on recovery as a family and are not limited to four persons or less. He said that they are asking for a reasonable accommodation because they are not a boarding house. A reasonable accommodation is an exception and an adjustment to rule, policy, or practice. He said that they do not care what Buffalo, NY or Morgantown, WV or other municipalities do. What he cares is that West Virginia, sadly, has led in the toll taken by substance use disorder across the nation per capita. He closed by saying do something and not follow Buffalo, NY or Morgantown, WV and to stand up for what is right and accept reasonable accommodations. He asked Council to put rubber where it meets the road and do something. Jim Davis, 1128 South Park Drive, stated that he works in the school system in the Alternative Learning Center. He works with at-risk students in the specialty of students with special needs. In that capacity, he gets to deal with families. They have a need to belong and one of the reasons people go into addictions is because they do not feel they belong. The addiction takes over and you do things that you would never do and usually this happens in the teenage years while they are developing. They never have the opportunity to pursue things, like how do you get a drivers license, how do you deal with 7 anything along those lines, where is your I.D., where is your birth certificate but yet all of those things are needed in order to function in the world. The best solution according to the Marguette Benefits and social welfare review is simply it is best to have an environment single-family dwelling with 8 to 12 residents in that dwelling. He noted that this has shown the best results and the best outcome to correct the addiction. They are looking for a single-family dwelling unit and we adhere to two years to assist them and as the people come, they will help each other. He then asked Council to not limit the most effective means for recovery by allowing only four people. Kathy Boyle, stated that she cares deeply for people. She said that they are asking the recovery housing be allowed to remain or be identified as a single-family dwelling, a house and not be zoned as a boarding house or anything else, just single-family dwelling without the limit of four unrelated people. They have a house located at 114 Walnut Avenue that is being renovated and ready to open. It is zoned for four unrelated people as a single- family dwelling. If they would put in a pastor and his four, five, six children, they would be allowed to live there, that is a family, however, they are not allowed to put a functional family above four in that space. The best outcomes are to put between eight and twelve people in a house. She said for that location, they are asking to put eight in there and maybe one more with a house manager. They plan to be WV Recovery Alliance certified and they plan to abide and do this well. She went on to say that when you put eight men in a house, they are in various states of recovery. If you just put four, maybe they are all at the beginning and maybe they are not as helpful to each other. That number allows people to be at various stages in their recovery and this allows them to do the support together. They are asking that Council figure out how to do this whether it is changing the zoning laws, whether it allows us the accommodation, whatever, they are here to try to make Fairmont a better place and be part of the solution and not to be part of the problem. They are asking Council to see no difference in a regular family and in this family and remove the limit. David Eats, a resident of Fairmont, stated that he is a recovering alcoholic, a couple times. He said that he is familiar with zoning and understands on paper that is what we are talking about tonight. He said that he knows our history and struggles with addiction and what this organization is talking about is an opportunity for hope, healing, and help. He asked Council to give all of Fairmont an opportunity to thrive. He asked Council to consider this and remember the family members and friends that they may know. Councilmember Sole stated that Council spent a lot of time at the work session reviewing the changes as well as the Planning Commission. She said that she walked away after reading this that we did a pretty good job of redefining things in a way that will still allow recovery housing. There is still opportunity there for recovery housing if it were to be under the lodging or under the congregate living facility. She said that we are not determining that we do not want sober living housing in the City of Fairmont, rather, that it might fit with our zoning and fire codes better in other categories than what it is. She understood their need and desire to be under single-family dwelling unit, but she truly believes there is room in what Planning has come up with, with the definitions, that there is still an avenue for them to accomplish the sober living but within the definitions that we have. She asked the group in attendance if they were a licensed behavioral health 8 provider, could you then classify under the group residential facility. She then asked them if they feel like there is no opportunity for them to provide sober living under the lodging or the congregate living guidelines that are set forth. George Boyle, responded by saying there are opportunities but they are more restrictive and prohibitive and do not define who they are and what they are doing. In State Code, if you look up the definition of recovery houses it begins with words a single-family dwelling. He said again, it is a single-family dwelling and the State Code says it is a single-family dwelling; however, Shae Strait says that is not what they meant when they wrote that, but that is what is written. He said that changes a lot of things for them in the cost of the building. When he was working on the fire suppression plan, which Scott Jolliff told him that he would need, and when he got to the end, his architect got a meeting with the State Fire Marshall that said he had no jurisdiction here because recovery houses are single-family dwellings. He said after this, he thought they were done. They then said that you can be a single-family dwelling but you cannot have more than four unrelated people in the house. He went on to say that has been their journey and he is not trying to avoid but he does not want to spend money he does not have to. He noted that it keeps mounting and keeps changing and he keeps fighting this battle. Kathy Boyle, spoke again and said they are providing a housing opportunity that has a program inside of it. They are not health care providers, they are not a mental health service, they are a group that is providing a safe, drug-free, substance-free place for people to live, a house, where a program is also happening. Once you step off that single-family dwelling, there are other restrictions that are required. It is simply a house where they can live with enough space to function and live together where there is also some programming that is done to keep them on the straight and narrow but they are peer supporting each other. Councilmember Sole said that person in recovery would not know when they stepped on to Walnut Avenue that was a boarding house. They would be moving into housing and they would be in a congregate living. She asked if we can accomplish it just because we are defining under boarding or congregate living. That person in recovery does not know that. They are still living in a unit together. That is what she is trying to define, can it be accomplished because they do not know what the zoning is? Ms. Boyle replied it is our program and our place. The people would not know but it is not doable right now financially and it is not sustainable to be able to open these homes under that model if they have to change it. We are also talking about financial; we are also talking about sustainability. It changes the dynamic and does need to happen that way. The Mayor said that we understand change but just to educate everyone, we had the work session with the ordinance that we would be voting on later. Councilmember Moran stated that she appreciated Councilmember Sole’s points but we have a preconceived notion of what a boarding house looks like, it looks like a hotel. However, the reality is that they can look like a home and she feels like this code, where our code stands now, she does not feel it has pass forward, not just for Compassion 9 Central, but for any other recovery organization that would want to open. She said that the code is never perfect and there has to be a compromise. Councilmember Warner stated that he sees a lot of gray area and there is a lack of definition. It should either be yes or no. Councilmember Rice stated that he sees where they are coming from. He knows what it is like to be in a home like that and you are a family. They may be from different families but they come there to continue life and learn how to get back what you failed like work ethic and you have to be a family and work off each other. Councilmember Weber asked about the possibility of tabling the ordinance for more work and more information. Mr. Blosser said yes, you would be able to table the ordinance and come back and have additional dialogue but the ordinance that has been presented would not be up for amendment. He said that you would have to vote it down. City Attorney Kevin Sansalone pointed out other items in the ordinance related to consumer fireworks, wholesale establishments and townhouses were part of the same ordinance and tabling it would scrap those changes as well. They are all co-dependent on each other. All of the items fall under the confines of the same ordinance. He said all of the other items that the Planning Commission dealt with at the same time are in the confines with that particular ordinance. He explained that if Council tables the one and pass all of the others, it is not . . . Councilmember Weber asked if he was suggesting Council vote down the ordinance and ... The Mayor replied no. Mr. Sansalone said that his suggestion would be that this ordinance was done through the Planning Commissions to accommodate the suggestions that Mr. Boyle had previously made at Council when his use was precluded. It was to allow or to accommodate the use that they were suggesting. He said his position would be that you pass all of these ordinances, and if at some point in the future they need to be tweaked, they can be tweaked and present another ordinance. He said that this particular ordinance was to eliminate what a household unit was because before it was three unrelated persons and four at max and in some instances two. It was to accommodate this use in particular as a result of their concerns on prior occasions. It has been through Planning and Planning had a work session on it and recommended it. His suggestion would be to adopt all of them and if the one definition needs to be tweaked, then to tweak it later so that their use, if precluded, can be accommodated to the extent that it can be. He told Council to understand that there were fire issues and there were separate and unrelated issues to zoning that existed at the location that Mr. Boyle mentioned so it was not just the fact that it was this ordinance. He then said that he would ask Council to 10 adopt all of them, too much work has gone into this to recommit it to the Planning Commission and then if we have to tweak it later. The Mayor noted that it is an ongoing conversation. Mr. Sansalone said that passing the ordinance creates a pathway that will eventually lead to the type of ordinance the Boyles see. Without having the language available on paper, there would be nothing to refer back to and the City would be back at square one. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was called to a close at 8:12 p.m. IN RE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 5.0 SITE STANDARDS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY’S CODIFIED PLANNING AND ZONING CODE AND MORE PARTICULARLY SECTION 5.4.E PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY USE TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR DETACHED DWELLING, ATTACHED DWELLINGS (SINGLE-FAMILY DUPLEX) ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE DWELLINGS, AND BOARDING HOUSES, LODGING HOUSE AND CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES. Pursuant to a notice duly published in the Times-West Virginian on February 28, 2025, a public hearing was convened to obtain citizen input on an ordinance amending Article 5.0 Site Standards of the Planning and Zoning Code and more particularly 5.4.E Parking Requirements by Use to provide for minimum parking requirements for detached dwelling, attached dwellings, attached townhouse dwellings, boarding houses, lodging houses and congregate living facilities. The Mayor asked if anyone present desired to speak to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Blosser said that this is ordinance was forwarded to Council by the Planning Commission and a work session was held on February 11th. He said that he encouraged its passage. There being no one else to speak, the public hearing was called to a close at 8:13 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS IN RE: ARTS AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION AWARD CEREMONY Councilmember Moran announced that the Arts and Humanities Commission will presenting their annual awards on April 13th at 2:00 p.m. at Central Christian Church. IN RE: CONGRATULATIONS TO FSU MEN ’S AND WOMEN ’S BASKETBALL Councilmember Sole extended congratulations to Fairmont State University’s men’s and women’s basketball team for winning the MEC tournament. It was the first time since 1984 that both the men’s and women’s team have won the MEC tournament. 11 Mayor Bolyard also extended congratulations to the MEC Champions. IN RE: OPERATION SPRING CLEANING Councilmember Nuzum said thank you to the Police Department for the drug bust that we had last week. The Mayor extended her deepest appreciation for Operation Spring Cleaning. It was a collaborative effort and each one on the Fairmont Police Department as well as the Three Rivers Drug Task Force should be commended. IN RE: BETTER HOPE BRUNCH Councilmember Nuzum reminded everyone of the Better Hope Brunch on Saturday, April 12th at 10:00 a.m. at the Whitehall Event Center. CITIZENS PETITIONS There were no citizens petitions for this meeting. CITY MANAGER ’S REPORT Mr. Blosser reported the following:  He extended his appreciation to the Police Department for Spring Cleaning.  The new police officer written exam will be held on April 23rd.  Thanked the WV DOH and Mr. Gaskins, District Manager, for making the streets in Fairmont a priority for patching. He said that he felt comfortable that the DOH has moved the East Side paving into FY26 from FY27. He mentioned that the downtown streets will be paved this summer.  This Council meeting will be adjourned to April 15th at 4:30 p.m. to Lay the Levy Rates. It will be a two-minute meeting and we will need a quorum to attend. CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL BUSINESS IN RE: ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE AND ADOPT CURRENT REPLACEMENT PAGES TO THE FAIRMONT CITY CODE The City Clerk read the proposed ordinance by title. Mayor Bolyard entertained a motion for the adoption of an ordinance providing to approve and adopt current replacement pages to the Fairmont City Code. Motion: 12 Councilmember Weber moved for the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Sole seconded the motion. Roll call was taken by the Clerk. The Mayor declared the ordinance adopted by unanimous vote of Council and the ordinance designated as Ordinance No. 2064 was duly adopted. IN RE: ADOPTION , AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 2.0 DEFINITIONS AND MEASUREMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT ’S CODIFIED PLANNING AND ZONING CODE AND MORE PARTICULARLY 2.2 INTENT TO DEFINE, REDEFINE, RELOCATE AND/OR COMBINE CERTAIN DEFINITIONS, NAMELY ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, BOARDING HOUSES, LODGING HOUSE AND CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES, DWELLING TYPE, FAMILY FUNCTIONAL AND FACTUAL EQUIVALENT, GROUP RESIDENTIAL HOME, HOUSEKEEPING UNIT, TOWNHOUSES, CONSUMER FIREWORKS, CONSUMER FIREWORKS RETAIL SALES ESTABLISHMENT, WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENT, AND WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENT CONSUMER FIREWORKS. The City Clerk read the proposed ordinance by title. Mayor Bolyard entertained a motion for the adoption of an ordinance amending Article 2.0 Definitions of the Planning and Zoning Code to define or redefine certain definitions. Motion: Councilmember McDaniel moved for the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Weber seconded the motion. Roll call was taken by the Clerk. The Mayor declared the ordinance adopted by unanimous vote of Council and the ordinance designated as Ordinance No. 2065 was duly adopted. IN RE: ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 3.0 ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY’S CODIFIED PLANNING AND ZONING CODE TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT THE USE CHART, TABLE 3-A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES, AS SET FORTH BELOW: 1. TO REFLECT CLARIFIED LANGUAGE REGARDING DETACHED DWELLING, ATTACHED DWELLING (SINGLE-FAMILY DUPLEX), ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE DWELLING, BOARDING HOUSES, LODGING HOUSES, AND CONGREGATE FACILITIES; 13  2. TO REFLECT CERTAIN STYLISTIC CHANGES FROM CHILD CARE HOME, CHILD CARE FACILITY, AND CHILD CARE CENTER TO DAY CARE HOME, DAY CARE FACILITY, AND DAY CARE CENTER; AND 3. TO ADD CONSUMER FIREWORKS RETAIL SALE ESTABLISHMENT, WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENT, AND WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENT, CONSUMER FIRE WORKS. The City Clerk read the proposed ordinance by title. Mayor Bolyard entertained a motion for the adoption of an ordinance amending Article 3.0 Zoning Districts of the Planning and Zoning Code to supplement the Use Chart. Motion: Councilmember Weber moved for the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Sole seconded the motion. Roll call was taken by the Clerk. The Mayor declared the ordinance adopted by unanimous vote of Council and the ordinance designated as Ordinance No. 2066 was duly adopted. IN RE: ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 3.4 NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL (NR) OF THE CITY’S CODIFIED PLANNING AND ZONING CODE TO PROVIDE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS AND TOWNHOUSE PARKING IN SAID DISTRICT. The City Clerk read the proposed ordinance by title. Mayor Bolyard entertained a motion for the adoption of an ordinance amending Article 3.4 Neighborhood Residential of the Planning and Zoning Code to provide for supplemental regulations with regard to pedestrian pathways and townhouse parking. Motion: Councilmember Weber moved for the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Sole seconded the motion. Roll call was taken by the Clerk. The Mayor declared the ordinance adopted by unanimous vote of Council and the ordinance designated as Ordinance No. 2067 was duly adopted. IN RE: ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 4.0 USE STANDARDS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY’S CODIFIED PLANNING AND ZONING AND 14 MORE PARTICULARLY SECTION 4.18 FAMILY FUNCTIONAL AND FACTUAL EQUIVALENT AND 4.35 TEMPORARY USES TO ESTABLISH AND/OR MODIFY THE USE STANDARDS RELATING THERETO. The City Clerk read the proposed ordinance by title. Mayor Bolyard entertained a motion for the adoption of an ordinance amending Article 4.0 Use Standards of the Planning and Zoning Code and more particularly Section 4.18 Family Functional and Factual Equivalent and Section 4.35 Temporary Uses to establish and/or modify the Use Standards relating thereto. Motion: Councilmember Nuzum moved for the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Moran seconded the motion. Roll call was taken by the Clerk. The Mayor declared the ordinance adopted by unanimous vote of Council and the ordinance designated as Ordinance No. 2068 was duly adopted. IN RE: ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 5.0 SITE STANDARDS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY’S CODIFIED PLANNING AND ZONING CODE AND MORE PARTICULARLY SECTION 5.4.E PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY USE TO PROVIDE FOR MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR DETACHED DWELLING, ATTACHED DWELLINGS (SINGLE-FAMILY DUPLEX) ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE DWELLINGS, AND BOARDING HOUSES, LODGING HOUSE AND CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES. The City Clerk read the proposed ordinance by title. Mayor Bolyard entertained a motion for the adoption of an ordinance amending Article 5.0 Site Standards of the Planning and Zoning Code and more particularly 5.4.E Parking Requirements by Use to provide for minimum parking requirements for detached dwelling, attached dwellings, attached townhouse dwellings, boarding houses, lodging houses and congregate living facilities. Motion: Councilmember Warner moved for the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Moran seconded the motion. Discussion: Councilmember McDaniel stated that he was going to vote for this ordinance, however, he would expect or at least ask the Planning Commission and the City Planner to work 15 this out to where their uses can be accommodated and where this thing works for everybody. Roll call was taken by the Clerk. The Mayor declared the ordinance adopted by unanimous vote of Council and the ordinance designated as Ordinance No. 2069 was duly adopted. IN RE: INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING SET PUBLIC HEARING, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ARTICLE 131 POLICE DEPARTMENT OF CHAPTER FIVE OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENTS OF PART ONE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF THE FAIRMONT CITY CODE, AND MORE PARTICULARLY SECTION 131.01 ORGANIZATION, PERSONNEL AND PURPOSES THEREOF, TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF THE POSITION OF DEPUTY POLICE CHIEF. The City Clerk read the proposed ordinance by synopsis for the first time. Mayor Bolyard entertained a motion for the introduction of an ordinance to provide for the creation of the position of Deputy Police Chief. Motion: Councilmember McDaniel moved for the introduction of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Warner seconded the motion. The Mayor declared the public hearing set for March 25, 2025. IN RE: INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING, SET PUBLIC HEARING, AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRMONT AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING ORDINANCE NO. 2050 DULY ADOPTED AUGUST 27, 2024, WHICH ORDINANCE PROVIDES FOR THE CITY OF FAIRMONT ’S CURRENT PAY PLAN AND LIST OF OCCUPATIONAL CLASSES FOR ALL CLASS TITLES AND EMPLOYEES, AMONG OTHERS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE FOLLOWING: 1. INCREASING THE BASE PAY FOR ALL CLASS PAY GRADES AND CLASS PAY TITLES BY 4% WITH LIMITED EXCEPTIONS; 2. CREATING CERTAIN NEW POSITIONS, ELIMINATING CERTAIN OBSOLETE POSITIONS, AND MAKING CERTAIN STYLISTIC CHANGES; AND 3. PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN INCREASES TO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE PAY PLAN. The City Clerk read the proposed ordinance by synopsis for the first time. 16 Mayor Bolyard entertained a motion for the introduction of an ordinance which provides for the City of Fairmont’s current Pay Plan and List of Occupational Classes for all class titles and employees. Motion: Councilmember Weber moved for the introduction of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember McDaniel seconded the motion. The Mayor declared the public hearing set for March 25, 2025. IN RE: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF FAIRMONT ’S FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 CITY BUDGETS: GENERAL FUND AND COAL SEVERANCE. The City Clerk read the proposed resolution by synopsis for the first time. Mayor Bolyard entertained a motion for the adoption of a resolution to approve the 2025- 2026 Budget for the City of Fairmont. Motion: Councilmember Sole moved for the adoption of the proposed resolution. Councilmember Warner seconded the motion. Roll call was taken by the Clerk. The Mayor declared the resolution adopted by unanimous vote of Council. ADJOURNMENT The Mayor entertained a motion for adjournment Motion: Councilmember McDaniel moved at 8:35 p.m. to adjourn this meeting to Tuesday, April 15, 2025, at 4:30 p.m. in order to approve the Levy Rates. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Horton. The Mayor declared this meeting adjourned until 4:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 15, 2025 by unanimous vote of Council. 17