PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
TUESDAY, MAY 6,
2003
PUBLIC HEARING
7:20 P.M.
OPEN DISCUSSION
REGARDING PROPOSED REZONING OF 1.22+/- ACRES LOCATED AT 150 HILL ROAD FROM C-3
(COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
TO P-M (PLANNED
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) FOR THE
DONLEY CONCRETE
CUTTING COMPANY
Mayor Postage opened the public hearing at 7:20 P.M., with the following council members present: Mayor Postage, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Maxey. Others present were: Joyce Bushman, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chief Taylor, David Donley, and others.
Mayor Postage asked if there were any comments from the public, either for or against, the proposed rezoning. There were no comments.
There being no comments on this issue, Mayor Postage declared the public hearing closed at 7:23 P.M., May 6, 2003.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_____________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Louis V. Postage, Mayor
PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,
MAY 6, 2003
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, May 6, 2003, at City Hall. Mayor Postage called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Roll call was taken as follows: Mr. Fox, Mr. Parker, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Riggs, Mayor Postage were present. Mr. Wright was absent. Mayor Postage stated Mr. Wright’s mother-in-law passed away this morning and that is why he was not present this evening. Others present were: Joyce Bushman, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Jeff Feyko, Commander Mike Taylor, Susan Crotty, Jeff Kraus, Steve Carr, Molly Schwartz, Lance Schultz, Frank Wiseman, Leonard Lewis, Mike Maurer, Jennifer Wray, Kathy Lucas, Pat Shaver, George Hallenbrook, Lisa Reade, Dan Oakes, Jeff Fix, Bob Harding, Chris Angel, Rhonda Angel, Linda Fosnaugh, Wes Monhollen, Dan DiYanni, Jeanette Boruszewski, Dennis Boruszewski, Ted Hackworth, Jim Bauer, Bob Ramsdell, Sue Cook, Tony Barletta, Gary Peterman, Bruce Rigelman, Harry Myers, Tom Hart, Sara Rose, Carol Carter, Charles Ball, Pastor Jeff Myers, and others. Pastor Myers delivered the invocation.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 2003, REGULAR MEETING. Mr. Sabatino
moved to approve; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Maxey, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Parker, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, and Mrs. Riggs
voting “Yea.” Motion passed,
6-0.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Mr. Fox moved to approve; Mr. Sabatino
seconded the motion. Roll call was
taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr.
Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.”
Motion passed, 6-0.
Mayor Postage read a proclamation declaring May 5 through 11, 2003, as Public Service Recognition Week.
4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS:
A. Mr. Charles Ball, 541 Warwick Lane. Mr. Ball stated he would hope Council would vote for the moratorium on the agenda tonight. He stated the moratorium is for one year and that is a small time frame in the life of a community. Mr. Ball stated the schools are not the only issue, and the Community Authority does not address growth, it only adds more money for the schools. Mr. Ball stated traffic, infrastructure, and quality of life are not addressed. Mr. Ball stated Pickerington residents should not have to pay extra school taxes, while they wait in traffic, so a few select landowners can make a large amount of money. Mr. Ball stated there are plenty of houses for sale in the Pickerington area and the moratorium will not keep anyone from moving here. He stated he asked Council to do the right thing for Pickerington, not the Township over which we have no control, but be leaders and preserve our wonderful community.
B. Mr. Jeff Fix, 674 Manchester Circle, N. Mr. Fix read a statement into the record that is Attachment 1 to these minutes, and asked that Council do what is right for the community and pass the moratorium legislation.
C. Dennis Boruszewski, 542 Warwick Lane. Mr. Boruszewski stated tonight was Council’s opportunity to show the voters of Pickerington who they represent. He stated the residents have spoken loud and clear on how they feel about controlling growth in our community. He stated Pickerington citizens have spoken here in the Council forum in favor of controlled growth. Mr. Boruszewski stated Council should regulate the growth in the City even if Violet Township cannot regulate theirs. He stated the Mayor had said earlier in the year we were going to slow down growth anyway, and from what he has seen it looks like the City is handing out building permits like candy. Mr. Boruszewski stated tonight he implored Council to do the right thing for the people they represent, and pass the moratorium legislation as it is, without changes. He stated it is the right thing to do for the good of our community.
D. Carol Carter, 73 Lakeland Place. Ms Carter stated she understood this growth management plan was based on the one in Hudson, Ohio. Ms Carter stated she had called Hudson and spoke with Chris McMasters, who is in charge of this plan. She stated Ms McMasters had stated their plan has nothing to do with the growth of the schools, and has not changed the amount of students that attend their schools. Ms Carter stated the Hudson plan was based on the fact that they could not provide services such as water, sewer, police, and fire for an influx of industry plus residential. Ms Carter stated that is not the situation here as we can provide all of these services. Ms Carter stated one of her sons had attended the high school, however, he spent the last two years at Fairfield Career Center. She stated the Pickerington schools considered him a student although he was never physically there, and was in fact told he was not a student of Pickerington and he could not use any of their facilities. Ms Carter stated she would like to know what this growth management plan was based on. She further stated she felt the Township should also do something to control their growth and the students they add to the schools.
E. Bruce Rigelman, 12768 Ardine Court. Mr. Rigelman stated Council has some weighty matters on their agenda tonight. He stated he felt in all the discussion we have lost sight of the issue. He stated he felt many feel that we have lost control of the future of our community as it is growing at such a break neck pace, and we have not had the opportunity to think about the direction we would like our community to take. Mr. Rigelman continued he felt there is a need for us to slow down for a while so we can take control once again. He stated we are going to have growth, but we need to plan for that growth so we can manage it, and we need to take conscious and deliberate efforts to bring that about. Mr. Rigelman stated we know we want good schools, parks, green space, and to preserve some of our wooded areas. He stated it would be nice if we could build the kind of tax base that will support our schools at a moderate tax rate, not only now, but in the future. Mr. Rigelman stated he felt Mr. Shaver’s ordinance gave us the opportunity to do this. Mr. Rigelman stated the Community Authority is beside the point. He stated he felt some people feel that if the Community Authority could pay its own way then we shouldn’t worry about what goes on in it, what gets built there and at what pace it gets built. He stated there is no way a Community Authority could pay for those schools, as you cannot fund schools with a bunch of starter homes. He stated you need commercial, more expensive homes, empty nester homes, and you have to do a good bit of planning. Mr. Rigelman stated to assess the residents in the Community Authority at a rate sufficiently high to actually do that would make the homes totally unmarketable. Mr. Rigelman stated further he felt the residents of the Community Authority would be people who would be unwilling to vote for any additional school taxes because they would feel they got a raw deal right from the start. Mr. Rigelman stated he felt the issue was managed growth, to slow things down long enough to decide what kind of community we want and what kind of measures we need to take to produce that kind of community. He stated if we do not do that the land will all be gone and we will not have an opportunity to plan our own future. Mr. Rigelman stated he asked for Council to vote for Mr. Shaver’s proposal and to vote for managed growth.
F. Bob Harding, 13204 Wellesley Drive. Mr. Harding stated while the moratorium has been in front of Council for these many weeks he has said nothing, but tried to glean what the basic argument was against it. Mr. Harding stated he would like Council to keep in mind that Planning and Zoning in September of last year approved 2,000 residential units in their platting process, that we had annexed land with contract zoning, annexed land with inducements as far as reduced or abated utility fees, fights with citizens as far as referendums, and that the City is currently in violation of a court order in Fairfield courts as far as one annexation. Mr. Harding stated proper planning prevents poor performance and it is time now for this community to have a growth management plan.
G. Tom Hart, 495 Executive Campus. Mr. Hart stated he represented the Building Industry Association of Central Ohio. Mr. Hart read a statement into the record that is Attachment 2 to these minutes. Mr. Hart stated he would emphasize that the Community Authority cannot wholly replace the school funding system in the State of Ohio as applies to Pickerington, nor would it address the cataclysmic predictions of thousands of new homes to be built in one, two, or three year periods. He stated the CDA contemplates the build out of lots that are currently platted, and some future additional growth inside the Authority over a forty year period, not two years, five years, or even ten years. Mr. Hart stated the agreement would guarantee $35 million in new school construction funding and provides $1.75 million for a new community center, and utilizes economic penalties to keep growth under control.
H. Lisa Reade, 10416 Wright Road. Ms Reade read a statement into the record that is Attachment 3 to these minutes. Ms Reade stated Mr. Shaver’s ordinance gives Council a chance to develop a plan and 12 months is not a very long time. Ms Reade stated she felt Council needed to take a step tonight and vote to pass this legislation.
I. Wes Monhollen, 9501 Knarwood Court. Mr. Monhollen stated he is a resident of the Township, and he was present to address Council this evening not as the School Board President, but as a resident of the Township and the school district. Mr. Monhollen stated he would encourage Council to develop and pass a workable Community Authority as it is the only other viable means of building schools that we already need. He stated he would also encourage Council to work in conjunction with the Township to develop an overall comprehensive development plan for the district. Mr. Monhollen stated for the most part the Columbus portion of the school district is already built out, and this leaves the Township and the City of Pickerington. Mr. Monhollen stated a comprehensive plan can be developed that includes both the Township and City and can address the issue of residential growth, commercial growth, and factory and warehousing growth. Mr. Monhollen continued that only by working in cooperation with each other can this community prosper and move forward in a timely manner. He stated the Township must be a part of the development as the City is a part of the Township. Mr. Monhollen further stated when it comes to annexation, the City does not pull out of the Township; all City residents are a part of the Township while residents of the Township are not residents of the City. Mr. Monhollen stated that was why he was asking Council to do what they can to develop and contain growth in an orderly manner, not a moratorium, but managed growth. Mr. Monhollen stated everyone who has run for office or the school board over the past 20 some odd years have said managed growth, planned growth, planned community, and this is the very first time that anyone has addressed a method of funding schools other than direct taxation. Mr. Monhollen stated the vote on the operating levy today is being tabulated right now, and it does not include bond money for building schools. He stated the operating money is drastically needed, so to turn funding down that would take our children from trailers to housing is incomprehensible to him. Mr. Monhollen stated this may not be the only or the perfect solution, however, it is the only legal solution. Mr. Monhollen stated when he moved here in 1980 he would not have had a problem paying additional taxes to build schools, because over time none of us pay enough real estate tax to educate our children. He further stated he did not feel it was unfair to ask those who would move into the Community Authority to help build the needed schools. He continued if the people know up front when they move in that they will pay this additional tax, he did not see anything wrong with it. Mr. Monhollen stated we have a great school system, and the felt together the City and Township could build a comprehensive growth plan, and he also believed the Township can find a way to support school buildings.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Postage stated there were no consent agenda items this evening.
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A. FINANCE. Mr. Fox stated the Finance Committee minutes were distributed and he would answer any questions.
7. REPORTS:
A. MAYOR. Mayor Postage stated there was a meeting on Monday regarding the Community Authority and it was attended by school board members, the Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Wright, and himself, as well as others. Mayor Postage stated there had been a suggestion to have a third party review the numbers and provide a proposal on what the costs would be for the school district. He stated this report should be completed by mid-June. Mayor Postage stated once that proposal is received they will proceed from that point. Mayor Postage stated the Monthly Mayors Court Report had been distributed.
B. LAW DIRECTOR. Mr. Feyko stated he was present on behalf of Mr. Mapes who is ill. Mr. Feyko stated at Mr. Shaver’s request he had prepared legislation to amend Council Rules to require an abstention from voting on certain issues by council members whenever that member has received a campaign contribution. He stated he had also included comments and concerns with the draft legislation, as well as, some ethical standards for council members review. Mr. Feyko stated he would like to update council on the various drafts that have been prepared since the last council meeting with respect to Ordinance 2003-17, the ordinance enacting a growth management plan. Mr. Feyko stated he understood copies of these drafts had been distributed to Council. He continued he had prepared a draft at the request of Mr. Sabatino that essentially removed the language in the current legislation which limits the permits to 100 for the one year growth management period, and instead tied the issuance of the number of single family residential permits to the number that are issued by Violet Township, i.e., if Violet Township were to issue 25 single-family residential permits in the first quarter of 2003, then the City of Pickerington would be allowed to issue up to 25 housing permits for the second quarter of 2003, etc. He stated that is the primary change in this draft. Mr. Feyko stated he had also prepared a draft of an amended ordinance requested by Mr. Shaver that keeps the language in Section 3 that addresses the issuing of permits to 100 for the one year period the same, but it also provides for an exception or a stay from the moratorium on any developer or builder who becomes a part of a Community Authority. He stated the remaining language in this draft sets forth detailed terms of that Community Authority. Mr. Feyko stated Mr. Shaver may want to expound on the exact terms of that proposal. Mr. Feyko stated he had also issued a memo to Council with regard to the law director’s concerns on the pending legislation. He stated subsequent to the issuance of that memo he had received some correspondence from Mr. Shaver that addressed his concerns with regard to the memo. Mr. Feyko stated it was his opinion that some of Mr. Shaver’s concerns were legitimate and valid, for example, there have been court decisions that have upheld moratoriums up to 32 months. He stated there was a moratorium in the Lake Tahoe area where there was a total period of a moratorium for 32 months that the U.S. Supreme Court found to be appropriate. Mr. Feyko stated the intent of his memo was not to indicate that the moratorium, per se, would be held to be illegal by the courts. Mr. Feyko stated his research has indicated that where the moratorium period is of short duration, and where there are various exceptions provided for in the moratorium legislation, it is less likely to be legally challenged. Mr. Feyko stated this proposal is for one year, and includes single family privately owned residences and any land that may be added pursuant to a Community Authority. Mr. Feyko stated his intent was not to attempt to hold the proposed ordinance illegal, but to point out concerns he has with the legislation for council to consider. Mr. Feyko stated one concern was should council consider giving any priority status to lots that were created prior to the ordinance’s effective date, for example, lots that have received preliminary or final plat approval. He continued several people cite the Hudson, Ohio, case as authority for this, and that is one of the prevailing court decisions in the State of Ohio, and it is one that relates to Pickerington’s situation more so than other court decisions because it does deal with a restriction of residential units. He stated other concerns are should there be any priority considered by council for other types of housing, whether senior citizen, affordable housing, or any other criteria; should council consider reserving any of the allocation for special circumstances. He stated further another concern was if there should be any criteria set forth in the ordinance for the application process, such as who can apply, how many applications can they make per lot, the number of permits that can be submitted at a time, etc. He stated another point would be who would manage the allotment, would it be the responsibility of the City Manager or the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Feyko continued the Hudson ordinance sets forth who would address that particular issue. Mr. Feyko stated another concern was if any appeals process should be set forth. Mr. Feyko stated these were suggestions only and he cannot predict that the passage of any of the drafts of this legislation will absolutely result in a legal challenge by a developer or any other individual. Mr. Feyko stated he felt the issue being faced by the city is unique when compared to situations that have taken place in other communities, and for that reason he felt council was treading on uncharted waters. He stated it could be a situation where because of the short term duration, no one decides to appeal this and challenge it in a court of law, or it could be where it is quickly challenged and a preliminary injunction sought. Mr. Feyko stated the reason he felt this was uncharted waters is because the proposal on behalf of the City differs from what has been considered by other communities in that in other communities it is tied to the adoption of some sort of comprehensive land use plan or some sort of other plan, whether an improvement of infrastructure, streets, sewers, or water, and it is his impression that does not exist here. He stated the primary concern is the school overcrowding issue and that may be a case of first impression for the courts to consider as to whether or not that basis is a rational basis for the City to implement a moratorium. Mr. Feyko stated those were all the comments he had and he would be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Maxey stated they had also received another draft that Mr. Feyko did not speak about, and it did not speak about limiting housing permits. Mr. Maxey inquired who had requested this legislation. After reviewing the document Mr. Feyko stated he did not recognize it as legislation that was requested from his office.
Mr. Shaver stated he felt if you examined the preamble of his proposed legislation, the whole purpose of the one year moratorium is to provide for the development of a comprehensive land use plan, and in that sense he felt it squares with all the previous plans Mr. Feyko spoke about.
C. FINANCE DIRECTOR. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided Council with a recap on the interest rate on the TIF 256/204 notes. She stated the notes were purchased by U.S. Bank at an interest rate of 2.01 percent. She stated she should have the interest rates on the water issue at the next meeting. Mrs. Fersch further stated at the Finance meeting they had approved the Resolution to adopt the 2004 Tax Budget, and the Ohio Revised Code requires we file a proposed budget with the Tax Commission, and it requires we pass this budget by July 15th. Mrs. Fersch stated the proposed budget is a basic budget and is 30 percent less than the current year. Mrs. Fersch stated this is a proposed budget and our actual budget will be passed at the end of the year.
D. MANAGER. Mrs. Bushman stated her report had been distributed, and she would like to note that the repairs on the water tower have been completed and the tower should be back in service by May 7th. Mrs. Bushman further stated the construction on Cycle Way should begin shortly, and the contractor is on site for the last phase of the downtown revitalization.
Mr. Maxey stated he had the opportunity to attend a function in Perry County that involved multi-jurisdictional agencies involved in MRDD and developmentally disabled type issues. Mr. Maxey stated Ms Christine Brown had requested he attend this function and she had given a program on what the City of Pickerington has done for such individuals and he would like to congratulate her on her presentation.
8. PROCEDURAL READINGS:
A. ORDINANCE 2003-38, “AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE 150 HILL ROAD NORTH FROM C-3 (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) TO P-M (PLANNED GENERAL INDUSTRIAL) AND TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAN,” First Reading, Maxey. Mr. Maxey moved to adopt; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Maxey stated a public hearing had been held earlier this evening and this has been through Planning and Zoning and Service Committee before being forwarded to Council for approval. Mr. Maxey stated he would like to note that should this property change hands, the new owners would have to come to the City to get approval on their usage, and thus the Planned Community Commercial zoning. Roll call was taken with Mr. Maxey, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Shaver voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
B. ORDINANCE 2003-39, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2003 APPROPRIATION, ORDINANCE 2002-142,” First Reading, Parker. Mr. Parker moved to adopt; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Parker stated he would answer any questions. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
C. ORDINANCE 2003-40, “AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 1440.02 OF THE PICKERINGTON CODIFIED ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO THE POSITION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL,” First Reading, Parker. Mr. Parker moved to adopt; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Parker stated this is a housekeeping issue and he would answer any questions. Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Fox voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
D. RESOLUTION 2003-07R, “A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 2004 TAX BUDGET TO MEET THE JULY 15, 2003, DEADLINE AS SET FORTH IN THE OHIO REVISED CODE, SECTION 5705.28,” First Reading, Wright. Mr. Parker moved to adopt; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Parker stated the Finance Director had briefed on this earlier and he would answer any questions. Roll call was taken with Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Fox voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
E. ORDINANCE 2003-33, “AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT STANDARDS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF TREES AND WOODED AREAS,” Second Reading, Sabatino. Mr. Sabatino moved to adopt; Mr. Maxey seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino stated this ordinance dealt with attempting to preserve trees and wooded areas in development as it occurs in the future. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
F. ORDINANCE 2003-34, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF $1,900,000 OF NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS, TO RENEW NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY, INCLUDING PHASES 3 AND 4 OF THE D-LINE SEWER,” Second Reading, Wright. Mr. Parker moved to adopt; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Mr. Shaver clarified these are renewal notes. Roll call was taken with Mr. Shaver, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Fox voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
G. ORDINANCE 2003-35, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF $500,000 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 COSTS OF ACQUIRING AND CONSTRUCTING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER SYSTEM OF THE CITY,” Second Reading, Wright. Mr. Parker moved to adopt; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
H. ORDINANCE 2003-36, “AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE 99-64 RELATIVE TO USE OF THE CITY’S RIGHTS-OF-WAYS,” Second Reading, Parker. Mr. Parker moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Shaver, Mr. Maxey, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
I. RESOLUTION 2003-05R, “A RESOLUTION OF AUTHORIZATION (NATUREWORKS AND/OR FEDERAL LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM),” Second Reading, Sabatino. Mr. Sabatino moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino stated this dealt the grant application for the handicapped garden. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
J. RESOLUTION 2003-06R, “A RESOLUTION DEDICATING CDBG FORMULA ALLOCATION TO THE REMOVAL OF ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS IN THE CITY,” Second Reading, Parker. Mr. Parker moved to adopt; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Parker stated again, this would authorize using the CDBG funds for the removal of architectural barriers in the city. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
9. LEGISLATIVE READINGS:
A. ORDINANCE 2003-17, “AN ORDINANCE ENACTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ON THE ISSUING OF HOUSING PERMITS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR,” Third Reading, Shaver. Mr. Shaver moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Mr. Shaver stated he felt at times we have lost track of exactly what this ordinance is about. He stated it is not an attempt to permanently shut down builders, to keep outsiders out of our community, or a classist attempt to keep out poor people. Mr. Shaver stated it is nothing other than what it states in the preamble, an ordinance that allows a one year period of respite from rapid residential growth in order to develop a comprehensive land use plan and a comprehensive plan in conjunction with Violet Township so we can take direction and control of our community. He stated it is for one year, not forever, and even during this one year it allows for residential growth. Mr. Shaver stated that has been distorted over time, and there have been challenges made as to the legality by individuals who are not lawyers. Mr. Shaver stated he would refer everyone to a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, by Justice Stevens, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., versus Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. He stated this case involved a series of rolling moratorium that lasted for a period of 32 months in which absolutely no development whatsoever was allowed. Mr. Shaver stated the Court rejected the constitutional due process challenges in that case. Mr. Shaver continued we have over 4,000 homes platted already in our City, and those are the homes he is concerned about. He stated if we do nothing to control them, regardless of what the Township does, we are going to overcrowd our resources, so we need to do something with those 4,000 homes. He stated he did not think any developer was basing their entire future ten year development upon a simple one year statue that by its own definition will end within a short period of time. He stated the argument this should be tied to the Township fails when you consider the recent history, the Township has not produced homes at the rate the City has. Mr. Shaver continued it does the City no good to simply match the Township point for point in a race to destroy our schools, destroy our roadways, and to overburden our community. Mr. Shaver stated he believed that once this is enacted the Township would take every step possible to control their growth. Mr. Shaver stated he hoped this legislation would pass tonight and that the BIA and City of Pickerington would continue to have dialogue and that at some point in time they could reach an agreement. Mr. Shaver continued the agreement as presented by the BIA simply does not satisfy our concerns, we are still left with the issue of even if we can raise money to build two new schools what happens when students flood into those schools and we are now faced with operating expenses. He stated Mr. Monhollen seems to forget that the budget crisis facing the schools right now is not one of building costs, it is one of operating expenses, and if we add 1,000 new students within the next two years we will be adding not only the need for new school buildings, but for new teachers, new administrators, and new janitors. Mr. Shaver stated operating expenses are the biggest item in the school budget. Mr. Shaver stated he felt we could slow the rate of growth while still having a Community Authority. Mr. Shaver stated there are two draft amendments being proposed, one by Mr. Sabatino and one by Mr. Wright. He stated Mr. Wright’s amendment would essentially codify the BIA proposal. He stated Mr. Sabatino’s amendment would tie it to the Township, which he felt was deficient because it would tie it to the Township, but also has a clause in it that it would not apply to anyone who has received final plat approval before December 31, 2001. He stated that meant we would have another category of houses that this would not apply to. He continued that this is too important an issue for this community to be handled by trying to pass an amendment at the third and last reading. Mr. Shaver stated he would respectfully suggest to this Council that they vote on the statute as is, if they do not like it vote against it. He continued if anyone has a better statute in mind, they should introduce it on their own and have it go through three readings and the type of public discussion we have had over the last month and a half. Mr. Shaver stated he would suggest that Council do what is right for this community and give it time to explore other options, including other options with the BIA, and not simply turn their backs on the voices of the community.
Mr. Parker stated in his opinion the Community Authority is very important, and he had picked up a copy of the New Albany Community Authority. Mr. Parker stated the money from a Community Authority is not restricted to just the schools, although he would like to see the majority of it go there. He stated in New Albany of the $43 million the Community Authority brings in, $28 million goes to educational facilities, $22.7 million for engineering work on Rt. 161, $1 million for open space and park land to be purchased, $9.5 million for the town hall, $1 million for a bike way, $1.25 million for a fire truck and fire house, and $2 million for a community health and wellness center facility. Mr. Parker stated a Community Authority is not designed to meet the schools needs and pay for everyone’s education, and he still felt there was room for negotiation with the BIA. He stated he is not sure why City Council is trying to negotiate the Community Authority and if the Community Authority is going to basically put money in the schools pockets, he felt the School Board needed to come up with a plan to say what they can handle with kids, what they can come up with, etc. Mr. Parker further stated if this legislation passes, it will be interesting to see what the Township reaction is and if they will do anything. Mr. Parker also stated he has read where people are saying they are tired of the high taxes. Mr. Parker stated if you check the Fairfield County web site, you will see that property taxes have not increased that drastically over the past several years.
Mr. Sabatino stated there has been good discussion on this issue and he felt the BIA proposal could potentially address the future growth in the City. He stated he would urge the Township Trustees to do something in conjunction with the schools as well. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the current shortfalls in the school district should be addressed school district wide since the City is not totally responsible for what has happened in the schools. Mr. Sabatino further stated he would be interested in knowing how many homes are currently platted in the Township and available for development. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the BIA proposal had some potential, but he would like more time to analyze it before making any decision. Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed with Mr. Monhollen that we should not turn our back on the funding the BIA was proposing as it is a step in the right direction.
Mr. Fox stated Mr. Shaver had requested the law director prepare another ordinance that had been distributed to Council. Mr. Fox continued it has always been his position that if possible we try to make the moratorium work with the Community Authority. Mr. Fox stated from his reading of the amended draft Mr. Shaver had presented, it did that, and makes sense on what we want to do. He inquired why Mr. Shaver was not going to offer that ordinance tonight. Mr. Shaver stated he understood his proposal had been rejected by the BIA as they are uncomfortable with more than six mills and also want to include language that would force Council to undermine the two units per acre that was passed by the voters. He stated he would not offer it tonight because he had hoped to offer it if it was something that was unilaterally acceptable to the BIA and all members of Council. He stated since it is not acceptable, he did not see a point in offering it. Mr. Fox stated he felt it was acceptable. Mr. Shaver stated legislation can be amended and the purpose of the one year slow growth is to allow the type of discussion so we can come up with a comprehensive plan. Mr. Shaver stated he would also point out the New Albany plan not only provides for a lot of services other than the schools, but it is also a very carefully constructed document. Mr. Shaver stated this is the type of comprehensive plan we need to come up with. Mr. Shaver stated he would urge Council to adopt the legislation as it is. Mr. Fox clarified Mr. Shaver was not opposed to the Community Authority per se, and the independent financial group would be providing their report by mid-June. Mr. Sabatino clarified this group is an independent third party and they would base their report on numbers provided by the City and the Schools and they would also look at the entire 36 square miles of the district. Mr. Fox ascertained from Mr. Shaver that the BIAs main objections to his revised ordinance was the ten mills and they were also opposed to any limitations on any absolute numbers such as the 3,000 limit on the number of homes that can be built in the ten year period. Mr. Fox stated it was his position that the best solution for everyone was to make this work, and the Community Authority did make sense for the schools. Mr. Fox stated if Mr. Shaver is open to changing his legislation sometime in the future to work with something of this nature, he would support Mr. Shaver’s ordinance. Mr. Shaver stated absolutely, that was the whole purpose. He stated this was not meant to be a permanent 100 homes per year, it is meant to be worked upon and it is meant to have further negotiations. Mr. Shaver stated if we come up with a solution within six months or three months, then holding onto the 100 homes per year would not be necessary.
Mr. Maxey stated he had spoken to Mr. Shaver regarding the amended ordinance and he agreed with Mr. Fox that if this ordinance were passed tonight, it is the same thing as what is on the agenda with the exception that it provides for absolute minimums for a Community Authority. Mr. Maxey further stated the sticking point appears to be the ten mill assessment, and there are an additional five different qualifiers within that Community Authority that need to be met. Mr. Maxey stated the only thing the rework of the ordinance does is set out minimums for the Community Authority. Mr. Maxey stated he felt the amount of ten mills could be amended if necessary. Mr. Maxey stated he felt Council would be foolish not to amend with the new document from Mr. Shaver and he felt it would be met with overwhelming support. Mr. Maxey stated in the BIA proposal it speaks to tickling the two lots per acre, and he was in no way in favor of that. Mr. Maxey stated the amendment as presented by Mr. Shaver is acceptable to him with the exception of the amount of ten mills. Mr. Maxey stated the ordinance that is on the agenda does not provide for a Community Authority, and this new document does. Mr. Sabatino stated if we can come close to an answer to the problem, why would we not want to do that. Mr. Shaver stated he did not feel an answer could be constructed sitting here at Council. He stated he felt there should be deliberation and at this point in time he felt the ordinance should be passed as it is with a reminder that the purpose of the legislation is to ultimately come to sort of conclusion that will be beneficial to all.
Mrs. Riggs stated Council has been at this for quite awhile, the legislation is in front of Council for a third reading, and Mr. Shaver has given his word that he is willing to amend the legislation if there is a Community Authority we can all agree with and work with. Mrs. Riggs stated she felt this was a tool to be used as it is not stopping growth, it is slowing it down so we can plan our community and work with the Township.
Mr. Fox stated the bottom line is the new ordinance presented by Mr. Shaver basically codifies what is on the agenda, and if everyone will allow a good faith effort at a Community Authority, based very much off of this document, he would feel comfortable moving forward with this document. Mr. Fox stated if the amount of millage needs to be changed then we can amend the document later. Mr. Parker stated Mr. Shaver has given his word to work on the Community Authority he did not see why we did not amend the legislation this evening.
Mr. Maxey moved to amend by substitution with the draft ordinance offered by Mr. Shaver with the exception of removing the last sentence in Section 5, subparagraph (a) with regard to the ten mill assessment; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Shaver stated that would gut the amendment. Mr. Maxey stated he felt all the other criteria would still have to be met and when everyone can agree on the millage amount then this legislation could be amended. Mr. Shaver stated that was not correct, and Mr. Maxey stated if the Community Authority did not happen then this would be the original proposed ordinance. Mr. Feyko stated Mr. Shaver was correct as the first part of Section 5 states that when a qualifying petition is presented the restrictions will be stayed as to any private developer/builder who is a party to the petition. Mr. Shaver stated that meant they could come in with an amount of one dollar and that made the statute worthless, and questioned if Mr. Maxey still wanted to make the amendment. Mrs. Riggs stated she felt Council had an obligation to the citizens to pass what has been looked at for the past six months and Mr. Shaver has stated many times that he is willing to amend it as needed. She stated there is no reason why they cannot continue to talk and change it if necessary, but she felt Council had an obligation to the citizens to make a decision tonight. Mr. Maxey stated he understood the stay was on the acceptance of the petition, and after Mr. Feyko’s explanation his proposed amendment would not work. Mr. Maxey withdrew his motion to amend; Mr. Sabatino withdrew his second to the motion to amend. Mr. Shaver stated he would call the question on the original ordinance. Roll call was taken on Ordinance 2003-17, third reading, with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Maxey, and Mr. Parker voting “Nay,” and Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion failed, 3-3.
Mr. Fox moved to adopt Mr. Shaver’s draft ordinance that contains a 100 permit limit per year with the ten mill assessment; Mr. Maxey seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Parker, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
B. ORDINANCE 2003-28, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO PROVIDE WATER SERVICE TO THE PROPERTIES ON PEARL LANE AND FLORENCE DRIVE,” Third Reading, Parker. Mr. Parker moved to adopt; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Maxey, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Parker, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
C. ORDINANCE 2003-31, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2003 APPROPRIATION, ORDINANCE 2002-142,” Third Reading, Fox. Mr. Fox moved to adopt; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Parker, Mr. Maxey, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
D. ORDINANCE 2003-32, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2003 APPROPRIATION, ORDINANCE 2002-142,” Third Reading, Fox. Mr. Fox moved to adopt; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fox, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Shaver voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
10. MOTIONS:
A. Mr. Maxey moved to set a public hearing for open discussion on the proposed 2004 Tax Budget for 7:15 P.M., May 20, 2003; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Parker, Mr. Maxey, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
B. Mr. Maxey moved for Executive Session under Section 121.22(G)(3), Conference with Law Director on pending or imminent court action; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
Council recessed at 9:45 P.M. and reopened in open session at 9:50 P.M.
Mayor Postage stated prior to going into Executive Session it has been brought to his attention that the growth management ordinance was not an amended ordinance, but a new piece of legislation. Mayor Postage stated this ordinance has been designated as Ordinance 2003-41, “An Ordinance Enacting a Growth Management Plan on the Issuing of Housing Permits for Single Family Residential Units for a Period of One Year,” and only the first reading had been completed. Mr. Fox moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. Shaver seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Maxey, Mr. Fox, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Shaver and Mr. Parker voting “Yea.” Suspension of Rules passed, 6-0. Second Reading. Mr. Shaver moved to adopt; Mr. Maxey seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Parker, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0. Third Reading. Mr. Shaver moved to adopt; Mr. Maxey seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
Council adjourned into Executive Session at 9:55 P.M., and reconvened in open session at 10:07 P.M.
11. OTHER BUSINESS: Mayor Postage stated he was referring Mr. Shaver’s draft ordinance regarding abstention on voting to the Rules Committee.
12. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mrs. Riggs moved to adjourn; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Parker, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, and Mrs. Riggs voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M., May 6, 2003.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
__________________________________
ATTEST:
___________________________________