Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Natural Gas Aggregation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eastlake council votes no on opt-in natural gas aggregation program under Section 4929.2781
Summary
The Eastlake City Council voted against adopting an opt-in natural gas aggregation program governed by Section 4929.2781; staff said the city's aggregation plan of operation and governance will be revised to add an app and new provisions to give residents more flexibility.
The Eastlake City Council voted against adopting an opt-in natural gas aggregation program pursuant to Section 4929.2781 of state code during its meeting. Multiple council members recorded “no” votes on the proposal.
Staff told the council that when it adopted the aggregation program it also adopted a plan of operation and governance and that the city intends to revise that plan “to include the app and provision to give your resident more flexibility,” according to a staff presentation during the discussion. Staff also reported a reimbursable grant/branch from the state of Ohio intended to cover work on roughly 500 houses and said the city needs to begin advancing funds to complete the project.
The vote on the opt-in natural gas program drew several explicit “no” votes as recorded in the meeting transcript. Council member Cummings said “No,” Council member Gulley said “No,” Council member Mitch Schneck said “No,” and Council member Smith said “No.” The meeting record indicates the legislation is not active following the vote.
Council discussion included procedural and paperwork details: staff noted paperwork had been signed in November and a check was received on Nov. 23; staff also discussed adjustments needed to forms showing a $4,000 payment in order for an individual to claim taxes on that amount. Those administrative details were raised during the broader conversation about aggregation and program administration but did not change the recorded vote.
The council did not record a mover or seconder for the motion in the available transcript and did not provide a complete roll-call tally in the excerpt. The transcript indicates multiple council members voted “no,” and an official present said the legislation is not active after the vote.
The matter may return to the council if staff completes the proposed revisions to the plan of operation and governance or if a new motion is introduced.
