FINANCE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 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 Mayor Shaver, Cristie Hammond, Mike Sabatino, Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Phil Hartmann, Rick Palsgrove, Tom Smith, Woody Winfree, Carol Carter, Bruce Englehart, Matt Delp, Shirley Jacobs, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 9, 2006, Special Meeting. Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix abstaining, and Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF August 17, 2006, Regular Meeting. Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

3. FINANCE DIRECTOR:

A. 2007 Budget Request Presentations: Mr. Wisniewski stated several of our community related organizations that receive funding from the City are present this evening to address the Committee as we are starting to enter into the budget season.

(1) Olde Pickerington Village Business Association (OPVBA). Ms Gilleland stated she had an incorrect e-mail address for the Olde Pickerington Village Business Association so they were not able to make it this evening. She stated she has received a funding request from them in the amount of $7,000 for 2007. She stated she did invite them to the meeting for October should the Committee have any questions. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that last year we funded $5,000 to the OPVBA. Mr. Fix stated he would like to have a representative at the next meeting.

(2) Pickerington Area Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Winfree was present to address the Committee this evening. Mr. Winfree stated in 2006 the Chamber received $10,000 from the City and for 2007 they were requesting that same amount. Mr. Winfree stated the funds last year were used solely for the purposes of printing, postage, and copying costs for new resident packages. He stated between 50 to 70 packages per month go to the Police Department for the new resident packages they give out, and 65 went to new teachers in our school district. He stated the remainder of the funds were used for the development of the City map and business brochures for the areas they work with. Mr. Winfree stated they receive approximately 35 telephone calls per day with community related questions. Mr. Winfree stated when someone asks for something, for example, about the Parks Department, instead of having them make another call the Chamber office will get on the internet, print it off, and mail it to the resident. So, the postage for that is covered by the funds from the City. Mr. Winfree stated they do not have a budget request in writing as yet, but that should be ready in the next week or so. He stated he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that we do require that organizations we give money to submit a budget to us for our records. Ms Gilleland inquired if Mr. Winfree had a listing of other funders for the Chamber, and he stated he did not bring that. He stated their main drive for revenue is the membership dues from members of the Chamber. He stated they do two major fund raising events; the golf outing and the Taste of Pickerington. Ms Gilleland inquired if the Township provided any funding to the Chamber and Mr. Winfree stated to his knowledge they do not, however they are a member.

(3) Violet Festival. Mr. Winfree stated he was also present representing the Violet Festival. Mr. Winfree stated in 2005 the Festival received $20,000, and in 2006 they received $17,500 from the City. He stated the budget for the Violet Festival in 2005 was $100,099 and in 2006 it was $100,499. Mr. Winfree stated of those funds, about $50,000 comes from actual sponsorships, and the Township gave $3,500 each year. Mr. Winfree stated the remainder of the funds come from fundraising such as the business tents, the 5K run, the arts and crafts, etc. He stated the ride company also pays the Festival 25 percent of the revenues that are collected on the grounds. Mr. Winfree stated the Violet Festival Board will meet next week to finalize the budget for 2007. Mr. Winfree also stated the Board determined that Board members and their families had contributed 2,497 volunteer hours this past year. Mr. Winfree stated at their meeting next week they will determine the amount they will be requesting from the City so he did not know the exact amount, however, he would assume it would be in the neighborhood of $20,000 again. Mr. Fix stated he would like to know if there was a way the Festival could generate more funds on the grounds in an effort to be more self-sufficient. Mr. Winfree stated they had spoken to other communities that charge a fee to get on the grounds, and they have investigated the possibility of getting some fencing to put around the grounds and then charging a $5 fee to get in. He stated they should get all of that information in a couple of weeks to see if it would work. He stated they do want to keep the costs down for the community to attend. Mr. Fix stated he felt individuals would be willing to pay to go to the Festival. Mr. Winfree stated they would like to have input from Council on what a fair fee would be. He stated, for example, they didn’t want to make it so that a family with five children couldn’t go. Mr. Winfree stated also, the one night with the Christian entertainment they could not charge a fee because that was paid for by The River. Mr. Wisniewski stated the concern is the fact that the City is footing the majority of the bill for funding. Mr. Wisniewski stated the City also provides police overtime, parks department and street department personnel, etc. He stated this is a community event and there is definitely the thinking that whatever the City puts forward should be equally matched by the Township. Mr. Winfree stated they do appreciate the help from the City departments, and this year the Township did send some of the maintenance department personnel down to help as well. Mr. Fix stated he felt the City would like to contribute as a sponsor at some level, but if there is a way to cut that down by generating more funds on the grounds, there would be a lot more comfort on Council’s part.

(4) Senior Center. Mr. Tom Smith stated he is Chairman of the Finance Committee and along with Shirley Jacobs he was present this evening to address the Committee. Mr. Smith provided a copy of the Senior Center’s preliminary budget for 2007 and stated they were requesting $10,000 from the City in 2007. Mr. Smith stated the Senior Center is not publicly funded; they are not supported by a levy, the City, the Township, or any Parks and Recreation Department. He stated as their building is aging they are encountering more maintenance issues. Mr. Smith stated the Township pays for repairs and at the end of the year provides the difference between what they have expended for repairs and the $10,000 they allow them in cash. Ms Gilleland clarified that the Township owns the building. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if there was a reason we have not pursued a small levy based in Violet Township? Mr. Smith stated they have talked about it, but until the past few years they have not had financial difficulties. He stated their members are mostly fixed income seniors and with the building being over 20 years old they have had a tremendous number of repairs, and they have lost income from the rental of the building. Mr. Wisniewski stated with the income sources being non-guaranteed, if something would happen to any one of those sources, it would put the Center in a very critical situation, and he would hate to see that happen. He stated a very, very small property tax or something like that would guarantee them funding and could allow the services for seniors to be expanded greatly in the Pickerington and Violet Township area. He stated he is not advocating that, he was just curious as to why it was not done. Mr. Smith stated they had discussed this very recently and were contemplating pursuing an operating levy. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not see the City cutting the Senior Center’s funding in the near future, it was just his concern that if they had another major repair it would eat into their funding drastically. Mr. Smith stated he agreed with Mr. Wisniewski and they were looking into this issue.

B. 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 moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

C. 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 we have collected $791,978.44.

(2) Investment Report. Mrs. Fersch stated interest rates are still rising and we are still earning 5.11 percent on our checking account. She stated we have realized about $84,000 interest in the General Fund over what we did at this time last year.

(3) Review of Vendor Report. Mrs. Fersch stated the Committee had received the Vendor Report. She stated she had provided another type of report to Mr. Wisniewski. Mr. Wisniewski stated he has not had time to look at that report as yet, but he would get back to her on that.

(4) Health Insurance Update. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a copy of the proposal from Medical Mutual of Ohio, as well as a memorandum explaining the health insurance that was being recommended by the Insurance Review Committee. Mrs. Fersch stated the Committee felt that the program offered by Medical Mutual best mirrored what we currently have. She continued there are two options from Medical Mutual so employees will have a choice. Mrs. Fersch stated they had also requested the insurance company provide a four-tier proposal that would include plans for singles, family, employee and spouse, and employee and child. She stated after reviewing this information it was determined that would put too much of a hardship on the families, because that is where the increase would be; the other people would get a reduction and the extra money would go on the family plan monthly premium. She stated the Insurance Review Committee determined not to go with the four-tiers but to keep the two-tiers we have now, which is single and family. Mrs. Fersch stated the information provided was for a Core Plan and a Buy Up Plan. Ms Gilleland stated the chart provided shows that the Buy-Up Plan is almost an exact match to our current plan. Mrs. Fersch stated the recommendation from the Insurance Review Committee is to contract with Medical Mutual of Ohio and allow the employees to have a choice between the two plans. She stated we would incentify the Core Plan to make that more attractive, because there is more savings for the City with that. She stated she had also provided the Committee with the Central Ohio Health Care Consortium/Medical Mutual comparison Mrs. Fersch stated next year the employee’s share will be 6 percent for the Buy-Up Plan, and for the Core Plan we must charge something, not necessarily a percentage. Mrs. Fersch stated she felt a premium charge of $2.00 per month for the single plan, and $5.00 per month for the family plan would be appropriate. Mr. Smith clarified that the Core Plan would provide a savings to the City and these premiums would be sharing that savings with the employees. Mrs. Fersch stated the Core Plan does have a co-pay of $15 and the Buy-Up has a deductible that must be met. Mrs. Fersch stated the drug costs will be cheaper with the Core Plan as well. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the savings to the City reflected in Mrs. Fersch’s memo are based on the difference between the costs of the plans. Mrs. Fersch stated she will have legislation prepared for Council if this Committee approves the proposal from Medical Mutual, and if Medical Mutual knows the legislation is going through the process they will, before a contract is signed, come out and educate the employees on the new program and help to ensure that we don’t get a lot of run off claims. She stated they will have representatives come and walk through the plans and our goal is to have insurance cards in the employee’s hands in December since this will be effective on January 1^st. Mrs. Fersch stated the legislation will be for a one-year contract with Medical Mutual of Ohio. Mrs. Fersch stated further that currently, as an incentive to employees who waive coverage, the City pays them $100 per month. She stated she would recommend that incentive be increased to $250 per month for family plans. She stated this incentive is for individuals who have the opportunity to be covered by a spouse’s plan, it does not apply to singles because we need to ensure they are covered. Mr. Wisniewski moved to forward legislation to Council authorizing a one-year contract with Medical Mutual of Ohio, to set the premium for the Core Plan at $2.00 per month for single and $5.00 per month for family plans, and to increase the insurance wavier incentive from $100 to $250 per month for family plans; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

Mrs. Fersch stated at the next meeting she would have the legislation to renew our insurance with Delta Dental.

(5) Liability (CORMA) Insurance Update. Mrs. Fersch stated our final renewal figure was $220,206 and this represents a 28 percent increase. She stated the legislation was passed with a not-to-exceed amount of $250,000, she was just notifying the Committee of the actual amount.

D. Review and request for motion to approve a draft resolution of items appropriated in 2006 budget and authorizing total amount of transfers to not exceed amounts approved, including any future amendments during the 2006 budget year. Mrs. Fersch stated in our appropriation budget each year we set forth the General Fund, the transfers out, and the different funds that transfer into debt funds. She stated during our recent audit, they stated we needed to have a resolution that the items listed in the budget are items that could be transferred. Mrs. Fersch stated this resolution was only in order to comply with the Auditors request. Mrs. Fersch stated she thought the purpose was just to make sure that Council is aware that money is being transferred from one fund to another. Mr. Wisniewski stated this, then, is a resolution authorizing you to do what you already do. Mrs. Fersch stated that was correct, it was just a housekeeping thing the Auditor recommended. Mr. Smith moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Fix 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 six candidates have been certified by the Personnel Appeals Board for the Utility Clerk I position. She stated we will interview in the next few weeks and hopefully we will have someone on board by mid-October.

5. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:

A. Development Director’s Report. Ms Gilleland stated Mr. Hansley had provided a written report to the Committee.

(1) Rt. 33 Alliance – Update. Ms Gilleland stated a few months ago the Rt. 33 Alliance Group got started again. She stated the purpose of this group is to promote growth along the Rt. 33 corridor. Ms Gilleland stated the Group is requesting the City of Pickerington contribute $2,000 this year and $6,000 per year for each of the next five years as our share of the initial marketing effort. Ms Gilleland stated Mr. Hansley was impressed with the Group and he recommends that we join and continue to participate. Ms Gilleland stated if the Committee desires, we can invite them to the next meeting to answer any of your questions or we can have Mr. Hansley provide a briefing at the next meeting. Ms Gilleland stated no action is necessary tonight if the Committee would like to have some time to think about it. Mr. Wisniewski stated he has considerable concern being asked to give money to an organization without anything in return other than our name on a list of donors. He stated when you have an entity that is giving $30,000, such as Lancaster, one would suspect that they will be the major benefactor on the return of that investment. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like more detail on this Group. Mr. Fix stated he would request a briefing by the Group at the next meeting. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to have this issue added to the next Finance Committee Agenda.

6. CHAIRMAN:

A. Discussion regarding Economic Development Agreement. Mr. Wisniewski stated this discussion might be lengthy so he would like to address the next item on the agenda at this time.

Ms Gilleland stated she also had a couple of items she would like to discuss with the Committee. She stated she would like to introduce the budget process to Finance, and she had prepared a draft budget schedule. She stated she would like some feedback on what the Committee is looking for; if they would like to get more in-depth than last year, if they would like department heads to attend the work sessions, etc. She stated we will be prepared to provide the budget to the Committee at their next meeting and we can make adjustments from there. Mr. Wisniewski requested the Committee members e-mail Ms Gilleland with their thoughts on work sessions, etc.

Ms Gilleland stated per the Schottenstein contract a motion of Finance Committee is required if we are working with them on services over and above the core contract. She stated we are working on a case now with the Board of Zoning Appeals and we are not sure how long that will go. Mr. Hartmann stated this is an appeal that has been going on, and there have been some settlement talks, but he is not sure where those are going to go. Ms Gilleland stated she would like a motion from this Committee to authorize payment of the legal bills. Mr. Wisniewski clarified this is an appeal of a case where the resident agreed to put up a fence and other conditions, and now they do not want to agree and are appealing our right to enforce those. Ms Gilleland stated this is located on Homestead Drive. Mr. Hartmann stated they did appeal our decision to the Fairfield County Courts. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the fee level is the same fee level of all the other special work. Mr. Hartmann stated he felt the total cost would be somewhere between $5,000 to $10,000. Mr. Fix moved to approve the legal fees for the Board of Zoning Appeals case not to exceed $10,000; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

B. Review of Legal and Engineering services invoices. Ms Gilleland stated the invoices were provided to the Committee for review and she would answer any questions. Mr. Wisniewski stated it appeared the majority of these dealt with the Diley Road project and they are being tracked with that project. Mr. Sabatino inquired if the normal day-to-day things the City deals with were covered by the retainer fees or are we billed for things that are routine or ordinary that are not covered by the monthly retainer. Mr. Wisniewski stated if there are special projects that are going on that are outside of routine things; that falls under special projects. Mr. Hartmann stated the things that are not covered by the retainer are the land acquisition and litigation because they are such unknowns. Mr. Wisniewski stated the engineering was a little different, and Ms Gilleland stated we are working on trying to get clarification on the Stilson contract on what is covered by the retainer versus not covered, and Stilson is open to that. She stated we are doing what we can on a staff level to get some clarification, and if we can reach an agreement on a staff level that we are comfortable with we won’t need to bring it to Council for any revisions, however, if we need to involve Council in revising the contract, she will let you know. Mr. Wisniewski stated if a project comes up that is outside of the monthly retainer, they need to notify us so that we can make a determination. Ms Gilleland stated she will keep Council informed on this issue.

Mr. Wisniewski stated prior to going on to the discussion on the Economic Development Agreement he would ask for a brief recess.

Finance Committee recessed at 8:50 P.M., and reconvened in open session at 9:05 P.M.

6. A. Discussion regarding Economic Development Agreement. Mr. Fix stated everyone should have the latest amended version of the agreement. He stated in January of this year he was asked by the Mayor to serve as the City’s representative to talks that had been on-going between the City, the Township, and Canal Winchester about Pickerington’s desire to join the Cooperative Economic Development Agreement between Canal Winchester and the Township. These talks ended with the decision that Pickerington would not join the existing CEDA, but they did spark a discussion between the Township and the City that resulted in the Agreement brought before you this evening. He stated over the past several months there has been much debate, both public and private, about his role in these discussions, the process used to get to this point, and the appropriateness of a council member working directly with a trustee on a delicate matter such as this. He stated that throughout the entire process, he has done what he was asked to do by Mayor Shaver and he has always acted with what he believed to be the best interest of the City, and he has tried very hard to act in good faith with the members of Council. Mr. Fix continued that the foundation of the agreement is that the City will be invited to participate in every economic development activity that occurs within the Township and within the boundaries of the Pickerington school district as an equal partner, and in exchange the City will agree not to annex any new properties unless it is part of a commercial development annexation agreement. Mr. Fix stated he felt this agreement was a significant first step in finding a way to level the tax base and to stop fighting with the Township. Mr. Fix stated to initiate discussion on the merits of this agreement, the following are assumptions he made as background:

1. Violet Township has a very positive working relationship and a functioning business model already in place with the Village of Canal Winchester.

2. Canal Winchester currently has a two percent income tax base.

3. Pickerington currently has a one percent income tax base.

4. The most viable property in the township for non-retail commercial development is along the Route 33 corridor, particularly in the area east of the existing CEDA and in a significant area in the southeastern corner of the township.

5. Pickerington will struggle significantly in any attempt to annex our way to either of those areas with the southeast corner being unreachable. Our predecessors attempted this and not only did they spectacularly fail, our residents will be paying the price for their flawed strategy and poor decisions for generations to come.

6. Significant commercial industrial developers prefer to develop in areas where there is governmental stability and will look elsewhere when they sense instability, a lack of cooperation, or fighting among the various governments.

7. If we choose now not to work cooperatively with the Township, the opportunity to work jointly in the future will be significantly reduced.

8. Should we not make this agreement, the Township would naturally turn to its existing partner with a higher income tax, Canal Winchester, to form joint economic development districts across our southern border and turn to the Village of Carroll to jointly develop the southeastern corner of the Township.

9. If that were to happen, then the only commercial development options available to the city would be within our existing borders and land that we could annex.

10. Finding a significant developer willing to buy land and to annex to the city when the only services we provide would be police protection, with water and sewer services being provided by the county in many areas and fire protection being provided by the Township, would be incredibly difficult and very costly. Our predecessors have shown us the high cost and low return of buying annexations. I am confident that this is a road we don’t want to go down again.

11. If all of this is correct, then the only real commercial development opportunities lie within our boundaries.

12. The most likely commercial development to occur within our boundaries will be more retail and more small offices. These types of commercial developments will not provide the City with the revenue streams commensurate with our hopes and dreams.

13. In 2005, four members of our council agreed to forego the rights to annex in exchange for the settlement of a lawsuit and the promise of the formation of a JEDD with the Township. This agreement asks us to give up something we have already given up and guarantees us the right to participate as an equal partner in all commercial development.

14. The City is not interested in annexing more residential properties.

Mr. Fix stated in business when you are putting an agreement like this together, you assess what each party has that the other wants. In this case the Township wants our ability to provide services where it is applicable, wants a share of our income tax, and it very much wants us not to annex more land into the City. Services can be procured elsewhere, and twice as much income tax can be collected by Canal Winchester. The thing we have that they want, that they can’t get elsewhere, is our promise not to annex. The thing they have that we want, is land. Hundreds, even thousand of acres of commercially viable land lie outside our borders and we will never get to it unless we are willing to give. Mr. Fix stated there is a choice to make. Down one path lies continuing fights with the township, leading to no real viable economic development, and what he felt would be the eventual stagnation of our community as our tax base would remain imbalanced and the quality of life for the City’s residents would fail to escalate. Down the other path, which he was asking them to take, lies peace and prosperity. He stated years from now there would be an abundant cooperative economic development, a level tax base, and a growing quality of life. Mr. Fix stated he was asking Council to give up something they have already given up in return for something far greater than they have been promised in the past. He stated the agreement is not perfect; there is no such thing as a perfect agreement. He stated both the City and the Township have compromised to reach this point and he felt this agreement is fair to all involved and provides a solution to some of the long-term issues that face our community.

Mr. Wisniewski stated he had a presentation he would like to make, and then he would like to work through this in a logical manner. He stated he does take exception to some things Mr. Fix has said and he vehemently disagrees with some of it also. Mr. Wisniewski presented a power point presentation (Attachment 1 to these minutes). Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to state, once again, that he is not opposed to working with the Township commercially, and he believed we have opportunities to do so. He continued stating, however, we do not have anything to back up some of the assumptions that we are making in this agreement.

Mr. Hackworth stated this agreement has gone all over the place in the last few weeks, and it seems like every day that passes, they get a different agreement. He stated a couple of weeks ago he was close to signing on with it, but it has now moved away from what he thought was beneficial for the City. He stated the southeast corner of the Township is very close to Carroll, there is an interchange going in very close to that, and he suspected that if we had a large development in that area they probably would want to go to Carroll and annex, mainly because of the services that a municipality can give. He stated one of the problems he saw with the theory of the agreement is that one of the issues that the Township needs a municipality is for debt and income tax. He stated our debt capacity is affected by our assessed value, and if we quit annexing our assessed value flattens out and the 2.5 percent of that assessed value flattens out. He stated our capability to borrow money to build more roads or any other structure basically flattens out and we, or future councils, will have to make decisions whether to spend in the JEDD area versus needed improvements in the City. He stated the cost for the City to get into this JEDD with the Township is more than he was willing to pay. He stated he also felt we need to think about protecting our borders, and if we can only annex commercial property we will be stuck with whatever the Township wants to zone next to our subdivisions. He stated a good example of that is when we were negotiating the 316-acre annexation with the Township we went back and forth with the Township on a buffer. He stated they protected their citizens in the Township, however, when our citizens went to the Township with regard to the rezoning of the 3.3 acres on Wright Road, they were basically ignored. He stated he felt we need to have some sort of power and we should not release those powers off to the Township zoning and do away with our impact fees and our residential design guidelines. Mr. Hackworth stated further, this agreement removes the City’s ability to annex property it owns, such as the water plant on Diley Road. Mr. Hackworth stated there also seemed to be a double standard because in the CEDA agreement with Canal Winchester they have agreed to work together to oppose anyone annexing into that area. Mr. Hackworth stated he did not see how this agreement did much good for the City. He stated we would be giving away all the rights we have now and he thought the price we would be paying was more than we would get back from it and we would limit our future ability to support ourselves. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to know if we can go back and ask for some changes or renegotiate some of these points. Mr. Fix stated nothing was set in stone, the agreement before the Committee is one that has been negotiated or discussed for the past several months. He stated if there is an agreement at Council that something needs to be adjusted, then it can be taken back to the Trustees to discuss that adjustment.

Mr. Sabatino stated he concurs with Mr. Wisniewski that he has no objection to working with the Township, however, it needs to be on an equitable basis. He stated in his opinion this is a very one-sided agreement and with regard to Mr. Fix’s assumption number 8, his question was if this was an assumption on Mr. Fix’s part or was it something the Trustees told him. Further, number 13 stated there was an agreement by four members of Council, and we had then, as we do now, a seven member Council. Mr. Sabatino further stated that Mr. Wisniewski’s presentation shows office development being the most productive financially for the City and Mr. Fix’s narrative seems to minimize the worth of office development. Mr. Sabatino stated he is personally excited by the Equity proposal that staff worked hard to get, and that type of development will help stabilize our long-term growth. Mr. Sabatino stated in the proposed agreement, Pickerington gives away a lot with nothing but promises of being invited into a potential JEDD in return, and as we all know a JEDD takes the concurrence of the property owner. He stated, in his mind, the Township can’t be in a position to make a property owner join a JEDD and there is nothing that he can discern as being a solid return for what we would give up. He stated Pickerington must control it’s own destiny and not be in the position of asking permission of Violet Township to make decisions on the City’s economic future. He continued Council needs to be responsible to the citizens that elected them, and should not have to ask the Township’s concurrence. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt Council owes it to the residents to look out for their best interests and not put themselves in the position of having to ask permission of other elected officials to make decisions that affect their future. He further stated Pickerington should not have to prematurely raise income taxes on their citizens to help support the economic viability of Violet Township. Mr. Sabatino further stated that if we continue the way we are right now, any annexation that we do, we would still get 100 percent of the proceeds to help deal with the cost associated with it, and if we get involved with this agreement, we are giving away half of our income tax, and he felt this was a disservice to our residents. He continued what the Township appeared to want from us is to control us, and Council would not truly be representing the citizens who elected them if they deferred these types of decisions collectively to Pickerington and Violet Township. Mr. Sabatino stated another concern that he has is that a cost benefit analysis subjective review has not been performed by our Economic Development Director or anyone else, and something like this that will tie the hands of the city for ten years with two automatic renewals, for a total of 30 years, we absolutely must know what we are getting into. Mr. Sabatino stated this is basically a bunch of conjecture; it might pan out, it might not; but how could Council vote for something like this when they had no idea what the cost benefit analysis would be. He stated this should not even be before Council without that being done. Mr. Sabatino stated he is not opposed to doing something, but it needs to be fair, it needs to be done professionally, and it needs to be done where all parties involved are dealt with on an equitable basis. He further stated if this was as good for the City as Mr. Fix thinks it is, then he did not understand why there was so much concern about it.

Mr. Smith stated Mr. Hackworth had indicated he was very close to agreeing with this agreement and questioned why that was not the case now. Mr. Hackworth stated the agreement they have tonight is completely different than the one he saw a few weeks ago. He stated before the agreement had everything not applying to city-owned property, and it did not have the restrictions on the City annexing contiguous property. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt the language that prohibited the City from annexing property it owns, now or in the future, should be stricken from this agreement.

Mr. Fix stated according to the agreement, if Violet Township is to participate in any economic development in partnership, as a part of that annexation, we would be invited to participate as an equal partner in that. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not see anything in the agreement that would cause the Township to fight any annexations, and the original agreement had a statement that Violet Township would vigorously oppose any annexations within these areas. He stated further he did not see any language that would preclude them from entering into any other agreements. Mr. Hartmann clarified Mr. Wisniewski was saying the Township can enter inter an agreement with Canal Winchester, they get to annex, it is no longer in the Township so they don’t have an obligation to Pickerington. Mr. Wisniewski stated further when he read this, he understood there was nothing preventing the Township from entering into an agreement with Canal Winchester. Mr. Hartmann stated under this agreement they are not removing property from the Township, so it is still in the Township even if it were being annexed. Mr. Wisniewski stated that land would then be part of another governmental entity and how could they force that. Mr. Hartmann stated there would have to be a three-way agreement or the Township would be violating this agreement because they have already agreed to enter into this with us. Mr. Hartmann stated he was not a part of the negotiations, but when he read this agreement he did see some ambiguity. Mr. Wisniewski stated with the ambiguity it brings the opportunity for other interpretations, and he questioned if it would be better to actually preclude the Township from entering into any other economic development with any other governmental entity. Mr. Hartmann inquired if this was clarified, the area defined, then if Canal would try to annex, but it was still in the Township, then the Township would be obligated to include the City in with whatever agreement goes on with Canal Winchester. Mr. Wisniewski stated it would help, but we cannot stop Canal from doing what we would be stopping ourselves from doing. Mr. Fix stated however Canal is not getting the ability to participate in every economic development program that the Township does. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would also like some clarification regarding any commercial development that is outside the incorporated boundaries of the City. He stated we are within Violet Township, and he did not want us building office buildings off of S.R. 256, that we have just worked on, and them somehow claiming half of our income tax because it is within the school district and within the Pickerington area. He stated he felt this was open-ended in some of the reading of that. Mr. Hartmann stated that is a good point. Mr. Wisniewski stated what is in the City at this time has to remain in the City and has to be 100 percent income generated for the City. Mayor Shaver stated that is a good point and for clarification, this agreement only applies to land that is annexed. Mr. Fix stated he agreed Mr. Wisniewski had a good point, and there is a three-acre parcel north of I-70 that is bounded by Reynoldsburg that they asked be excluded and there is a tiny corner in the existing CEDA that is less than three acres that does protrude into our school district that they asked be excluded. Mr. Fix stated he thought it was reasonable to exclude those. Mr. Fix stated the previous Council agreed to give up the right to annex for ten years in exchange for a JEDD, and he was asking this Council to give up those same rights for 30 years for inclusion in everything that they do economically. Mr. Sabatino stated there is absolutely nothing other than the promise of being considered for a JEDD, there is nothing hard that comes out of that. Mr. Fix stated there was nothing hard that came out of the agreement two years ago. Mr. Hackworth stated it did give us a two-year out, if the JEDD was not created in two years it gave us an out. Mr. Wisniewski stated there is no out in this, we enter into this for 30 years without any guarantees. Mr. Fix stated he felt it would be unfair to assume there wouldn’t be any economic development in the Township in the next 30 years. Mr. Wisniewski stated there has been very little to date. Mr. Fix further stated in the report done by Mr. McGory and Mr. Arcari they clearly defined some very significant parcels of land that are going to be commercially developed in the next 20 years. Mr. Fix stated no-one has a crystal ball and there is no cost benefit analysis that you can do on the future. Mr. Wisniewski stated there are costs right now to us; if we enter into this and we annex the land at, say, Pickerington Road and Refugee Road, then we would lose money. Mr. Fix stated the majority of the presentation Mr. Wisniewski made was around big box users. Mr. Wisniewski stated it was not, and when we enter into the agreements we are giving up half of our income tax, and it will affect every other commercial development that we enter into. Mr. Fix stated he would like to clarify that the way this works is, the costs are paid. Mr. Wisniewski questioned how it would work on Diley Road. Mr. Fix stated we would negotiate on the value of Diley Road, the amount of money they put into it, the amount of money we put into it, how it contributes to any particular parcel of land, and how that would be paid off over time. Mr. Wisniewski asked what would happen if we could not reach an agreement, and Mr. Fix stated he did not know. Mr. Wisniewski stated we needed to spell out in this agreement the terms of what happens in those situations, especially with annexations or JEDDs or anything else. He stated they could easily say they didn’t agree with Diley Road, they do not believe the $8 million the City taxpayers put in to improve that road was a reason the three-acre office complex was going in there, when everyone knows that office complex would not be being built right now if it was not for that road being improved. Mr. Fix stated if we do not agree, then an agreement does not come forth and the property cannot be developed.

Mr. Wisniewski stated if they offer us the opportunity to annex and we turn them down, if we have given up our 120-days to participate, then they are released from this agreement on that property. Mr. Fix stated if the township came to us and said they wanted to go into an annexation agreement on that three-acre piece of land, the clock would start ticking, and then we would start negotiating the value of Diley Road, the value of water and sewer services, and 90-120 days expire while we are going through the negotiation process. He stated he would agree the clock should start ticking once the terms are agreed upon. Mr. Hartmann stated he felt if you make notification that you intended to participate during that 120 days was all you needed to do. He stated he did not read that as all the negotiations needed to be complete within the 120 days. Mr. Hartmann stated this is a general framework for future agreements, there will be a lot that is not defined in here and will have to be agreed upon in the future. He stated he did feel the 120-days did create some ambiguity and you could change that. He stated, however, the way he read it was an opt out provision and they want to know within 120 days whether we are going to sit down at the table or not and talk to them. Mr. Smith stated the whole reason that was in there was because he had a concern if an undesirable development was involved, he had asked for a provision in the agreement where the City could back away. Mr. Fix stated he understood there were two different points, first the ability to back away from something we don’t want to do and secondly, the time constraints. He stated the way he wanted this to read was that the clock started ticking once the terms were agreed upon, and then there was 120 days to accept or reject it. Mr. Fix stated the Township’s concern was that when they brought something to us, they would want us to take action on it, not sit on it. Mr. Hartmann stated all he was going to try and do when reviewing this is to protect the City from a timeframe that we can get stuck in if we don’t agree to all the terms. Mr. Hackworth stated he thought some of the terms we can expect in the annexation agreements should be defined. Mr. Sabatino stated he thought every individual deal should be valued by the merits of each individual deal and that is why a blanket proposal like this is absolutely the wrong way to go about doing it. He stated he could not think of any business that would sign an agreement like this that leaves things so undefined, yet obligates the business to perform and provide services and give away part of their money. He stated it just doesn’t make sense to go with a blanket deal when we should be looking at the merits of each individual JEDD, and the fact that they haven’t been able to come up with something that would work is why this thing is here now. Mr. Wisniewski stated it is important to our community as a whole, because we would be giving up the opportunity to impose our guidelines, our impact fees, and other things that are starting to provide benefits to slowing growth, slowing the impact to our schools, those things we are now giving up because of this agreement. Mr. Fix stated that would be on residential development. Mr. Wisniewski stated we would be turning over our school district and any future residential growth to another governmental entity. Mr. Fix stated we did that a year or two ago. Mr. Wisniewski stated we did not, we had the out. Mr. Fix stated so if they had come up with a JEDD you would have done that. Mr. Sabatino stated they would have looked at it based on the merits of what was proposed; they didn’t come up with anything that made sense that was presented to us, and that is why we don’t have anything. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to add that that was after six to nine months in office and he would be the first to admit that he was extremely naïve in what was being presented and what was being offered and he would also be the first to admit that that was a mistake. He stated if he had the opportunity to change his vote he would do it because he felt we gave up a lot in that agreement for nothing in return. Mr. Wisniewski stated you learn from your mistakes and he believed that was one of them. Mr. Wisniewski stated we have done a lot and we have given up a lot to stop the warring with the Township, and he is not looking to enter into those wars again. He continued that if we give up our rights and abilities to do so when it serves our resident’s interests best is a big mistake. Mr. Fix stated he understood that, and if you looked at the broader picture and weighed the potential benefits of us annexing residential properties versus the potential benefits of participating in all the economic development that may happen in the Township over the next 30 years, in his opinion the scales tipped very heavily toward working on commercial development as opposed to trying to annex more residential. Mr. Sabatino questioned what was wrong with the City itself dealing with what commercial development happens within our jurisdiction, now and on our borders, and us being in total control over it and us keeping all the proceeds from it, that is what cities are supposed to do. He stated he did not see anything in our Charter that stated it was part of our job to subsidize Violet Township. Mr. Fix stated it was not a subsidy for Violet Township, it was Council’s job to try to do what they think is best for the citizens of the City of Pickerington. He stated they could chose to limit economic development to within the existing city borders and what we may be able to annex on our borders. He stated the research he has seen tells him that is very, very limited and would not provide significant streams of income in the future. Mr. Sabatino inquired what research that was and Mr. Fix stated it was the research presented to this group months ago by John McGory. Mr. Hackworth stated that didn’t have any numbers on it, and Mr. Sabatino stated that was pie in the sky. Mr. Fix stated it was presented by two experts who had done four months worth of research. Mr. Fix stated he was respecting the Tischler Bise report that Mr. Wisniewski brought forth and he would ask that equal respect be shown for information that was brought forth by people we think are experts. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not view them as experts by any means, he viewed them as consultants who have experience in their field. He further stated he also believed that the majority of the experience and the majority of that organization was serving Canal Winchester. Mr. Fix stated that was Mr. Wisniewski’s opinion, and he would hate to think we spent that amount of money on people that we didn’t think were experts in commercial development. Mr. Sabatino stated the point was, they did know something about what they were doing, but they were serving more than one master and that is why he was so opposed to using them. He stated they were not looking out for what truly benefits the City of Pickerington only; they worked for the City of Pickerington, the Village of Canal Winchester, and they also worked for Violet Township. Mr. Fix stated the information they presented was to all three groups about commercially viable properties in the entire Township, so they weren’t trying to say one was in good shape and one was in bad shape; they were saying here is the research, here is where the businesses are going in the next 20 years, you guys figure out what you want to do with it. Mr. Sabatino stated that was his point, it was their guess of what may happen. Mr. Fix stated it is their learned guess based on the months and months of research that they did and you are more than welcome to go back and look at the report and see how they got to the conclusions that they got to. Mr. Wisniewski stated when he questioned Mr. McGory about this, he agreed that a lot of this was pure speculation. Mr. Fix stated when you are looking at 30 years down the road, of course it was speculation. Mr. Wisniewski questioned what if nothing occurred in 30 years? We would be tying our hands for 30 years of growing and giving up half of what we could have potentially gotten through annexation with nothing in return. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would also like to comment that the majority of our taxes go toward our school district, and if we do not participate in this agreement, and if land is developed within the school district that we are not a part of, that whoever develops that land, it is still commercial and will still lower our taxes. The City does not have to be involved with those projects to lower the City resident’s tax dollars. Mr. Fix stated that is correct, however, what he keeps hearing is that Council would like to have the money to pave the roads; he hears the Mayor talking about having to go outside to private donors to put together a community center; what he hears is that our senior citizens will have to go for a tax levy to pay for their senior center. Mr. Fix stated we certainly don’t have to do this, but if that land is developed commercially, over time, our school district will be healthier than it is today, but our City will not be. Mr. Wisniewski stated there is nothing to say that the expenses we would put forth on this are going to go beyond our income source on it. He stated there will have to be millions of dollars of development that will have to occur prior to any of this land being commercially developed. Mr. Fix stated now Mr. Wisniewski was speculating. Mr. Wisniewski stated he was speculating that they will not build commercial out in the middle of a field without a road to get to it. So, all of the commercial development Mr. Fix was talking about down off of Rt. 33 isn’t going to be built without infrastructure, so there are going to be expenses. He continued we do not know that the expenses are going to offset the income or vice versa that we are going to be in a positive cash flow situation. Mr. Fix stated that is correct, we have no idea what would come in, what it would cost us to build the infrastructure that we might need to build, it is speculation. He stated we are looking 10 to 20 years down the road and the point of the matter is not who is right in their speculation, the point of the matter is that this City is better off in working on joint economic development programs with the Township than it is if we chose not to. Mr. Wisniewski stated on certain situations he would agree that is true, but you cannot make a blanket statement that it is a true or false statement based on every scenario that goes on. Mr. Fix stated that was right, but he could say, in general, when two governments work together on cooperative economic development those governmental entities are better off than if they tried to do it themselves. Mr. Sabatino stated his concern was also about the new commercial development that has occurred in the City, we have tied an impact fee to it, and for the most part there hasn’t been a whole lot of resistance to doing that. He questioned what would be the equity when they are paying the additional cost to comply with our commercial design standards and also paying an impact fee, and yet there is some deal with the Township that a development goes in and doesn’t have to pay those associated costs nor comply with those regulations. He questioned further how we could say we were being fair to the people who were contributing 100 percent and doing things the right way rather than because of an agreement with the Township the others don’t have to comply and don’t have to pay. Mr. Fix stated he thought that what Mr. Sabatino was saying was that any land that is contiguous to the City of Pickerington will be annexed and will go through our process and any land that is not contiguous to the City of Pickerington we would never get to anyway. So, if Mr. Sabatino’s concern was that we were not making everyone play by the same rules, in fact we are, because we are saying they will be annexed to our City and will comply with our rules and laws. Mr. Sabatino questioned what would happen when we got into one of these JEDD deals and it is not contiguous, then they don’t have to meet design standards and do not have to pay impact fees. Mr. Fix stated the equity is that if they were developing in the Township they would be developing in the Township anyway and would not have to do any of that stuff, we are just simply being able to participate in the benefits of that. Mr. Sabatino stated we are subsidizing that by giving away half of our income tax. Mr. Fix stated that would be half of our income tax on land that we would never be able to collect on anyway because if it is in a JEDD it means it is outside our boundaries and we would never be able to get to it. So, we will be able to benefit of collecting half the tax that we would never get. Mr. Sabatino stated his point was that we would not be fair to the people that pay to develop in the City and what encouragement would that be to the people that might potentially want to develop in the City. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt we owed the people who do develop in the City that equality of investment costs. Mr. Smith stated any JEDD is going to have a separate agreement and all municipal powers are available to be included in the JEDD; design standards, impact fees, all of that is available for the City to bring to the table. Mr. Sabatino stated that is why he felt we should look at each and every situation. Mr. Smith stated he agreed, and this agreement is what gets us to that point. Mr. Sabatino stated we would be giving away the store for the opportunity for something that might happen. Mr. Smith stated this agreement gives us a seat at the table, gives us a seat to at least consider…we could very well say no to any potential JEDD agreement that is offered to us. Mr. Smith stated we have that option, if it is not a deal maker for the City, if it is not in the best interests of our citizens, then we walk away. Mr. Sabatino stated then his point is why should we be forced to obligate ourselves to not being able to annex and to not conform our boundaries and all these other things, and put that final decision in the hands of the Trustees. Mr. Hackworth stated he doesn’t understand why the Township does not want us to annex land, they have allowed Canal Winchester to annex land, Reynoldsburg has annexed land, and if they have agreements that have allowed this could we get copies of them. Mr. Hackworth stated further he did not understand how we would reach an agreement on the tax dollars they would potentially lose to, first of all keep them whole, but not to completely have the City subsidize them. Mr. Fix stated he was sure that the Township would be happy to take conversations with us about CEDAs on our borders and would probably take less than the split after expenses that is proposed in this agreement. He stated the reason they wanted to go further than what they may have done in the past is because in return we are automatically invited to participate in any other activity they do that is not contiguous to our borders. Mr. Fix stated there are hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of acres that eventually will be developed commercially within the Township that we would never get to participate in if we don’t give up something. Mr. Wisniewski stated however that what we are giving up in the short term may be critical to our financial detriment right now. Mr. Fix stated he would like everyone to keep in mind this is not designed to be a big box draw, it is designed for a medical complex, a technology center, something that is going to bring in high income, high end jobs into our community. It is not designed to build another Wal Mart or another Meijer or anything like that. The idea is to generate the high end jobs and not more big box retail. Mr. Wisniewski stated he knows what the grandiose vision is, but just because you envision it, it doesn’t mean it will happen. He stated he can almost guarantee that there is going to be land that is on our borders that we will want to annex, that we will want to control, that is going to be retail. He stated if it is zoned in the Township and sitting on our borders, it will come into the City however it is zoned. Mr. Fix stated at some point there will be significant economic development outside our borders that we won’t be able to get to unless this agreement is in place. Mr. Sabatino stated he agrees with the concept that we need to work with the Township, but the way to keep them honest is to not have a blanket agreement. He stated if they are truly interested in perpetuating a working relationship with the City then they will bring us good deals that we are happy to participate in. Mr. Wisniewski stated over the past two and one-half years we have shown a lot of good faith to try and get away from the history of Pickerington, of the contention, of the fighting and everything else. He stated there is no reason why the Township cannot invite us to participate in something economically, out in the Pickerington school district of which we are a big part of, that is timeless to this. He stated there is no reason we have to have this to continue the relationship that we are building, and have built, we have given up a lot recently. Mr. Fix stated he respected that, but if you were to ask the Township Trustees their perception of the relationship that they have with the City of Pickerington right now, it would be dramatically different than the one he just described. He stated the perception of the relationship between our two governments is very negative right now, and down the road that might change. Mr. Fix stated if he did not think that this was clearly in the long-term best interests of our citizens he would never bring it before this body. Mr. Sabatino stated we need something that goes from deal to deal and makes every deal important. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt this agreement is providing more opportunity for future fights between the City and the Township than it is resolving. He further stated political entities will be political entities and the chest beating, the one-ups-man-ship, everything, is not going to resolved by this but will get worse. Mr. Fix stated the point is, this agreement was put together in good faith with the idea that we would work together in good faith, and that we would create joint economic development programs. He continued there is nothing to say that the Township won’t act like a bunch of idiots and there is nothing to say that the City won’t act like a bunch of idiots. There is no legislation in the world that we could come up with or an agreement that we could come up with that would preclude either one of us from acting like idiots. He stated this lays the groundwork for us to sit down at the table and say, look, this is going to be an annexation agreement, that is already identified, we already signed off on that, so now, let’s hash out the details of the annexation agreement.

Mayor Shaver stated at this point in time he did not know if there was going to be any consensus, and he would suggest you move forward. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like another version of this document before it is moved out of Committee, and Mr. Fix stated he intended to make a motion to move it out of Committee and ask Mr. Hartmann to make the changes discussed before it is presented to Council. Mr. Wisniewski stated they have not addressed everything and he would like to do that in Committee, where it belongs, versus forcing something to move forward. He stated there are so many outstanding issues that can continue to be negotiated and developed in Committee where it belongs and he did not understand why we needed to push this forward. Mr. Fix stated he felt time was of the essence and he would encourage perhaps a work session and there are a lot of ways we can continue to address these issues, and he would be happy to debate them. Mr. Fix further stated he is totally in favor of a full and honest debate in Council, in work sessions, whenever and wherever they wanted to do that. He stated he wants to work through this, but at some point we need to move forward. Mr. Wisniewski stated this is the first time this has been discussed in Committee, and we are talking about something that will tie the hands of our City for 30 years, and you are forcing it out in the very first night. He questioned how Mr. Fix thought that was fair to our citizens. Mr. Fix stated he felt there would be at least three more debates, but this needs to move forward tonight. Mayor Shaver stated he agreed with Mr. Fix that this needs to move forward, and also agreed there needs to be further discussion. He stated perhaps another Committee meeting could be scheduled for next week. Mr. Wisniewski stated Committees are where things are supposed to be worked through, and however long it took, that is how long it took. He stated he just did not understand why something so important has to be pushed out of Committee the very first time it is discussed. Mr. Smith stated this discussion has gone on for two hours and he agreed with the Mayor’s suggestion to schedule a special meeting next week to continue this discussion. Mr. Smith stated he felt it was important for everyone to see the agreement with the changes that were discussed tonight, and if Mr. Hartmann could make those changes and distribute it prior to another meeting that would be helpful. Mr. Wisniewski moved to schedule a Special Finance Committee meeting for Monday, October 25, 2006, at 7:30 P.M. to continue discussion on this issue; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

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

8. MOTIONS:

A. Motion for Executive Session under Section 121.22(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 moved for Executive Session under the above stated Sections; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

Finance Committee went into Executive Session at 11:20 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 11:42 P.M.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wisniewski moved to adjourn; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wisniewski voted "Aye." Motion carried, 4-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 11:45 P.M., September 21, 2006.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk