THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 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, Lance Schultz, Paul Lane, Richard Ricketts, Dave Dozer, Daryl Berry, Linda Scott, Ron Scott, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 15, 2007, Work Session. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 15, 2007, Regular Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

3. FINANCE DIRECTOR:

A. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2006 appropriation, Ordinance 2006-164. Mrs. Fersch stated the Committee had received a draft appropriation ordinance. She stated under Water Debt and Sewer Debt when we received our monies for the note issue a premium and issuance cost were included and even though this is money we did not receive directly we need to show it in our records so this is just a matter a matter of bookkeeping. She further stated under Water Capital Improvement she stated there was a typographical error in the debt schedule and the figure should be $287,500 so this would correct that. Mrs. Fersch continued that under Diley Road Widening she is just increasing one fund and decreasing another as she needs to have the funds under Contractual Services for paying for some demolitions and legal fees. Mrs. Fersch stated for the remainder of the requests, as our fleet maintenance employee has retired we are going to contracting for vehicle repairs so this will put the funds in the proper category. Mrs. Fersch stated the final appropriation request was for the Trust Fund as our end of year balance we were $10,000 over appropriated and this will clean that up. Mr. Smith moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

B. Finance Director’s Report: Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report and she would answer any questions.

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft resolution to adopt the 2008 Tax Budget. Mrs. Fersch stated this is a requirement of the County Auditor and must be filed with them by July 15, 2007. She stated in this budget she included a three percent increase for department expenditures, some CIP projects are listed, a debt schedule is included as well as a proposed debt issuance. Mrs. Fersch stated the overall budget is a six percent increase over the 2007 actual appropriation budget. Mrs. Fersch stated this is an estimate and is a working tool. Mr. Smith moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

(2) Review and request for motion to schedule 2008 Tax Budget Public Hearing before City Council for May 15, 2007, at 7:15 P.M. Mr. Smith moved to schedule a public hearing on the proposed 2008 Tax Budget for Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 7:15 P.M.; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

(3) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance providing for the issuance of $800,000 of notes by the City of Pickerington, Ohio, in anticipation of the issuance of bonds, for the purpose of paying part of the costs of engineering and design services for proposed improvements to the City’s sewage treatment plant. Mrs. Fersch stated the Committee had received a draft ordinance for the borrowing and the money must be in place when we sign a contract for the engineering of the wastewater plant. She stated she is requesting this legislation now so it can go through the three readings, and have the 30-day waiting period before it is effective. She stated we would then go out for bids on a short note issue, which will coincide with next year’s issues that are due in March. Mr. Sabatino inquired why the amount was $800,000 and Mrs. Fersch stated that was the estimate the engineer’s office provided. Ms Gilleland stated in the last several CIPs we have budgeted $400,000 over a two year period for this project so we thought it would be safe to put the not to exceed amount of $800,000. She stated we will borrow the actual amount of the contract but we need to have these working simultaneously so the money will be available and Mrs. Fersch can sign the contract certifying that the funds are there. Mr. Fix clarified that once we have the actual number that is the amount we will borrow. Mrs. Fersch stated that was correct. Ms Gilleland stated the worst case is we would borrow the $800,000 if we do not have the contract negotiated at that time. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve and forward the ordinance to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino stated he was not comfortable with where we are with the firm selection and he did not feel he could support this. Mr. Smith clarified this was the borrowing of funds only, it was not contingent upon any certain firm. Ms Gilleland stated the only danger is if negotiations fall through with the first firm, we have to go to the second firm, and the fee is higher. Mr. Fix stated regardless of what firm we end up with, we need to borrow the money to pay whoever is selected. He stated while he shared Mr. Sabatino’s concern over not having the process finalized, he thought it would be right to support this as we do need to borrow the money to pay someone at some point. Mr. Sabatino stated that was true, however, based on the information that he has seen he felt this number is higher than it needs to be and if he supported this legislation that would mean he supported the $800,000 cost and he did not think that. Mr. Fix stated this just said we would borrow the money to pay the engineer in an amount not to exceed $800,000, so we will borrow the amount that we need. Mrs. Hammond stated the $800,000 figure is an approximation, a not to exceed amount. Mr. Smith stated in reviewing the ordinance it does not reflect it as a “not to exceed” amount. Ms Gilleland stated that was the intent, and Mrs. Fersch stated she would speak to our bond counsel and make sure that language is included in the ordinance. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt if we passed this, then any engineering firm would figure out it would be at least an $800,000 project. Ms Gilleland asked Mrs. Fersch if we waited until we had a contract negotiated with the engineering firm, how long would it take to get the borrowing in place so she could sign the contract. Mrs. Fersch stated if the borrowing legislation is passed in three readings with emergency language, then in two to three weeks the borrowing would be in place. She stated this ordinance must be effective before she can go out for bids. Mr. Fix stated if it takes another two to three weeks to negotiate the contract, then that contract would go to the Service Committee, then to Council for three readings, and if only at that point we can go out for the borrowing, then how far back would the project be pushed? Mr. Sabatino stated he felt we were setting the amount with this legislation and that is an amount the engineering firms would then come in with. Ms Gilleland stated we are trying to keep the project on track, we are under orders from the EPA, and we are doing our best to work things simultaneously when we can and maybe even get ahead of the curve. She stated if the Committee is more comfortable to wait another month, hopefully by that time we may have a more defined contract with whoever we decide upon. Mr. Sabatino moved to Table. Motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Hammond clarified that the “not to exceed” language was to be included in the ordinance. Roll call was taken on the motion to approve the borrowing of “not to exceed” $800,000 with Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-1.

4. PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT: Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report and would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Hammond stated she noticed in the Personnel Director’s Report that we do have a recognition program for employees and she feels we have been remiss in recognizing the volunteers who serve on our boards and commissions. She stated she would like to see us implement some program where at least once a year we could recognize them for all of their work. Mrs. Hammond stated we have missed it for this year, however, April is National Volunteer Recognition Week so perhaps we can plan something for next year. Ms Gilleland stated that is something that we can discuss during the budget process this year.

5. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:

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

B. Review and discussion of proposal by Violet Township on Wright Road property. (TABLED, 03/15/07)

C. Review and discussion regarding Windmiller Office Condo and Barnyard Primitives, Inc., appeal of Impact Fees. Mr. Hansley stated he had provided a memorandum on each of the requested waivers to the Committee and Mr. Ricketts is present representing the business owners. Mr. Hansley stated it was his recommendation to the City Manager that he could not support the requested waiver for Barnyard Primitives based on the five areas identified by Mr. Ricketts in support of that request. Mr. Ricketts stated he would like to commend staff for the way they are working with the people in relation to this project, and they have always been very professional. Mr. Ricketts stated he had provided a packet of information marked as a copy for Finance Committee for discussion this evening. Mr. Hansley stated with regard to both projects, he would like to clarify that in the case of the Windmiller Office Condos he was recommending a waiver request as being appropriate if and when the payroll for the whole project reaches $1,000,000. He stated in the case of Barnyard, his recommendation is no on all points and in the case of Windmiller it is yes if and when a threshold of $1,000,000 is met. Mr. Ricketts stated if you put a three-year time limitation from the date the application for the building permit was submitted, what you are doing is telling people that is an additional risk factor on putting up the building.

Mr. Ricketts stated further with regard to improvements in excess of code requirements/private improvements/additional public improvements that Mr. Hansley addressed in paragraph 4 of his memorandum. Mr. Ricketts stated Mr. Hansley states there is a provision that deals with this specifically, but these two projects do not necessarily get there in the context of being a legitimate adjustment against the impact fees, and/or if it were going to apply you need to have it approved in advance. Mr. Ricketts stated further in the impact fee legislation it refers to reimbursements or credits. He stated there is a different standard for credits and there is a broader application for credits that goes beyond the definition of public facilities. Mr. Ricketts stated that opens the door for this Committee and Council to look at a broader level of issues that he felt were much more appropriate. He stated if the project is in the best interest of the City and do the benefits outweigh the impact fee; if it does then they should receive a full credit and if not, perhaps they should receive a partial credit. Mr. Ricketts stated in the case of Barnyard Primitives to get the approval they were asked to take care of a stormwater problem in the context of oversizing in excess of what would be required by Code. Mr. Ricketts stated the cost of this was almost $50,000 for Barnyard Primitives. Mr. Ricketts stated they were also requested to put on a second cupola at a cost of $3,000. Mr. Ricketts stated these are the kinds of things that came out of getting a Certificate of Appropriateness that this project missed the opportunity to negotiate in advance. He stated if they had been on the front-end of the curve they would have had the ability to sit down with staff and negotiate these issues. Mr. Ricketts stated every person who will be subject to the impact fee should have the opportunity to do this, and his clients on these two projects did not have that opportunity. Mr. Ricketts stated in the case of Barnyard Primitives, the impact fees were five percent of the total cost of the project and that did not seem fair or reasonable.

Mr. Ricketts stated with the case of Windmiller Condos, this is a private road that extends off of Windmiller and that road will never be paid for or maintained by the City. He stated, however, this road was still built to the City’s specifications and it is going to help minimize curb cuts on Refugee Road. He stated if they had had the opportunity to come in they could have negotiated these items.

Mr. Ricketts stated both of these individuals are local people who want to open a business and buy the ground before the impact fees are even being discussed. He continued Barnyard Primitive never had the opportunity to consider or budget for that in the context of moving forward. He continued this also applies to the Windmiller office condos and that project was acquired three years ahead of the impact fees. Mr. Ricketts stated if you are looking at it as a businessman you have to be able to try and determine what will be an appropriate budget to move forward with the project. He stated these two projects got caught in the pipeline, they had made substantial investments in real property, they want to open up and benefit the commercial tax base, but they got caught with the impact fees. Mr. Ricketts stated there is a section with a grandfather on residential because there was a need to have a phase in period as it relates to residential projects. He stated he hoped it would be logical if that break was given to residential it should be considered for commercial. Mr. Ricketts stated he was suggesting that in the context that it is appropriate to provide for some level of phase in, it is not unusual to give people time to plan for projects that are going to be in planning a lot more than 90 days.

Mr. Ricketts stated at the last meeting it was discussed that by providing an abatement on these two pipeline cases it would create a precedent, and he did not see that. He stated these are the only pipeline cases Council would see because these are the only two projects that were pending and everyone else has missed their timetable to file that argument. Mr. Ricketts stated finally these two applications were caught in the pipeline, they did make economic contributions and they are doing a lot of the exact things that you would contemplate providing credits, waivers or exemptions for. Mr. Ricketts stated he felt these two projects should be provided with a full or at least a partial abatement of the impact fees, as that would be the fair thing to do.

Mr. Berry stated at the request of the City, Windmiller Condos did sign a TIF agreement for the realignment of Diley Road. He stated they felt it would devalue their property because it would take them off of Diley Road, but they felt it was important for the City, so they signed that agreement. Mr. Berry stated they purchased the property over three years ago with the expectation they would be able to develop it right away, but they did not succeed. Mr. Berry stated he received his Certificate of Appropriateness many months before the impact fee ordinance went into place, and he tried to get the plans approved prior to the ordinance going into place. He stated he was never made aware that he could request a waiver of the impact fees during this time. Ms Scott stated she was present on behalf of Barnyard Primitives and she thanked the Committee members for hearing their request. She stated they were not aware of the impact fees until they went to get their occupancy permit and if there is any way to waive any or all of the impact fees it would be appreciated.

Ms Gilleland clarified the amount of impact fees paid by Barnyard Primitives was $23,700, and for Windmiller Square Office Condos $15,926.22. She stated as we were going through the implementation of the impact fees it was discussed in public for almost a year and a half before we actually implemented the impact fees. She stated staff made a conscious effort with each meeting with each developer to make sure that the costs were known up front, that impact fees were being discussed, and this would be a potential. She stated in every meeting she sat in with developers it was always discussed and it is not in the City’s best interest to have developers of either residential subdivisions or commercial projects be surprised. Mr. Sabatino questioned if Ms Gilleland had specifically dealt with both of these projects and Ms Gilleland stated she recalled sitting in on many of the meetings with Barnyard Primitives and she did not recall if she sat in on the meetings for Windmiller. Mr. Sabatino stated he has an e-mail he received from Jennifer of Barnyard Primitives about those impact fees that he forwarded on to Ms Gilleland and she indicated it was a surprise to her. Mr. Smith stated he did not recall receiving that e-mail, and Mr. Sabatino stated it was received prior to Mr. Smith being on Council. Ms Gilleland stated we did have many projects, both residential and commercial, that were in the pipeline that had either taken out a building permit application or been granted a building permit at the time the fees were enacted and we did work with them at the time. Mr. Hansley stated the main reason his formula is heavily dependent upon income tax production is because the impact fee needs to be paid back by the City so it only makes sense that any waiver or reduction must come out of income tax. Mr. Sabatino stated he was not aware of anyone being given any consideration on commercial impact fees and inquired if there was a log or documentation showing what consideration was given and to whom during the implementation. Mr. Schultz stated he did have a log that he could look through. Ms Gilleland stated there were developments that had been issued either building permit applications or building permits at the time the fees were enacted, and they were far beyond the point that these two developments were. Ms Gilleland stated we would look through our records. Mr. Sabatino stated he specifically remembered Barnyard Primitives concerns that they had to provide that $24,000 at the time of getting their permit, and he questioned if we had cases where we gave consideration to work with people and if so, he would like copies of those cases. Ms Gilleland stated our impact fee ordinance was not clear on a development like Windmiller in terms of if the fee was charged at the time of the building permit for the individual office space or do you charge the fee at the time of the building permit for the entire shell of the building. She stated those were things we had to work through and interpret at the time the cases came up. She stated at the time the ordinance became effective we had a few buildings like that and we had to determine when the fee would be charged. Mr. Sabatino stated he would request a report be provided showing all of the cases that were dealt with and how they were dealt with.

Mr. Smith stated Mr. Ricketts had stated these were non-precedent setting cases and he had also mentioned credits. Mr. Smith stated Mr. Ricketts stated with Barnyard Primitives there were improvements over and above what code and design standards required, and he questioned if they had a full accounting of what those improvements were. Mr. Smith clarified he was interested in what the difference in cost was; code cost versus over and above. Mr. Ricketts stated he would need to get Barnyard Primitives contractor to get actual dollars, but in tonight’s package, in Exhibit 4, there is a quote from Eversole Builders with the original quote and there is also a resubmittal showing the new cost after the Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Smith stated he was specifically interested in the stormwater issue because that is one of the things for City infrastructure that we use impact fees for. Mr. Fix stated he would like to have Mr. Schultz provided the committee members some information on that.

Mr. Smith stated Mr. Ricketts had brought up some issues tonight that were not previously brought up and he would like to give staff a chance to respond to those and give the Committee members time to review all of the information before making any recommendation to Council. Mr. Smith stated further he would be interested in knowing, without using a threshold, for $24,000 where is the breakeven point in income tax for Barnyard Primitives? Mr. Hansley stated it would be a long time. Mr. Smith clarified Mr. Hansley felt Mr. Berry’s development could achieve a $1,000,000 payroll in four or five years or sooner. Mr. Smith stated he would also like to know the breakeven point for the Windmiller condo project. Mr. Hansley stated he would like to point out that most cities would have made a provision for these two types of projects that were pretty far along on the effective date of the ordinance. Mr. Fix stated Mr. Ricketts had made some very compelling arguments on behalf of his clients and he looked forward to receiving the information requested from staff. Mr. Fix stated as elected officials, Council must make judgments on what is good for the entire community, including the business community. Mr. Smith stated he would like to explore the credit part of the ordinance because that has not been explored as yet. Mr. Sabatino stated Mr. Ricketts has presented far more information than necessary for him to feel we should find a way to deal with this, and he felt we should treat them in a fair way and give our own residents and entrepreneurs the benefit of the doubt on a situation that may have fallen into a gray area. Mr. Smith stated he would also like to make sure and get verification from staff that there are no other cases like this. Mr. Fix stated if there is a way to discover what our exposure would be, he would appreciate having that information before the next Finance Committee meeting. Mr. Fix stated he just wanted to make sure the committee members get a full accounting from Mr. Schultz of the incremental expenses. Mr. Smith stated that was what he would like to see as well, the cost of code required versus additional things, mainly on underground infrastructure.

Mr. Smith stated this issue would remain on the agenda for the next Finance Committee meeting.

(Finance Committee recessed at 9:20 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 9:30 P.M.)

D. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance granting an exemption to the applicability of the impact fee ordinance to Equity, Inc., for the benefit of the Tobin, Merrit, Inc. project. Mr. Hansley stated the committee reviewed this in concept in November 2006, and this is simply the legislation to formally grant the exemption for this project. He stated staff is recommending this be forwarded to Council. Mr. Smith moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

E. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance granting an exemption to the applicability of the impact fee ordinance to Berry & Miller, Inc., for the benefit of the Volunteer Energy Services, Inc., project. Mr. Hansley stated this is similar to the ordinance just approved. He stated staff recommendation is based on the production of income tax and they are currently a business in Gahanna and are moving their business here. Mr. Smith stated the way the ordinance is written, we can only give the exemption to the individual that paid the impact fee and in both of these cases that would be the developer, so we need to work to ensure that the tenant, the client, is going to get the full benefit of the waiver, and in both of these instances that is the case. Mr. Hansley stated it is staff recommendation this be approved by this Committee. Mr. Fix stated for purposes of clarification these two instances are different than the ones discussed earlier. Mr. Hansley stated, in his opinion, these are exactly the types of cases the ordinance was drafted to allow a waiver. Mr. Fix moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

6. CHAIRMAN:

A. Review of Legal and Engineering services invoices. Mr. Sabatino stated it appeared we had past due bills listed, and Mrs. Fersch stated sometimes it is just a timing issue of when the bill is received and when checks are written. Ms Gilleland stated we have never had an issue or a problem on this. Mr. Smith ascertained there were no further questions on the invoices.

B. Review of draft City of Pickerington Fee Schedule. Mr. Smith stated this would be continued on the agenda.

7. OTHER BUSINESS: Mrs. Hammond stated with regard to the planned Township Bicentennial, a lot of the activities involve our Parks Department. She stated she felt the most impact to the City would be the discussions regarding making this a three-day weekend event over the Fourth of July. She stated this would involve our Parks and that would mean using our staff for a lot of the activities. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt this was a community-wide event and he felt it would demonstrate another gesture of being a good neighbor. Mr. Smith stated he agreed, however, he would like it to be reasonable and limited. Mrs. Hammond stated she was just looking for a little guidance before going to the Committee meetings. Ms Gilleland stated she was not clear as to the extent our staff would be involved and she would like to receive more information on that before making any decision. Mr. Smith stated the Committee would like some sort of contribution to get started with printing expenses and things of that nature. He further stated the Township has given $5,000 and they would like the City to provide that same amount. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve providing the Violet Township Bicentennial Committee with $5,000; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0. Mrs. Fersch stated if the Committee concurred she would include this in the appropriation ordinance discussed earlier in the meeting. Roll call was taken with M Mr. Smith moved to amend his motion to approve the appropriation ordinance to include a $5,000 amount for the Violet Township Bicentennial Committee; Mr. Fix amended his second.

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 stated there was no need for an additional Executive Session.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Sabatino voting "Aye." Motion carried, 4-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 9:55 P.M., April 19, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk