SERVICE COMMITTEE
OF COUNCIL
CITY HALL, 100
LOCKVILLE ROAD
THURSDAY, OCTOBER
12, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Hackworth called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Riggs present. No members were absent. Others present were: Brian Wisniewski, Mike Sabatino, Keith Smith, Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Brenda VanCleave, Jennifer Frommer, Phil Hartmann, Doug Blake, Rick Palsgrove, Kirk Richards, Tony Barletta, Amanda Collier, Tracy Conforti, Missy Naegle, David Naegle, Keith Merritt, Tiffany Van Duyn, Carol Carter, Dennis Boruszewski, Sean Casey, David Owen, William Yaple, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF September 14, 2006, Regular Meeting. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Hackworth, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
Mr. Hackworth stated several individuals were present this evening to discuss the draft legislation regarding Windmiller Ponds that is under the Chairman’s section of the agenda. He stated he would like to take care of the first part of the agenda and then come back to that item if there were no objections.
3. COMMUNITY COMMENTS: There were no community comments.
4. PLANNING AND ZONING
A. REPORTS:
(1) BZA Report. Mr. Hansley stated the Board of Zoning Appeals met September 28th, and approved a rear yard building setback variance for a deck and in the Georges Creek Subdivision and a rear yard building setback variance for a self contained cooler for The Wine Guy Wine Shop. He stated in October they will review requests for a front yard setback variance for a house on Columbus Street and a variance to the Residential Design Standards for the remaining buildings within the Villas at Milnor Crossing Condominiums.
(2) Planning and Zoning Representative Report (Mrs. Hammond) Mrs. Hammond stated Planning and Zoning met this past Tuesday and they approved a Code amendment pertaining to Day Care or home babysitting to bring our Code up to the State standards. She stated they approved some preliminary and final plats that will be before Service Committee next month.
B. ACTION ITEMS: There were no action items.
5. SERVICE DEPARTMENT
A. REPORTS:
(1) Utility Fees Review Committee Representative Report (Mr. Hackworth). Mr. Hackworth stated the Committee did not meet in September.
B. ACTION ITEMS:
(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance approving the Violet Township Maintenance Building use of Fairfield County water. Mr. Hackworth stated he would like to have this remain on the agenda.
C. WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE:
(1) Review and discussion regarding request by Pickerington Local School District to install deduct meters at Pickerington Central High School and Pickerington Elementary School. Mr. Hackworth stated this is provided to the Committee for discussion, however, no action is required. Ms VanCleave stated Mr. Drobina would recommend allowing schools to allow deduct meters on the cooling tower only.
D. WASTEWATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE: No Report.
E. STREET MAINTENANCE. No Report.
F. STORM WATER UTILITY MAINTENANCE. No Report.
G. TREE COMMISSION. Update. There was no update this evening.
6. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS
A. WASTEWATER
(1) Wastewater Plant Expansion - Update. Mr. Hackworth stated there was no update this evening.
(2) D-Line Interceptor Sewer Phase IIIB – Update. Ms Frommer stated the project is complete. Mr. Hackworth requested this item be removed from the agenda.
B. TRANSPORTATION:
(1) Diley Road Improvements Project:
a. MORPC/ODOT Project – Update.
b. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance vacating 0.341 acres, more or less, of Old Diley Road located southwest of S.R. 256, and 0.685 acres, more or less, of Old Diley road located south of Windmiller Drive, City of Pickerington, County of Fairfield, State of Ohio. Mr. Hackworth stated this item will be continued on the agenda.
c. Review and request for motion to approve draft resolutions of intent to appropriate Temporary Construction Easements from Arlene Stoyer and Tina M. Tinkham. Mr. Hackworth stated the law director has indicated that we will be receiving a large number of Resolutions and he would like to hold these items and take them all together to Council at the next meeting. He stated they would be requesting a Council waiver of committee action, and if that were not approved they would come to Service Committee at the next meeting for committee action.
(2) Cover/Ebright Connector
a. Pickerington Health Care Access Road – Update. Ms VanCleave stated she did not have an update this evening.
(3) Traffic Signal Update. Mr. Hackworth clarified we will be putting video sensors at the Hill Road/Columbus Street intersection. Ms Frommer stated the contractor hoped to start the installation next week.
(4) Review and discussion regarding PYAA/PASA site access. Ms VanCleave stated she has a meeting scheduled with them tomorrow. She stated she hoped to have more information for the next Service Committee meeting.
(1) Review and discussion regarding water tower options. There was no report this evening.
D. STORMWATER. There was no report this evening.
7. CHAIRMAN.
A. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance approving the provision of administrative support and financial assistance to the homeowner’s in the Windmiller Ponds Subdivision in their efforts to upgrade certain common areas and other public improvements prior to formal acceptance. Mr. Hackworth stated the Committee had received the draft ordinance to allow staff to continue work with the Windmiller Ponds Homeowner’s Association. He stated there are a number of issues with this subdivision and the builder is very close to having it built out, and one of the big issues deals with the ponds. Mr. Hackworth stated this ordinance would authorize up to $25,000 to work toward a resolution on these issues. Mr. Hackworth stated there was some amount of fault on the City’s part on these issues and he felt it was important to get this straightened out and learn from the mistakes and also staff will be working on an ordinance with regard to retention ponds. Mr. Hackworth stated the City Manager resides in this subdivision and our law director works for Schottenstein, Zoxx, and & Dunn and that firm represents Rockford Homes and the City. He stated to avoid any conflict both the City Manager and the law director are not present for this discussion. Mr. Hackworth moved to approve the draft ordinance and forward to Council; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.
Mr. Hackworth stated discussion regarding the Economic Development Agreement that was moved to Service Committee at the last Council Meeting is next on the agenda, and discussion may be lengthy, he would like to take a brief recess before getting into that discussion.
Service Committee recessed at 7:55 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 8:10 P.M. Ms Gilleland and Mr. Hartmann were present.
8. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Hackworth stated at the last Council meeting the Economic Development Agreement that was in the Finance Committee was moved to Service Committee by the Mayor at the request of Mr. Fix. Mr. Hackworth stated members of Council would be given an opportunity to make a statement and then public comments would be heard. Mr. Hackworth stated Mr. Fix was not present as he was traveling, but he would try and get here as soon as possible.
Mr. Wisniewski stated prior to his presentation he would like to state that he is not advocating aggressive annexation policies nor is he advocating fighting with the Township. Mr. Wisniewski stated everyone has come to the conclusion that it is best to work with them cooperatively if possible. Mr. Wisniewski stated, however, he is in favor of working with them on a case-by-case basis and opposing this agreement does not mean that he or others do not want to work cooperatively with the Township as has been stated. Mr. Wisniewski stated further he is seriously opposed to making massive concessions based on speculations. Mr. Wisniewski provided a power point presentation (Attachment 1 to these minutes).
Ms Carol Carter questioned why it seemed this was being pushed through, and Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not know. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had looked at the agreement inside out and he has yet to find a good answer as to why this needs to get pushed through or it even needs to occur.
Mrs. Riggs stated she felt Mr. Wisniewski had done a very good job on his research. She stated this was the first time she had seen this information and she would also like to hear from our Director of Development and staff. Mrs. Riggs stated she did not feel the agreement was ready to be moved out from Service Committee and she felt Council needs to work collaboratively and continue to look at it from all sides. She stated she thought they need to work together and she would also like to invite the Township Trustees in to talk with them to present what they are looking for from the City. Mrs. Riggs stated over 87 percent of our school tax comes from residents and only 11 percent from businesses. She stated she felt the way this agreement looks now it is not the answer, but she did not feel we should stop talking. Mr. Wisniewski stated he appreciated Mrs. Riggs comments and he was not indicating we should not stop talking, that we do have opportunities with JEDDs, etc., to work together. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not feel this was the agreement for our City, and he has no problem working on things on a case-by-case basis and he would encourage that. He further stated to hamper our citizens and to hamper our growth as a City, he did not agree with. Mr. Wisniewski stated he does want to work with the Township when it makes sense, however, there are time we may have to go head-to-head with them to protect our residents. He stated he is willing to fight the fight when we need to do it, but he agreed cooperation is imperative. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt this agreement is a detriment and if this agreement is what has to be in place in order for us to work cooperatively, then it is time to let it go.
Mrs. Hammond stated there has been a lot of speculation about how people feel about this, and she would like to make it very clear that no one has asked her how she feels about it. She stated, while she agrees that some kind of agreement needs to be made with the Township, she has never been 100 percent behind this particular agreement. She stated she was under the impression that it would be talked through and worked out and she hoped they would continue to do something of that nature.
Mr. Sabatino stated he is encouraged by Mrs. Riggs comment that she is not ready to move this out of Service Committee at this time. He stated he is having difficulty understanding why it was moved from Finance to Service and he did not think how it was done was right.
Mr. Hackworth distributed a handout (Attachment 2 to these minutes). Mr. Hackworth stated his handout details ten reasons why he does not like the way the agreement is written and also includes four amendments he would like to be considered for the agreement. Mr. Hackworth stated the City is spending about $21 million of state, federal, and local dollars to build the three-mile section of Diley Road. He stated that 42 percent of that road is in the Township, so we are paying about $3.4 million for the Township’s share of the road. Mr. Hackworth stated in looking at the MORPC study, someone is going to have to commit to some huge road building projects, and since Townships can’t take on debt, if the City were to enter into this agreement we would have to ensure that we would have enough income coming in to pay the debt on any road project.
Ms Carol Carter stated she agrees we need to work with the Township. Ms Carter stated Canal Winchester has an agreement with Violet Township on the Meijer store going in, and questioned if Pickerington got anything for our schools. Mr. Hackworth stated that was in the Canal Winchester school district. Ms Carter stated her question was if we agreed to this agreement and any other entity made an agreement with Violet Township, would we get anything for our schools. Mr. Hackworth stated we would not, and this agreement bars us from the existing CEDA within the Village of Canal Winchester. Ms Carter then clarified that both parties would have to agree if someone wanted out after the ten years, one party could not just withdraw. Ms Hammond stated it does say that, however, she thought that was still under negotiation by this Council.
Mr. Doug Blake stated he is a resident of the City and also is the current Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission and a past member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Blake stated he is not against any type of agreement with the Township as long as it is financially beneficial to both parties, and that both parties take the same financial risks. He stated as this agreement stands he did not see that. Mr. Blake stated further as he understands it, the City has the ability to borrow money and the Township does not, so how would the funds be brought in to do all the infrastructure, the sewer, etc., without the Township putting their fifty percent in. Mr. Wisniewski stated it would have to be shared and it would not be strictly upon the City’s taxpayers, it would have to be a levy. Mr. Blake stated the City still has about 300 acres that have the potential to be developed commercially, and he looked at the quality of the commercial development that the City has done in the past three years. Mr. Blake continued there is no comparison with the quality of development that has occurred in the City and that in the Township. He stated the City has office buildings coming into the City, an assisted living facility, we are not going after big box stores, and he believed Planning and Zoning has been doing a great job in this. Mr. Blake stated Mr. Hansley has been recently hired as the Director of Development and ascertained that Mr. Hansley has not been involved in implementing this agreement. Mr. Blake stated he could not believe an agreement like this has been drafted without the Development Director’s input. Mr. Blake further stated this is the most important piece of legislation he has seen and he asked Council members not to run this through without a long and thoughtful process.
Mr. Bruce Englehart stated his questions were the same as Mr. Blake’s, why was our Director of Development not involved in the most important document in this City. Mr. Englehart stated between the Director of Development and the City Manager we have forty years of experience, and our Mayor has allowed a junior council member to negotiate such an important document. He stated that should not happen.
Mr. Dave Nagle stated he would just reiterate what Mr. Blake and Mr. Englehart had stated. He further stated he firmly believed the City should not limit its ability to grow.
Mr. Tony Barletta stated he has been supportive of most council members for election to Council, but he finds himself agreeing with people he might not have supported before. He stated when he initially got involved with Council back in the 90s there was a lot of stuff going on and a lot of citizens got involved because things were being done that were not in the best interests of the City. Mr. Barletta stated for the past few years he has been able to sit home and not attend many Council meetings. He stated the more he hears about this agreement the more he thinks this is not a good deal for the City and it looks kind of one-sided. He stated it concerns him that the best interests of Pickerington be respected.
Mr. Dennis Boruszewski stated he is a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, although he is not speaking in that capacity tonight. Mr. Boruszewski stated he also worked very hard to effect a change in our city back when the team for change was running. He stated to be honest, he also has been able to sit at home and not attend meetings like he once did, but from what he has been reading lately it is not flowing quite as smoothly as he thought it was. He stated from what he has been gathering, backroom meetings are starting up again, things are not taking place in public view, and that needs to stop and needs to change. He stated council’s credibility is quickly fading in his mind when he finds out that things are not being done out in the open. He stated let’s put it back out in the sunshine where it belongs, when you have meetings there should be minutes, and meetings are not supposed to take place in a barroom.
Mr. Sabatino stated he had received an e-mail from a previous council member who wanted to be here this evening, but had a previous commitment. Mr. Sabatino read an e-mail from David England into the record (Attachment 3 to these minutes.)
Mr. Sabatino stated he had also received a call today from another resident who stated if the Township is really and truly interested in cooperative economic development with the City why don’t they propose something such as a CEDA in the Refugee Road area around the high school and commercial development around that.
Mr. Hackworth stated Mr. Fix was now present at the meeting and questioned if he would like to make a statement at this time.
Mr. Fix stated he apologized for being late, he was delayed in Houston by weather conditions. He stated his position is well known and has been well stated and he looked forward to continuing debate and continuing discussions with members of the public and with Council.
Mr. Hackworth stated he has questions about individual paragraphs in this agreement and he would like to go through the agreement paragraph by paragraph. Mrs. Riggs stated she thought a work session should be scheduled for all of Council to discuss the agreement rather than discussing it tonight and then having to discuss it all over again at Council. She stated she would like staff involved as they go through each paragraph, she would like feedback from them and the law director. She stated she felt it was important to have all of Council present.
Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed a Council work Session would be appropriate since everyone seems to be willing to continue to debate this issue and not move it out of this Committee tonight. Mrs. Riggs stated from her standpoint she did not see where anything would be moved out tonight. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to continue to work on this tonight, and if additional work sessions were necessary then they could be scheduled. Mrs. Riggs stated she had already received a lot of information tonight and she would like to have some time to review all of it.
Mrs. Riggs stated she would request a Council Work Session prior to Council on October 24, 2006, from 6:00 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. All council members present concurred.
Ms Gilleland clarified that everyone had the version of the agreement dated 10-3-06 as that is the most recent version of the agreement. Mr. Hartmann stated the revisions that were requested in the Finance Committee meeting have been included in this version. Mrs. Riggs stated, for clarification, staff had taken the agreement in its current form to ensure that legally it could stand as it was written. Mrs. Riggs further clarified staff had no substantive input into the agreement. Mr. Sabatino stated then that Mr. Hansley has been involved in working with the document, but not in creating any of the issues that it deals with. Mr. Hansley stated that was correct. Mr. Hackworth stated he does have questions about how much commercial can be developed in the area near US 33. Mr. Wisniewski stated one of the biggest reasons this agreement was supposedly going to go forward was for us to be able to develop commercially within the school district because people are sick of the high taxes and we want to develop commercially. He stated if we are going to start going out into areas outside of the school district to develop commercially, it will not benefit our schools, it will not lower our taxes; it may help out financially from a City standpoint or from a Township standpoint, but it is not helping our schools. He stated we can include whatever areas we want to, but what is going to be developed commercially within the Pickerington School District is what is going to help us with our taxes. He stated further the areas along 33 that are within the Pickerington School District have been defined as poor sites for commercial development. He stated he has no problem in making modifications to include other areas, but we cannot start selling it then as helping our school district. Mr. Sabatino stated in the past it has been stated that this agreement was designed to put us as equal partners with the Township. He stated he has an email from Mr. Arcari to Ms Gilleland and Mr. Yaple, dated 1-17-06, that has some things to be concerned about. Mr. Fix stated the equality talked about was on the financial end of it, the process that the Township goes through is vastly different than the process the City goes through.
Mr. Hackworth stated he has some issues with the infrastructure costs, and he has asked several times about the profitability of Canal Pointe and been told they are starting to make money. Mr. Hackworth asked if there were public records at the County about what was happening down there. Ms Gilleland clarified Mr. Hackworth was referring to the existing CEDA area, and stated she did not know what records the County had. Mr. Hackworth stated further some of the infrastructure was not in our school district and he did not know how to protect us in that. He stated Townships can’t take on debt and he was not sure if we would get generous developers who would build roads for us. Mr. Hartmann stated the agreement is written in very general terms because all it is, is an agreement to establish other agreements. He stated he felt the worst thing you can do is put in to many limitations because these are issues that will be absolutely spelled out in any JEDD or annexation agreement that follows. He stated right now it is virtually impossible to anticipate what is going to go in. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to see the flat out 50 percent off the top removed from this. Mr. Hartmann stated that is certainly an issue to debate. Mr. Hackworth stated one of his proposed amendments addressed this issue. Mr. Fix stated he would request, at this hour, not to debate amendments to this agreement. Mr. Sabatino inquired what the purpose of this discussion was if we were not going to discuss the agreement and how to get where we want to go. Mr. Fix stated he understood when we entered this conversation we would go through the document and clarify things while the law director was here and have questions brought forth, it was not the time to debate the merits of any individual point or any individual amendment proposed. Mr. Sabatino stated he thought the purpose was to discuss the agreement. Mrs. Riggs stated she felt the purpose tonight was to figure out where we are fundamentally with the agreement, not make amendments. She stated she felt some of the key things in the agreement were the duration and giving up the right to annex. She stated if a JEDD is brought to us out of this agreement, and we don’t like it, we don’t have to participate in it. Mr. Hartmann stated there is a clause that allows us not to participate in a JEDD if we don’t want to. Mr. Sabatino stated that is all the more reason we should not enter into a blanket agreement. Mrs. Hammond questioned if this agreement could be worded along the lines that any division of monies would be agreed upon with each individual agreement. Mr. Hartmann stated that is something that can be changed instead of locking in on a percentage. Mr. Sabatino stated we would have no bargaining power at that point, we would be committed for 30 years in this agreement. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we have questions for Mr. Hartmann that is what we should get into, not specific changes. He stated he is hearing a lot of problems with the agreement from a lot of different people on Council, and these changes could be made at a later date. Mr. Hackworth questioned if this agreement has been agreed to by the Township, and Mr. Hartmann stated the Township has not seen this agreement. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we are annexing the land, and we are annexing the roads, and we’re maintaining the roads, then why are we paying them a fee for something that they are not supporting? Mr. Hartmann stated he did not make any of the policy decisions on this, but there is currently an ordinance in place. Mr. Fix stated that is correct, it is an agreement from 2000 or 2001 that basically said that and they wanted it included here if we gave away taxes. Mr. Hartman stated that ordinance was very general, and Mr. Wisniewski clarified this was an ordinance passed by Council that basically says that the road and bridge levy equivalent will be reimbursed to the Township if they do not oppose us on the annexation. Mr. Hartmann stated Council certainly can revisit this issue. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to clarify that if this went forward as is, did it base the fees on the approved value of the land or land as it was when it was annexed. Mr. Hackworth stated it was on the approved value. Mr. Wisniewski stated he has a problem with paying service fees on roads that we are maintaining. Mr. Hackworth questioned why the clause was in there that said we agreed not to conform our boundaries and he did not understand why we would give that up. Mr. Fix stated this was an agreement where both parties give things up to improve their situation and Mr. Sabatino inquired what the Township would be giving up. Mr. Fix responded that they would include us in every form of commercial development they do when they don’t have to do that. Mr. Sabatino stated they are offering us to participate based upon their terms. Mr. Hackworth stated they were offering us to participate in JEDDs, but they were also going to be able to create income tax revenue that they can’t create on their own. Mr. Fix stated if the Township would do a JEDD with Canal Winchester, twice the income tax would be collected than if they did a JEDD with Pickerington. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was under the assumption that that JEDD was going to be 50-50, and no agreements they have entered into with Canal Winchester to this point has anything that even approached fifty percent. Ms Gilleland stated in a couple of our annexation agreements we have agreed not to conform our boundaries in those areas, and Mr. Sabatino stated those annexation agreements were the ones where we are being sued by the Township.
Mr. Hackworth stated once we enter into this agreement it will be for 30 years, and to terminate it has to be by mutual agreement. Mr. Hackworth stated in most agreements both parties have responsibilities and if either party does not perform as expected you have an escape clause, and this pretty well locks us in for 30 years. Mr. Hartmann stated Council needs to make the policy decision as to whether or not this is appropriate for the City. Mr. Sabatino stated he would like to know if there was any reason this would be advantageous to the City and its taxpayers. Mr. Hartmann stated the one reason he has heard is that it also locks them in so they can’t enter into agreements with someone else. Mr. Fix stated the thought process behind this was that it would take some time for commercial development to come to this area and if we give up our rights to annex for ten years, and at that point we are just starting to get into the real commercial development, and then they could walk away from the agreement because it says they can. Then we will have given up our rights to annex in return for very little, if anything. Mr. Sabatino stated based on what Mr. Fix had just stated, he was at a loss to reconcile the need for expediency on this. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to know the purpose of the ten-year increments, and Mr. Hartmann stated contracts are usually written with renewal periods, and that is how this has been written. Mr. Hartmann stated if both parties wanted to get out of it before ten years, you could agree to that too. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the problem was that it required both parties to agree because he could not see why the Township would ever agree to get out of a deal like this. Mr. Hackworth summarized that if the Township did not want to get out of the agreement, the City would be stuck for 30 years, and Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct, it would be a binding agreement for 30 years.
Mr. Hackworth ascertained there were no further questions anyone would like to ask the law director at this time. Mrs. Riggs stated for the work session she felt Council should determine what they do not like in the agreement, what they would like to change, and invite the Township to attend as well to get their input. Mr. Hackworth stated once again he had distributed tonight his suggestions for amendments to this agreement. Mr. Wisniewski stated inviting the Township Trustees to discuss issues in the past has been met with less than an enthusiastic response, but he would be very interested in hearing their thoughts. Mrs. Riggs stated she would just like to get all of the input she can get, whether from the law director, city staff, the Township, whatever, so every card is on the table. Mr. Sabatino stated he concurred with Mrs. Riggs’ suggestion to invite the Township and hopefully all three of them would show up. Mr. Wisniewski asked Ms Gilleland to take care of that and she stated she would be glad to. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt Council should come to that work session prepared and willing to discuss what they want to see out of this agreement, what they want changed and what they find acceptable.
9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mrs. Hammond moved to adjourn; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion. Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mrs. Hammond voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0. The Service Committee adjourned at 10:58 P.M., October 12, 2006.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
________________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk