THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2007

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Fix were present. No members were absent. Others present were Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Tim Hansley, Paul Lane, Sean Casey, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 13, 2006, Regular Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Smith voting “Aye.” Motion carried, 3-0.

3. FINANCE DIRECTOR:

A. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2006 appropriation, Ordinance 2006-164. Mrs. Fersch stated had no appropriation requests for this meeting.

B. Finance Director’s Report: Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a report for 2006 to the Committee and she would be happy to answer any questions. She stated we made one expenditure, and that was for the Police Department building lease.

(1) Impact Fee Report. Mrs. Fersch stated a report had been distributed to the Committee and she would answer any questions.

(2) Investment Report. Mrs. Fersch stated Star Ohio interest rate is at 5.15 percent compounding to 5.29 percent. She stated the total interest earnings for all funds for 2006, as of December 31^st was $549,283.95, which is $229,717.91 over last year. She stated the General Fund earned $113,893.02 in interest over last year.

(3) Review of Vendor Report. Mrs. Fersch stated the Committee had received the Vendor Report and she would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Sabatino inquired if it would be possible to reproduce the vendor report so it is easier to read. Mrs. Fersch stated she would try to enlarge the print when it is copied.

C. Review and discussion regarding 2006 auditor selection. Mrs. Fersch stated as she had informed this Committee at the last meeting, the State Auditor’s Office will not be able to do our audit. She continued that because we received over $500,000 for the Diley Road project in 2006, we must also do a single audit for the Federal Government. She stated proposals must be submitted by January 31^st, and then we will review the proposals and provide a recommendation to the State Auditor. Mrs. Fersch stated they will look at our recommendation and the cost, and then come back to us, and the firm selected will be doing the audit on a three-year contract. Mrs. Fersch stated she will bring legislation to Finance to authorize the contract for the audit, and we are working on a time limit as our audit must be filed with GFOA and the State of Ohio by June 30^th, so she may be requesting the legislation be passed at one meeting as an emergency measure.

4. PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT: Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report and she would be happy to answer any questions.

A. New Employee Update. Mrs. Fersch stated we have three new employees, Public Safety Dispatcher Davita Willis, Code Enforcement Officer Danny Mahaffey, and Police Officer Ibrahim Haroon.

B. Health Insurance Update. Mrs. Fersch stated we will be conducting meetings on February 15^th, March 15^th, and April 26^th, for anyone who has problems with the insurance company or any other questions or problems they would like to discuss with our broker or representatives from our insurance carrier.

Mrs. Fersch stated she would discuss the FOP negotiations in Executive Session later this evening.

5. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:

A. Development Director’s Report. Mr. Hansley stated he had provided a written report to the Committee and he would be happy to answer any questions.

(1) Rt. 33 Alliance – Update. Mr. Hansley stated this project is moving ahead and is a very good group. He stated the group will meet later this month to review the assessment that has been prepared.

(2) Review and discussion regarding Windmiller Office Condo and Barnyard Primitives, Inc., appeal of Impact Fees. Mr. Hansley stated Mr. Rick Ricketts, who is representing both developments, was not able to attend this evening, and he was requesting this be carried on the agenda for next month. Mr. Smith determined there were no objections and requested this be continued on the agenda.

Mr. Hansley stated we have entered into a new engineering contract, retroactive to January 1^st, and we will be paying $9,600 per month as a retainer and we have expanded greatly the number of services that will be included in the retainer. He stated this was a much more efficient way to handle the contract and took away the issue of who could call the engineer, what we are billed, etc. Mr. Hansley stated he felt this was going to work out very well. Mr. Sabatino inquired if the new structure covers what we would have as a normal retainer type situation and Mr. Hansley stated it did. Mr. Fix asked if Council could get a copy of the new contract and Mr. Hansley stated he would get copies to everyone. Mr. Hansley stated if Council has questions, he would urge them not to be hesitant to call the engineer. Mr. Hansley further stated that Jennifer Frommer has been very active in trying to bring some final solution to the Drug Mart issue, and under the new structure she has spent a lot of time on the phone with the developer’s attorney and engineers. He stated we have jointly agreed on an engineering solution and we are trying to work out who was going to pay for what, who was going to do the work, etc. He stated in that regard he was looking for a motion from the Committee this evening that they are in agreement with the concept. Mr. Hansley stated what we are close to getting into final form is that they would pay us in the neighborhood of $37,000 to solve the problem based on the engineering that they have paid for. He continued out of that money, the City would install reboundable posts on Diley Road to restrict movement into the current Diley Road driveway. He stated they had an obligation to move that driveway further south, however, the road was built at a different elevation and they could not do that. He continued the City will then paint a right in/right out at that location and in exchange for the restriction at that entrance the City will, with our crews, remove the pork chop at the S.R. 256 entrance and make that either a two or three lane full movement access so you would be allowed to make a northbound left turn into the site. He stated the problem, in the short term, was to allow for truck traffic to go in there and still get to the rear of the building. Mr. Hansley stated we would do some stripping there and do some work in the rear of the building, relocating the current dumpster location, and adding some asphalt so trucks can make a U-turn and back into the loading docks. He stated we would sign an agreement that would waive the requirements on both sides, that would settle the two outstanding issues: the City wanting them to move the driveway and the developer not being able to match up to the street elevation. Mr. Hansley stated the key was the City doing some of the work and them paying us the money to accommodate that, and Ms Frommer is trying to cost out the exact cost of what we would be doing in exchange for what they owed us. Mr. Sabatino clarified we hoped to have this as a revenue neutral situation, and Mr. Hansley stated our goal is to have more money left on our side of the table to make sure we are covered for doing the work we have to do. Ms Gilleland stated this is a tentative agreement; we do not have all of the details pinned down as yet. Mr. Hansley stated that was correct, this is a tentative concept. Mr. Sabatino questioned if the tenants would be notified of what we were planning, and Mr. Hansley stated we would not do anything without letting the tenants know. Ms Gilleland stated the safety of our residents and the vehicular traffic is of utmost importance and concerns her a great deal. Mr. Hansley stated he would like a motion approving the concept of the City receiving money and doing some work because normally we would not do work on private property, but this is a unique situation where we are partially responsible because Diley Road does not match up to the driveway cut. Mr. Fix moved to approve the concept of the City working with the landowner to solve this issue; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Aye.” Motion carried, 4-0.

Mr. Hansley stated SBC will soon be AT&T and they have been talking to us about getting something similar to a franchise. He stated they would like to make a presentation on their “Project Light Speed” next month at the Finance Committee meeting.

Mr. Hansley stated further since the Ashton Crossing issue, we have had a couple of other environmental issues. He stated Steve Smith is the attorney we use as special counsel and we would like to be able to use him for some other storm water type issues. He stated we do not have a specific line item in the budget, however, there is money appropriated and budgeted for that. He stated there is approximately $7,500 in the law department budget for environmental issues. Ms Gilleland stated our contract with Schottenstein requires a motion of Council any time we hire them for items not included in their retainer. She continued that the wording is actually “upon agreement by Council” and it was determined that a motion of Finance Committee is appropriate. Mr. Smith moved to approve not to exceed $7,500 in the law department budget to be used for special council for environmental opportunities in 2007; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Fix voting “Aye.” Motion carried, 4-0.

6. CHAIRMAN:

A. Review of Legal and Engineering services invoices. Mr. Smith ascertained there were no questions on the invoices. Mr. Fix inquired if with regard to the engineering contract, we just changed the wording of the contract or did we extend the existing contract. Mr. Hansley stated the language of the contract allowed us to modify the rate structure and the method of payment, and we did that within the current contract. Mr. Fix stated he thought the current contract was a two-year contract that expired at the end of this year, and Mr. Hansley stated he thought it was a three-year contract that ran until the end of 2008. Mr. Fix asked Mr. Hansley to verify that and Mr. Hansley stated he would provide a copy of the entire document for the next meeting.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance regarding Road and Bridge Levy. Mr. Smith stated this item can be removed from the agenda.

7. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Review of draft City of Pickerington Fee Schedule. Ms Gilleland stated Mrs. Yartin had provided a listing of all the City’s fees for the Committee’s review. She stated the Committee can discuss it this evening, or take some time to review it and discuss it at the next meeting. Mr. Smith stated Mr. Lane was present this evening if anyone has questions about the fees he has provided, and then we can have an in-depth discussion next month. Mr. Sabatino stated he would like to discuss anything that is identified as a new fee and the justification for that fee. Mr. Hansley stated in most cases the fees were set to recognize where we are competitive to the market that we exist in, and what fee would truly cover our cost for providing the service. Mr. Hansley stated one example would be the $55 fee for inspecting the replacement of a hot water heater. He stated that is a service that we do not normally provide, and this fee would be consistent with recovering our cost, but it is one where Council may want to choose to lose money on that type of service because it is not designed to make money but to protect the public. Mr. Hansley stated the purpose is to inspect the hot water heater to ensure it is installed properly and will not blow up or have a carbon monoxide leak or whatever. Mr. Sabatino stated his concern was that there has been no discussion that he is aware of to provide this service that no one is asking for. Mr. Hansley stated that is why it was being brought forward in this draft schedule. Mr. Sabatino stated he also had concern on the fee for the inspection of a furnace replacement. Mr. Lane stated our plumbing inspector brought this to our attention and stated we may want to consider it just from a safety aspect. Mr. Lane stated when he was initially considering this fee he had also considered making the fee $15. Mr. Fix stated he thought there might also be the issue of most people not even knowing about this fee. Mr. Lane stated we would communicate with plumbers and places where people may purchase a hot water heater and let them know. Mr. Sabatino stated he still felt we were creating a cure for a problem we don’t have. He stated he would ask that we check with the fire department and see if they have had any runs because of this problem and if there is a safety issue that we need to deal with, then as Chairman of Safety Committee he felt we should consider it. Mr. Smith stated if he had his furnace replaced, and our inspector found a problem with the installation, his question would be if we had any recourse against the installer, such as an action we could take to prevent them from doing business in the City. Mr. Hansley stated if we red tagged the job we would notify the property owner and it would be their responsibility to go back to the installer to have it corrected. Mr. Sabatino further stated he had questions regarding the fees for a hot tub, and Mrs. Hammond stated it appeared those fees were also listed in the Planning and Zoning Department fees. Mr. Lane clarified the fee listed for hot tubs by the Building Department was for inspection of the electrical connection. Mrs. Hammond clarified that once you have the electrical connection, if you were just replacing your hot tub, it would not be necessary to have the inspection again. Mr. Sabatino further stated he had questions regarding satellite receivers. Mr. Hansley stated Planning and Zoning would be looking at issues such as the set back, screening, and that sort of thing, where the Building Department would be looking at the electrical or whatever. He stated it may be possible to combine those into one fee, one visit, or whatever, but there are two different issues we are looking at. Mrs. Hammond stated she did not believe this applied to the small dishes everyone uses, but is referring to the big dishes. Mr. Sabatino stated if we are not using some of these fees, we should just take them out and not reflect them. Mr. Smith stated he did not think all of our residents were aware of the number of fees they could be subject to. Mr. Smith stated he would like everyone to notify Ms Gilleland of any questions they had regarding the fees so we can know where the concerns lie. Mr. Sabatino asked if it would be possible to have Mr. Schultz at the next meeting to answer questions as well. Mr. Fix stated he would also like to see a history of the fees so the Committee would know what the reasoning was behind the m. Mr. Smith stated he would like to continue this on the agenda for the next meeting, and requested it be placed it at the beginning of the agenda.

Mr. Smith stated one other item under other business dealt with the February Finance Committee meeting. He stated he would like this Committee to meet after the second Council meeting each month and the way the calendar falls that would not occur in February. Mr. Smith stated he would like to reschedule the February Finance Committee Work Session and regular meeting for February 21, 2007, at 7:00 P.M., and 7:30 P.M. respectively. All Committee members concurred with this rescheduling.

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. Smith moved for an Executive Session under 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. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

Finance Committee adjourned into Executive Session at 8:55 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 9:56 P.M.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Sabatino voted "Aye." Motion carried, 4-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 9:58 P.M., January 18, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk