PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL

TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2005

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

 

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

7:30 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND INVOCATION. Council for the City of Pickerington met for a regular session Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at City Hall.  Mayor Shaver called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.  Roll call was taken as follows:  Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Riggs, and Mayor Shaver were present. Mr. Wisniewski was absent.  Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chief Mike Taylor, Phil Hartmann, Ed Drobina, Jennifer Frommer, Patti Wigington, Kirk Richards, Mike Maurer, Christie Hammond, John Hammond, Jack Sower, Pastor Cuenin, Tamaria Kulemeka, and others.  Pastor Cuenin delivered the invocation.   

 

2.         A.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2005, WORK SESSION.  Mr. Parker moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Parker, Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. O’Brien, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

B.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 2005, SPECIAL MEETING.  Mr. Parker moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

C.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 7, 2005, REGULAR MEETING.  Mr. Parker moved to approve; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Parker, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0. 

 

3.         APPROVAL OF AGENDA.  Mr. Parker moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

4.         COMMUNITY COMMENTS:   There were no community comments. 

 

5.         APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA:  Mayor Shaver stated there was one consent agenda item this evening, Resolution 2005-12R, A Resolution to Appoint Kevin Snyder to the Utility Fees Review Committee.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

6.         COMMITTEE REPORTS: 

 

            A.        SERVICE COMMITTEE.  Mr. Hackworth stated Service Committee met June 9th, and several issues from that meeting are on tonight’s agenda.  He stated these items include the legislation for the water softening salt contract, the payment to residents for damages from the December sewage back up, and some land takes the law director will brief on.  He stated further prior to the Service Committee meeting there was a work session regarding the 208 Plan, which is a plan that divides the area into sewer districts, and he hoped that would be before Council soon.  Mr. Hackworth stated the Mayor and City Manager are working on the water issue with Canal Winchester, and he felt this would be a very complicated issue.  Mr. Hackworth stated he has seen comments in the paper stating it is a matter of the City signing over permission to Canal Winchester, and from a Service standpoint he felt we needed to be very careful so that we do not leave our city without water or put ourselves in a position where we could jeopardize water service to our own area.  Mr. Hackworth stated he is willing to help Canal Winchester, however, there are a lot of issues involved and he felt these needed to be addressed before we agree to anything. 

 

            B.         FINANCE COMMITTEE.  Mrs. Riggs stated Finance Committee met on June 16th, and there are seven items on tonight’s agenda from that meeting, most of which are note renewals.  She stated further a new Debt Policy for the City is on the agenda. 

 

7.         REPORTS:

 

A.        MAYOR.  Mayor Shaver stated he is having continuing discussion with the Mayor of Canal Winchester regarding the water issue and we have made our position clear.  Mayor Shaver administered the Oath of Office to Christie Hammond on being appointed to the Parks and Recreation Board. 

 

B.         LAW DIRECTOR.  Mr. Hartmann stated with regard to Ordinance 2005-54, this is part of the Diley Road Phase III project we have been working on.  He stated we are currently on Mr. McAuliffe’s property as a result of a written right-of-entry that is about to expire.  He stated this property was originally part of the rezoning for Drug Mart and Giltz was in contract to purchase it but failed to follow through with the contract, and as a result, the City was not receiving this property as a dedication from Giltz.  He stated tonight he was asking Council to pass this legislation to allow the project to continue to move forward, and this legislation will authorize the law director to file an eminent domain action, if necessary, based on the appraised value.  He stated he has also included emergency language in the ordinance.  Mr. Hartmann stated further with regard to Ordinance 2005-61, this legislation will authorize an addendum to the 316-acre annexation agreement.  He stated there have been continuing negotiations with the Township over one paragraph relating to buffering part of this area if it is in fact annexed to the City.  Mr. Hartmann continued the language provided would replace a paragraph that was previously passed.  Mr. Parker ascertained we have filed two eminent domain actions right now.  Mr. Hartmann stated the right-of-entry on the McAuliffe property is due to expire and if this legislation is not passed as an emergency, the project will stop on that property.  Ms Gilleland stated we are continuing negotiations, but we want to ensure we do not incur additional late charges from the contractor.  Mr. Parker inquired if there will be any more eminent domain actions coming in the future, and Mr. Hartmann stated this one was not known as we were still under the impression from Giltz that they would be closing on the property and we would be receiving it as a dedication.  Mr. Hartmann stated with respect to any others, we do have outstanding one right-of-entry and the only issue there is dealing with access, and he anticipates that being worked out.  Mr. Parker inquired if there was a list of all of these actions and their status, and Mr. Hartmann stated he could provide that to the City Manager for Council.  

 

C.        FINANCE DIRECTOR.  Mrs. Fersch stated she has several items on tonight’s agenda.  She stated the first item is our new debt policy, and we are currently doing several of these items, this policy just sets it out and also addresses the TIF issues.  Mrs. Fersch stated we have also put something in the policy regarding our millage level, and our debt ratings.  Mrs. Fersch stated she also had several TIF note renewals and she had distributed the history of these TIF issues for Council.  Mrs. Fersch stated the final note renewal was for the original borrowing for the engineering for the police station.  Mrs. Fersch stated she would be happy to answer any questions.   

   

D.        MANAGER.  Ms Gilleland stated her report had been distributed and she would be happy to answer any questions.  Ms Gilleland stated she would also like to remind everyone that we will have our Fourth of July celebration on Monday, July 4th. 

 

E.         SERVICE DIRECTOR.  Mr. Drobina stated the ordinance for the water softening salt is on tonight’s agenda.  He stated he would like to ask Council for three readings this evening if possible. 

 

8.         PROCEDURAL READINGS:

 

A.        ORDINANCE 2005-52, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH CARGILL SALT FOR SOFTENING SALT FOR THE CITY’S WATER TREATMENT PLANT,” First Reading, O’Brien.  Mr. O’Brien moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.  Mr. Sabatino moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Suspension of Rules passed, 6-0.  Second Reading.  Mr. O’Brien moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.  Third Reading.  Mr. O’Brien moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

            B.         ORDINANCE 2005-53, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO OFFER PAYMENT OF APPRAISED VALUE FOR DAMAGES TO PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE DECEMBER 22, 2004, WINTER STORM EVENT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY,” First Reading, O’Brien.  Mr. O’Brien moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-0.  Mr. O’Brien moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.”  Suspension of Rules failed, 5-0.   

 

            C.        ORDINANCE 2005-54, “AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST CONSISTING OF A COMBINED 0.911 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FROM DON McAULIFFE, IN PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF DILEY ROAD, CITY OF PICKERINGTON, COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD, STATE OF OHIO, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY” First Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated this is the property Mr. Hartmann had briefed on.  Mr. Sabatino stated as he understood it, we had been negotiating this with a different party and now we need to negotiate with this person.  Mr. Hartmann stated three or four days prior to the April 15th start date, we found out Giltz had yet to close on the property.  He stated we than began negotiations with the property owner and we currently have a written right-of-entry that is due to expire.  He stated we are continuing our negotiations, but this would give him the authority to file the action to keep the project moving with respect to that property.  Mr. Sabatino stated, then, since April we have been negotiating with the property owner or his representatives who have his power of attorney.  Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct and there is also a local attorney who represents the property owner.  Mr. Hackworth clarified we will attempt to extend the right-of-entry, however, this legislation was put on in case there was a problem.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright abstaining, Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-1.  Mr. Hackworth moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mr. Parker, Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. O’Brien, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Suspension of Rules failed, 5-1.  

 

            D.        ORDINANCE 2005-55, “AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING NEW DEBT POLICY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON’S DEBT PROGRAM,” First Reading, Riggs.   Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mrs. Riggs stated this is a new debt policy for the City.  She stated that even though most of the items in the policy are ones that we are currently doing, we just put it all in writing.  Mr. Parker ascertained this policy was put together by our financial advisor, and he coordinated with best debt policies, other communities, and our bond counsel.  Mr. Parker stated the policy stated the City will seek approval from the County prior to issuing general obligation debt for emergency situations, and if they said no, what would happen.  Mrs. Fersch stated it would all depend on several things that were happening and if it were a legitimate emergency.  Mrs. Fersch stated we have never borrowed for an emergency, only for capital improvement projects.  Mr. Parker stated further the policy, in debt repayment, states alternative structures shall be subject to approval by the City Manager before being recommended to City Council.  He inquired if this was the way we wanted it to read, and Mrs. Fersch stated she did not have any problem with that language.  Mr. Parker stated the policy also states the decision to issue securities must be reviewed and approved by the City Manager before Council is requested to approve their issuance.  He continued the last sentence on Page 3 stated, “Lines and Letters of Credit entered into by the City shall be in support of projects contained in the approved Capital Improvement Plan.”  He questioned if this meant that borrowing could be approved without coming before Council, and Mrs. Fersch stated Council will always approve borrowings.  Mr. Parker stated he felt the language that it needed to be approved by Council should be added to this paragraph.  Mr. Sabatino ascertained our financial advisor was Mr. Robert Cramer.   Mr. Wright stated with regard to Mr. Parker’s statements dealing with the word “shall,” the Finance Director reports to Council.  He stated he has a problem with language that places a barrier between Council and the Finance Director.  He stated he felt the Finance Director should have a direct path to all of Council and not be buffered by the City Manager, and he felt that needed to be stricken from the policy prior to getting his vote.  Mr. Wright also stated when this was reviewed with Mr. Cramer he had commented regarding the wording in the TIF section using the word “required.”  He stated he felt we were limiting ourselves whenever we use restrictive language such as that.  Ms Gilleland stated Mr. Wright’s comments were taken into account and under Section 7, Implementation, added that any exceptions or deviations from the policy shall require Council approval.  Mr. Wright inquired if that would allow a requirement to be waived by Council, and Mr. Hartmann stated Council could certainly do that.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, Mr. Wright voting “Nay,” and Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-1. 

 

            E.         ORDINANCE 2005-56, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $2,250,000 OF REVENUE NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING REVENUE NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WINDMILLER/DILEY AREAS, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTING WIDENING AND TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS FOR STATE ROUTE 256 TO ESTABLISH AN EXIT POINT FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF DILEY ROAD,” First Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated this is a note renewal on the Windmiller TIF.  Mr. Sabatino stated he thought he had read we would use funds from the State Infrastructure Bank for this, and Mrs. Fersch stated possibly in the future.  Mr. Sabatino stated then, it was Mrs. Fersch’s intention, when she could, to use the State Infrastructure Bank, and Mrs. Fersch stated that was correct.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright voting “Nay,” and Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”   Motion passed, 5-1. 

 

            F.         ORDINANCE 2005-57, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $700,000 OF REVENUE NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING REVENUE NOTES PREVIOULSY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CYCLE WAY AREA AND PAYING ADDITIONAL COSTS OF SUCH PROJECT,” First Reading, Riggs.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mrs. Riggs stated this was also the TIF renewal notes for the Cycle Way TIF.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

            G.        ORDINANCE 2005-58, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $507,000 OF REVENUE NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING REVENUE NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING (I) STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON HILL ROAD AND BLACKLICK-EASTERN ROAD, INCLUDING WIDENING STREETS, CONSTRUCTING SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS AND INSTALLING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, AND (II) STREET IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS THE HILL ROAD CONNECTOR, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTING STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS,” First Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated this was also  TIF renewal notes.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wright, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

            H.        ORDINANCE 2005-59, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $322,500 OF REVENUE NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING REVENUE NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING STREET AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVMENTS IN THE STATE ROUTE 256/STONECREEK DRIVE AREA,” First Reading, Riggs.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mrs. Riggs stated this is the note renewal for the Cover TIF.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.  

 

            I.          ORDINANCE 2005-60, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF $315,000 OF NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COST OF ACQUIRING, CONSTRUCTING, EQUIPPING AND FURNISHING A POLICE BUILDING,” First Reading, Riggs.  Mrs. Riggs moved to adopt; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

            J.          ORDINANCE 2005-61, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ADDENDUM TO THE AGREEMENT SETTLING CLAIMS ARISING FROM FAIRFIELD COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. 02-CV-645,” First Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated this is the agreement we have with Canal Winchester and Violet Township for them to drop the injunction against us.  He stated there was an issue with the language dealing with the buffering along the southern part of the 8185 Farms.  Mr. Sabatino stated he was under the impression when Council voted on the agreement that it had been approved by the other entities at that time.  Mr. Hartmann stated the other entities approved a pre-annexation agreement, and the language that was in the agreement we passed was different to what was circulated.  He stated there were continued negotiations during that time relating to this buffering issue.  Mr. Sabatino stated when Council voted on the agreement it was not represented that there were any issues, and Mr. Hartmann stated at that time he did not think there were as he did not have any feedback that was in the negative to the buffer.  He stated the issue came up after we passed the agreement, and language was agreed upon that was not a substantive change but provided the other entities and our City Manager with a comfort level to move forward with presenting this tonight.  Mr. Wright clarified we originally said we would operate in reasonable and in good faith to provide a 150 foot buffer, and now the buffer has been lowered to what we usually require, which is 85 feet, and if we are unable to get the landowner to agree to that we will enter into good faith negotiations with the Township.  Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct and if the good faith negotiations fail we will enter into binding arbitration.  Mr. Sabatino stated then, this is the final ordinance on this, and Mr. Hartmann stated the language provided in this addendum will not change.  Ms Gilleland stated it is difficult when you are dealing with three entities.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-1.  Mr. Parker moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”   Suspension of Rules failed, 5-1. 

 

K.        RESOLUTION 2005-12R, “A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT KEVIN SNYDER TO THE UTILITY FEES REVIEW COMMITTEE,” First Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. Parker seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.  (CONSENT AGENDA ITEM)

 

            L.         ORDINANCE 2005-49 (AS AMENDED), “AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCES NOS. 97-02 AND 99-75 AND ADOPTING A NEW LOCAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN,” Second Reading, Hackworth. Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated this identifies six projects we want to do in the next five years, and the amended ordinance reflects the statement that the ordinance will not count for referendum purposes as requested at the last meeting.  Mr. O’Brien stated he had voted against this at the last meeting because we were doing verbal amendments.  He stated it is his understanding that at the last meeting it was stated this would be common language in all ordinances such as this.  Mr. Sabatino stated a council member had asked if this language could be inserted in any legislation that would be identified as a basis for approval.  Mr. Wright stated his request was that when dealing with planning documents, this would keep them treated as planning documents and not as a basis to later be used as a means to disallow a referendum.  He stated these are planning documents, they will probably change as time goes on, and it is unfair to use a planning document as a reason to not allow a referendum.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.  

 

            M.        ORDINANCE 2005-50, “AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE WELLINGTON PARK SUBDIVISION – SECTION 1 (VIRGINIA HOMES),” Second Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated this is Section 1 of the Wellington Park subdivision that will have access out onto Milnor Road.  Mr. Hackworth stated the zoning was approved by the Township.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

9.         LEGISLATIVE READINGS: 

 

            A.        ORDINANCE 2005-43, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTROATE A REVISED CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON,” Third Reading, O’Brien.  Mr. O’Brien moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mr. O’Brien stated based on information that has come out in the media since the last Council meeting, he was surprised to find out that some of Council were willing to talk about the Charter changes if they were broken apart into separate sections.  Mr. O’Brien stated no-one had brought that to his attention, and he would Table the ordinance as he had indicated earlier, pending the outcome of this discussion, but he would like to know if anyone would like to discuss breaking the ordinance into sections and voting on them separately.  Mr. Sabatino stated he felt there seemed to be concerns over one element of the three changes that are proposed.  Mr. Sabatino stated he had asked Mr. Hartmann to define how these would be presented to the voters, if they would be individual items or as a group, and he felt they should be voted on in the manner they would be presented to the voters.  Mr. Hartmann stated the way the ordinance is written, we can go either way.  He stated after speaking to the Fairfield County Board of Elections with respect to placement of this on the ballot, they will allow the City to place it as either all or nothing or separate it out into different issues as long as they don’t inter-relate, and he did not believe any of these did.  Mr. Hartmann stated he felt Council had the opportunity to decide how they wished to proceed with respect to the ballot language.  He stated he has yet to receive confirmation from Franklin County, who are usually a little more difficult with respect to ballot language, on how they would address the issue.  Mr. Hartmann stated he felt Council could proceed with passing this legislation and we could place it on the ballot as three separate ballot issues.  Mr. Sabatino stated he felt as the ordinance is now, you would vote for all three or none, and he thought if we were going to vote on them as three individual items we should separate them out and have three ordinances.  Mr. Hartmann stated for clarification, we can amend it but the ordinance is written so that Council is voting for all three to be put on the ballot, how it gets on the ballot is different.  He stated that is usually driven by the Board of Elections, which will dictate to us what the language is; he will provide them with proposed language but that is usually altered.  He stated if we presented it to the Board of Elections as one issue it would be voted on as one issue, however, if we presented it as separate issues it would be voted on as separate issues.  Mr. Hartmann stated this ordinance only states that we want all three on the ballot.  Mr. Sabatino stated that was the issue, some council members did not want all three of them on the ballot.  Mr. Hartmann stated that was Council’s decision, and if there were amendments that need to be made, we can do that.  Mr. O’Brien questioned if the council members that did not want Section 1 included, felt could we proceed with Sections 2 and 3.  Mr. O’Brien stated he was willing to work on this.  Mr. Sabatino stated we have some time to deal with this issue and we also have some other proposed Charter amendments to deal with as well.  He stated he thought we should be consistent and what we should do is break them out and have three separate ordinances to vote on.  Mr. Parker stated this is Mr. O’Brien’s legislation and he has never been called to discuss the issue.  Mr. Parker stated he felt they should definitely be broken up, and he would support two of the issues but not the issue regarding emergency legislation as he felt that would put our City in the weakest possible position.  Mr. O’Brien moved to Table; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Wright, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.  (TABLED)

 

            B.         ORDINANCE 2005-44, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AND RECEIVE A 0.341 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FEE SIMPLE INTEREST, DONATED BY GILTZ COMPANY, LLC, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EXISTING DILEY ROAD, CITY OF PICKERINGTON, COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD, STATE OF OHIO,” Third Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated this is part of the Diley Road northern terminus and the property is being donated.  Roll call was taken with Mr. O’Brien, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.    

 

            C.        ORDINANCE 2005-45, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AND RECEIVE A 0.709 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, FEE SIMPLE INTEREST, AND A 0.180 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, EASEMENT, DONATED BY ONE PICKERINGTON COMPANY, LLC, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF S.R. 256, CITY OF PICKERINGTON, COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD, STATE OF OHIO,” Third Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. O’Brien seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated this is the same situation, just from another parcel.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. O’Brien voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.           

 

10.       OTHER BUSINESS:  No other business was brought forward. 

 

11.       MOTIONS:   There were no motions. 

 

12.       ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Hackworth moved to adjourn; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Parker, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wright, Mr. O’Brien, and Mrs. Riggs voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 6-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M., June 21, 2005.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

 

 

__________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk

 

ATTEST:

 

 

___________________________________

David Shaver, Mayor