FINANCE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

                                                   THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 2006

 

                                                          REGULAR MEETING

 

                                                                      7:30 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL.  Mr. Wisniewski called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Smith were present.  No members were absent.  Others present were Cristie Hammond, Mike Sabatino, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Ed Drobina, Katelyn Sattler, and others.

 

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF July 19, 2006, Regular Meeting.  Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-0.  

 

3.         FINANCE DIRECTOR:

 

            A.        Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2006 appropriation, Ordinance 2005-98.    Mrs. Fersch stated the Committee had received a draft appropriation ordinance and she would be happy to answer any questions on the requested appropriations.  Mr. Wisniewski clarified the increase of $7,000 in the Parks and Recreation Fund was for refunds for expired building permits.  Mrs. Fersch stated these permits have expired and we are refunding the Parks and Recreation fee, but we would collect the impact fee.  Mr. Hackworth stated he had requested a listing of expired permits and Ms Gilleland stated the Building Department is working on preparing that list.  Mrs. Fersch clarified that we would be refunding the $400 parks and recreation fee, but we would be collecting the $1,560 for parks impact fees.  Mr. Fix clarified we were increasing the Police Fund because we received some money from the 9-1-1 grant, and the Chief wants to use those funds to purchase computers.    Mr. Fix moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-0. 

 

Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to address the ordinance the Committee received this evening regarding stream mitigation.  Mr. Hansley stated he and our counsel have been negotiating with Mr. Stilson and an agreement was reached late this afternoon.  He stated this legislation will resolve the dispute and allow us to move ahead.  Mr. Hansley stated this legislation will give us the opportunity to cap the fine with the EPA at $20,000, and if we wait for another construction season we would potentially pay a higher fine.  Mr. Hansley stated we wanted to get something started this year to show good faith, and we have a firm on site, ready to begin.  Mr. Hansley stated the $125,000 that the City will reimburse Stilson comes from the Aston Crossing developer, and anything above that, the expenses will be shared one-third/two-thirds with Stilson and the City’s exposure is capped at $35,000.  Mr. Hansley stated he did not feel we would spend that entire $35,000.  Mr. Hansley stated he would recommend Finance Committee forward this legislation to Council.  Mr. Wisniewski clarified the $125,000 from Ashton Crossing has been held in escrow by our city attorney until such time as we reached this agreement.  Mr. Fix clarified Stilson will pay everything over the $125,000, and the city will pay $35,000 with Stilson paying two-thirds of everything up to that point.  Mr. Hansley further stated all of Stilson’s internal costs will be borne by Stilson.  Mr. Hackworth clarified that the mitigation will be monitored for five years, and should anything happen during that time, Stilson will be responsible.  Mr. Hackworth further clarified the section the City was involved with was only about 1500 feet, but when the EPA saw the entire scope of the project they wanted the whole thing taken care of.  Mr. Hackworth clarified this agreement would cover whatever was actually entered into with EPA.  Mr. Hackworth stated he just wanted to make sure that after the five-year period, we will be free and clear of this.  Ms Gilleland stated this is a protected stream, and Mr. Hackworth stated he understood if we did something in addition to what has already happened that would be something else.  Mr. Hansley stated he felt this agreement was a good deal for the City.  Mr. Fix clarified that our legal fees to this point were capped at $50,000, and we have spent that.  Mr. Hansley stated our law firm spent much more than that on this issue.  Mr. Fix stated it was his concern that we already have spent $50,000 in legal fees, and we have another $35,000 in exposure, and the City was in no way at fault; it was Stilson’s mistake.  He stated he could not see how it was a great deal for the City to pay that kind of money for their mistake.  Mr. Wisniewski stated the City did not do a good job of managing the problem when it first occurred.  Mr. Hansley stated Mr. Stilson apparently felt he was following the directions of the administration at that time, and that he was operating in good faith, and there was always a cloud of whether of not he was authorized or not.  Mr. Hansley stated subsequently there was maybe some exposure on both sides.  He continued there was some reasonable belief that Mr. Stilson had some direction to build a road, and he admits he should not have disturbed the stream without a permit, but he also says he had some informal direction to proceed.  Mr. Hansley stated this agreement represents the best of a bad deal.  Mr. Wisniewski stated if we do not accept this agreement, we will be spending a lot more money in legal fees for something we may or may not win.  Mr. Fix stated he understood that, but for the record he does have a significant problem with the fact that we spend as much money as we do with Stilson and when they make a mistake we are footing part of the bill.  Mr. Wisniewski stated if we do not move forward with this we will be facing more EPA fines and we will be spending a lot more on our attorneys.  Mr. Fix stated based on that logic he will vote for this agreement, but only based on that logic.  Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mrs. Fersch clarified that Stilson will sign a contract and they will review and forward the bills to us and we will then have 30 days to pay the contractor.  Mrs. Fersch stated we will then be paying the contractor directly, although we do not have a contract with them.  Mr. Hensley stated that was correct, and this agreement allows that to happen.  Mrs. Fersch stated in that case she would request an amendment to the appropriation ordinance approved earlier tonight to include that $125,000 so she can encumber the debt to the contractor.  Mr. Hackworth clarified there was an urgency to this agreement because the sooner we start the project the sooner we get the EPA to cap the $20,000.  Mr. Hansley stated he would like to have it passed as an emergency because it would save potentially save the City money if it gets done sooner than later.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-0. 

 

 Mr. Wisniewski clarified Mrs. Fersch would like to have the appropriation ordinance approved earlier in the meeting amended to increase the Stormwater Fund by $125,000 for the stream mitigation bills.  Mr. Fix moved to amend the appropriation ordinance approved earlier in this meeting to include an appropriation increase to the Stormwater Fund of $125,000 for the Ashton Crossing Stream Mitigation; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.”  Motion to amend passed, 4-0. 

 

 Mr. Hackworth stated the Committee may want to consider passing this agreement with the declaration of an emergency.  Mr. Hansley stated he would recommend that because they will be on site working within a few days of the signing of this agreement.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to have the emergency language included in the legislation. 

 

B.         Finance Director’s Report:  Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a report to the Committee and she would be happy to answer any questions. 

 

            (1)        Impact Fee Report.  Mrs. Fersch stated a report had been distributed to the Committee showing through July we have collected $680,858.  Mr. Fix clarified the impact fees come in to four different funds; Streets, Police, Parks, and Municipal Building Fund.  

 

            (2)        Investment Report.  Mrs. Fersch stated we are over $120,000 above this time last year in total interest earned. 

 

            (3)        Review of Vendor Report.  Mr. Fix clarified the money for the American Red Cross was for instruction.  Mr. Wisniewski inquired if there was any way to tie the Vendor’s Report back to budgeted items, such as professional services.  Mrs. Fersch stated she could run a report for each department showing what was spent and to whom for professional services.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to have that report. 

 

            (4)        Health Insurance Update.  Mrs. Fersch stated we have notified the Central Ohio Health Care Consortium of our intent to withdraw from the group at the end of this year.  She stated our broker is trying to see if the majority of the doctors our employee’s provided are on the network for Medical Mutual and Blue Cross Anthem.  Ms Gilleland stated we are still in the preliminary stages and are not ready to make a recommendation to the Committee as yet.  

 

Mrs. Fersch stated with regard to our CORMA insurance, this is our general liability, professional liability, casualty, automobile, etc., and our insurance does expire September 30th.  She stated in order to pass this legislation we will need to have a special meeting or pass it as an emergency.  The Committee concurred they would like to have this passed as an emergency. 

 

C.        Review and request for motion to approve a resolution accepting the amounts and rates as determined by the Fairfield County Budget Commission and authorizing the necessary tax levies and certifying them to the County Auditor.  Mrs. Fersch stated we will be collecting the 2.3 mills for the general operating levy and the 5.5 mills for the police levy as usual.  She stated our local government monies will be increased by $42,000 after July when the State’s budget kicks in.  She stated if the State Legislature interferes and changes it, we will not get that extra $42,000.  She stated further next year we could get $84,000 for the full year.  Mrs. Fersch stated this must be approved by September 30th so it will be in place on October 1st.  She stated she will receive the Resolution from the County, however, we have not received that as yet.  Mr. Hackworth moved to forward to Council upon receipt from the County; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-0. 

 

4.         PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT: 

 

            A.        New Employee Update.  Mrs. Fersch stated we will be advertising for a Utilities Billing Clerk as we hired our current clerk for the new Finance Clerk position.  She stated she will be requesting the Personnel Appeals Board to authorize the advertising for this position. 

 

5.         DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:  Update.  Mr. Hansley stated he had provided a written report to the Committee and he would be happy to answer any questions.  Mr. Hansley further stated he and Mr. Schultz will be meeting with the Equity people tomorrow as they want to move ahead with their project.  Mr. Hansley stated he is beginning work on the engineering contract issues, and we are trying to find a way to get a better feel for how Stilson will be working with our staff engineer.  He stated further WOW and AT&T have indicated they would like to provide some type of cable or phone service to the community, and he will be working on that issue.   Mr. Smith clarified we currently have a nonexclusive franchise with the cable provider.   Ms Gilleland stated part of our contract with Schottenstein requires that we get a motion from a Committee of Council on attorney fees for additional items.  Mr. Hansley stated he thought the fee our attorney is getting right now will be covered by AT&T if we develop around their model.  Ms Gilleland stated that is correct, but we would pay the fee and AT&T would reimburse us. 

 

            Mr. Wisniewski clarified that we are working with Sonic on their design so they will meet our guidelines.  Ms Gilleland stated we are fine with unique looking buildings and allowing the individual look for the business, we just want to make sure it is quality construction.  Mr. Hansley stated Sonic has been very agreeable, they want to be here, they have a site in mind, and we will work with them.  Mrs. Hammond stated she would appreciate Council’s support when this project comes to the Planning and Zoning Commission so the Commission members know what Council’s feelings are. 

 

6.         CHAIRMAN:   

 

             A.       Discussion regarding Economic Development Agreement. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood a new version of the agreement will be coming out.  Mr. Fix stated he hoped to distribute a new draft in he next day or so and he felt we were making progress.  Mr. Fix stated he would be looking for input from all Council members on the latest draft and hopefully there will be something to present at the September Finance meeting. 

 

7.         OTHER BUSINESS:  Mr. Wisniewski stated Ms Gilleland would like to discuss the utility user fees with the Committee.  Ms Gilleland stated we have been discussing the user fee increases for the past few months.  She stated the Utility Fees Review Committee has worked on this for several months and had provided a recommendation to the Committee, and she had also provided additional information requested by the Finance Committee members.  Ms Gilleland stated our previous calculations did not demonstrate that the 13 percent did include a percentage increase to the minimum fee as well, and she thought that was clarified now.  She stated further the recommendation was for a 19 percent increase for sewer.  Mr. Fix clarified the minimum for water is currently $4.50 and the 13 percent increase is approximately $.50.  Mr. Sabatino stated our CAFR report indicates that our receipts covered our incurred expenses.  Mrs. Fersch stated that report includes the assets so the report did not refer to only money or cash flow.  Mr. Sabatino stated he thought the report should be clear so everyone can understand that.  Mr. Sabatino stated he felt whatever rate we were charging should be for actual consumption, and Mr. Smith stated he agreed with Mr. Sabatino on this issue.  Mr. Sabatino further stated someone who used only 1,000 to 1,500 gallons of water, should not have to pay for 3,000 gallons for the sewer charge.  Mr. Sabatino stated he felt our rates should be based on what you actually use.  Mr. Wisniewski clarified that Mr. Sabatino concurred with the $4.50 minimum charge to cover the administrative costs, however, he felt it should be called something other than “minimum charge.”  He stated he felt our billing should show a billing charge, administrative charge, or whatever, and then show the charge for usage.  Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the easier we made it for people to read their bills, the more understanding they would be toward what we are trying to do.  Mr. Wisniewski clarified that we can change the utility bills to reflect the $4.50 service charge and then the water usage.  Mr. Fix stated we need to make sure we communicate this to our residents because we have never had the minimum service charge listed on the bills.  Mr. Wisniewski stated we can put a note in the billings stating there is a new look to the bill and explaining the changes.  Mr. Wisniewski clarified that for sewer we have always charged a minimum of 3,000 gallons, and the charge for that minimum is $12.87 per month.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood Mr. Sabatino’s position of paying for what you use, however, there is also some cost associated with being a part of the system.  He stated even if you do not use anything, you are a part of the system and there are costs associated with that.  He stated even if you use nothing, there is still work that needs to be done, such as reading meters, maintenance, repair of a line break, etc.  Mr. Drobina stated we have about 10 percent of our customers who use 3,000 gallons or less each month.  Mr. Hackworth stated he thought sewer was a different than water because we have to have the capacity at the plant.  He stated it is not like a well where we can just pump more water.  Mr. Sabatino stated he understood what Mr. Hackworth was stating and perhaps we could have a modest monthly service charge and then charge for actual usage.  Mr. Wisniewski stated when paying the monthly bill a certain portion goes toward debt and the remainder towards operation and maintenance.  Mrs. Fersch stated we need to look at it each year to make sure the portion of the bill is covering the debt that is due that year.  She stated everyone is paying a portion of the debt on the system.  Mr. Fix stated he felt we need to have some kind of minimum bill for every sewer customer.  Ms Gilleland stated perhaps staff needs the opportunity to run some more numbers and if you want to do that she would suggest scheduling a special meeting next week.  She stated we need to make some decisions because we are running out of time.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he thought this is the best we have before us at this time.  Mr. Fix stated he would like to at least move it to Council, and if necessary the numbers can be looked at during the three readings.  Mr. Hackworth stated he felt the numbers have been presented, the 13 percent increase for water and Option B as recommended by the Utility Fees Review Committee.  Mr. Hackworth stated he would recommend this be moved to Council because we need to get this enacted.  Mr. Wisniewski stated the rate increase would be effective in January 2007.  Mr. Hackworth stated he agreed, and we can look at the figures after the first year and see if we are on the right track or if the fees need to be revised.  Mr. Sabatino stated further he felt that once the residents see the rates, if they have concerns they will let us know what those concerns are, so we may have to fine tune it after the first year anyway.  Mr. Hackworth moved to forward legislation to Council for the 13 percent increase in water rates and the 19 percent, or Option B, increase for sewer rates, as recommended by the Utility Fees Review Committee; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Mr. Smith clarified this was the five year plan so the rates would be increased for five years.  Mr. Drobina stated if possible he would like to have the increase effective the first billing cycle in 2007.  All Committee members stated they concurred with that effective date.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-0.   

 

Mr. Wisniewski stated there has been discussion about the need to maintain the working relationship with staff through the City Manager.  He stated staff needs to have the ability to  perform their work outside of any requests that Council may have.  Mr. Fix stated he would recommend that any request for use of staff time by a Council member be sent through the City Manager.  He stated that would provide the option of her determining whether that request can be accomplished or if it is something that should be taken up by Council.  Mr. Fix stated he felt the City Manager would make sound judgments on the priorities of staff and the use of their time.  Mr. Fix stated he agreed we needed a policy because it is helter skelter right now, and that is not effective.  Mr. Smith stated one of his concerns was with the staff that works for Council.  Mr. Wisniewski stated Mrs. Fersch and our law director report directly to Council.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he does have an issue with Council, for instance, going directly to the engineering firm and then we spend additional dollars.  He stated they do report to Council, and when Council members call the engineer and ask a question, that is one thing, however, if they call and ask them to do something, that should be coming through a Committee at least.  Mr. Sabatino stated he concurred with that, and the same thing can be said for the legal firm.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he also felt that if Council stepped over the line and asked any of these individuals about something that was not included in the retainer, they should let the council member know that.  Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed, and perhaps the City Manager could send a directive to the people who work for Council letting them know that anything that was within the scope of the retainer, questions that will not incur additional billing to the City, that was fine.  However, if it was something that would incur additional charges, they should make the City Manager aware and she could make a decision on if it was something we needed done.  Mr. Hackworth questioned if writing an ordinance was part of the retainer, because he felt one reason we hired a law director was to tell us if a proposed ordinance was legal or not.  Ms Gilleland stated typically it would be, however, if it needed research or something it could run into additional charges.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt we were okay with the use of the law director, however, there have been times when we have used them for specific tasks that never went through Committee and were charged back to the City.  Mr. Wisniewski stated the same thing has happened with the engineer.  He stated we have a small retainer with them, and we may have to increase the retainer to cover phone calls or whatever, and decrease the other part of the contract.  Mr. Hansley stated there have been instances where, for example, Mr. Hackworth as Chairman of Service, calls and asks questions regarding a road project, and that generates a bill of $500-$600.  Ms Gilleland stated we are working on establishing a memorandum of understanding so we can get this cleared up, and Mr. Hansley stated Stilson has acknowledged there is some confusion.  He stated with the addition of a staff engineer one issue we need to determine is where that job stops and the City Engineer starts.  Mr. Hansley stated there are areas in the contract that need to be cleaned up, and that is what he is working on.  He stated that, technically, it is Council’s contract and up to Council to enforce.  Mr. Wisniewski stated Council needs to agree not to use the law firm or city engineer outside the retainer without at least approval by a Committee.  Mr. Hackworth stated we needed to address the engineering contract fairly soon, because he felt Council needs access to the professionals.  He stated he did not feel Council should be asking them to perform specific tasks, but they should be able to ask questions so they can respond to the residents.  Mr. Fix stated he thought Rules Committee should establish a policy clarifying this issue that can be adopted as a Rule of Council.  Ms Gilleland stated in the meantime she would let the attorneys and engineers know that anything they get a call on that is over and above the retainer, they should let the requester know that and what the cost would be.  Mr. Wisniewski stated this would be an issue to be discussed at the Council retreat.  Mr. Fix stated as he understood it, the recommendation is that anything outside the retainer for the engineer or law director, we need to get a Committee or Council involved; for the city staff we should go through the City Manager, and for the City Manager, Finance Director, and Municipal Clerk, they need to let Council know if it is something they cannot manage.  He stated this was more of a definition than we had at the start of this discussion.  Mr. Smith stated as Chairman of Safety Committee, he tends to talk to a lot of the city staff about agenda items, etc., prior to a meeting.  He questioned if that was the type of conversations that would be metered through the City Manager.  Mr. Wisniewski stated outside of the City Manager, the Finance Director, and the Municipal Clerk, Council should not be calling staff and asking them to do something.  Mr. Hansley stated he felt Council could talk to anyone, but the issue was they should not give directions to any employee.  Mr. Smith stated any resident of the City can call any employee of the City government and ask a question.  Ms Gilleland stated she did not feel there was an issue as far as Council contact with city staff, and she is not aware of any problem in that area.  Mr. Wisniewski summarized that from a procedural standpoint of staff resources, nothing is needed; and from a financial standpoint, anything outside of the retainer will be authorized by motion of a Committee or Council.  Mr. Wisniewski further stated if there are any issues from staff that need to be addressed, it should be brought to Council’s attention so it can be handled.  He further stated Rules Committee will be preparing a policy regarding the financial issues above and beyond items covered by the retainer. 

 

8.         MOTIONS:

 

A.        Motion for Executive Session under Section 121.11(G)(1)(b), Matters involving an employee’s or public official’s employment, Section 121.22(G)(2), Purchase or sale of public property, Section 121.22(G)(3), Conference with law director regarding pending or imminent court action, and Section 121.22(G)(4), Matters involving bargaining sessions with public employees.  Mr. Wisniewski stated no executive session was necessary this evening. 

 

9.         ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wisniewski voted "Aye."  Motion carried, 4-0.  The Finance Committee adjourned at 10:00 P.M., August 17, 2006.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk