THURSDAY, May 17, 2007

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 7:38 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, Rick Palsgrove, Sabra Kershaw, Lenni Male, Sharon Worden, Judy Donoghue, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 19, 2007, Work Session. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mr. Sabatino 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 April 19, 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.

Mr. Smith stated he understood the group from LEADS would like to address Finance this evening regarding their request for funds. Ms Sabra Kershaw stated they are with the LEADS program at the Pickerington Chamber. She stated they would like to address the Pisgah Cemetery project they are working on; a lot of effort has been put into the project and it is turning out to be a great project. Ms Kershaw stated the project is a beautification project of the cemetery located at the corner of S.R. 204 and S.R. 256, and they are requesting some funding assistance from the City. She stated there will be a Community Day on June 6^th, and they will have about 40 people coming out to help them put everything together, from the planting, to clean up, to resetting the headstones. Ms Kershaw stated they were requesting a donation from the City of $4,000, which is the same amount the Violet Township Trustees have appropriated. Mr. Smith clarified that additional funds have been solicited from other organizations as well as from the City and the Township. Mr. Smith stated it appeared to be a cooperative effort from a lot of different organizations, volunteers, businesses, and the public. Mr. Fix clarified the cemetery is city property. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt this project was very worthwhile and as anyone who has been at that intersection knows, it has been obvious the cemetery needed a lot of help. She stated further some very notable Pickerington people are buried there. Mr. Sabatino inquired if the group felt they would be able to reach their goal of funds needed, and they stated they were hoping they would

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 for accounting purposes we are keeping all the expenses of the Diley Road project in the Diley Road fund, when there are legal fees, engineering that was over what we had initially borrowed, and also environmental fees that were in addition to the original amount, we are going to be taking money from the General Fund and transferring it. She stated in the General Fund she was requesting an increase of $82,260 for these expenses and she has broken them out on the appropriation ordinance. She stated further under the Miscellaneous General Government she had requested an increase of $4,000 in anticipation of the request for funds for the Pisgah Cemetery project. Mrs. Fersch further stated under the Street Fund she was requesting an increase of $25,000 for personal services for one-half a year’s cost of the Service Worker I to be hired, an increase of $40,000 for work on the Drug Mart entrance that will be reimbursed by Drug mart, and an increase of $10,000 for supplies and materials for work on the Drug Mart entrance, which will also be reimbursed by Drug Mart. Mrs. Fersch stated she was requesting an increase of $3,440 in the Law Enforcement Seizure fund and an increase of $13,760 from a court ordered distribution of money seized in crime for law enforcement purposes and she understood it may be used to purchase an under cover vehicle. She continued that under the Diley Road Fund she was requesting an increase of $100,000 in contractual services and a decrease of $100,000 in Capital, and these are necessary for proper categorization of expenditures for legal fees and property demolitions. Ms Gilleland clarified that the total Diley Road budget includes these increases as they were planned for. Mr. Sabatino inquired how much of our eminent domain legal expenses this figure represented and Mrs. Fersch stated she felt it was a good portion of it. Ms Gilleland stated there will be more legal expenses because we are still in court over 15 to 20 cases. Ms Gilleland stated further she has requested Mr. Hartmann provide Council a summary of the legal fees each month when he provides the Diley Road worksheet. Mr. Sabatino stated with regard to the legal fees on eminent domain, he felt when it was all said and done we need to look at how much we have expended in legal fees. He stated for instance, did we spend $200,000 in legal fees for eminent domains that ended up costing us $20,000, $30,000, or whatever. 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.

B. Finance Director’s Report: Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report and she would answer any questions. Mrs. Fersch stated the Health Department is still waiting to get the classification of a Federally Qualified Health Clinic so they can get the proper Medicare fees. Mrs. Fersch stated the impact fees collected in April were $55,520. She stated we have issued 35 residential building permits, and we had estimated 150 for the year. Mr. Sabatino inquired if we had received any feedback regarding the on-line income tax, and Mrs. Fersch stated a lot of people commented they liked it. Mr. Sabatino stated he has had people tell him that of all the forms they did on-line ours took the longest and most complicated. Mrs. Fersch stated she would pass this along to the Tax Administrator; however, usually the credit is the confusing part.

4. PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT: Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report and would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Fersch stated we received 26 applications for the Service Worker position and we will be testing for police dispatchers on Saturday, June 9^th. Mr. Smith ascertained we will be conducting a testing for police officers later this year. Mr. Sabatino clarified that we have contracted with Meritain for nine months to monitor our run-out claims and that will end in September. She stated if necessary we can pay a small fee to have them continue until the end of the year. Mr. Sabatino stated his concern was that we would be paying an administrative fee to Meritain longer than we had a need for them. Ms Gilleland asked Mrs. Fersch if the City were to cut off the run-out claims and notify the employees that after a specific date the City would not be paying them, and questioned if the City would still be obligated or would the employee be liable. Mrs. Fersch stated she would check with our law director and get a definitive answer on that.

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. He stated the Route 33 Alliance is in the process of considering a name change for that group and it may come out to be something like the Fairfield County Growth Alliance, and since we are not actually touching Route 33 that might be better for us.

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. Smith stated Mr. Ricketts was unable to attend the meeting this evening and at their request he would like to have this continued on the agenda for the next meeting.

D. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance establishing and enacting Title 4 and Chapter 1448 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Pickerington, Ohio, entitled “Cable Service and Competitive Video Service” to facilitate a competitive marketplace for broadband services. Mr. Smith stated Mr. Dunn of SZD was unable to attend this evening and he would therefore request this item also be continued on the agenda for the next meeting.

Mr. Fix inquired as to the status of the Memorandum of Understanding between the five entities and Ms Gilleland stated it is in the process of being signed by each entity. Ms Gilleland stated she has signed it and we are waiting to receive a completed copy. Mr. Fix ascertained that Mr. Yaple of Violet Township is taking the lead on getting the Memorandum of Understanding signed by each entity.

6. CHAIRMAN:

A. Review of Legal and Engineering services invoices. Ms Gilleland clarified the members are receiving copies of the engineering and legal invoices for review. Mr. Smith ascertained there were no questions on the invoices.

B. Review of draft City of Pickerington Fee Schedule. Mr. Smith stated everyone had a draft copy of the fee schedule. Mr. Fix stated he understood that in general terms the increase in fees are in-line with surrounding communities. Mr. Smith stated he understood we were not increasing fees to create a revenue source for the City, the fees are being increased to pay for the cost of providing the service and Ms Gilleland stated in some instances the costs are not equal, we are still subsidizing the operation.

Mr. Sabatino stated he would question the fees where we went from zero to any fee, for instance, in the Olde Pickeirngton Village District, and he would like to know how that is justified. Mr. Schultz stated in determining the fee for each item he had looked at the time needed to review plans, prepare reports, etc., and then he had compared them to the fees of surrounding communities. Mr. Hansley stated that all the communities we reviewed do have a special district. Mr. Sabatino further clarified that for a Certificate of Appropriateness in the Olde Pickerington Village District the cost was based on the time it took staff to prepare a staff report, review the plans, do a site visit if necessary, public hearing notices, and monitor it through the Planning and Zoning Commission process, and when the project is complete ensure that it complies with the original plans. Mr. Sabatino further clarified this is not just for new buildings. Mr. Hansley stated further that in cases that are going from zero to a fee, the goal is to shift it to a fee based service from a taxpayer based service. Mr. Smith stated it would then not be funded by the General Fund but would put the burden on the person that makes the request or has a need for the service. Mr. Hansley stated he did not feel any of the fees listed are unique to Pickerington. Mr. Sabatino further clarified that the additional penalty charged for a Board of Zoning Appeals variance is for a request that is submitted after construction. Mr. Schultz stated the increase in the fees for sign impoundment is because previously the fee was so minimal that when the signs were removed, people would just come and put another sign up and would not pay any attention to the fee. Mr. Sabatino clarified this does not include political signs. Mr. Sabatino stated moving it to a Mayor’s Court issue seemed like a big step and he wasn’t sure he wanted to go there. Mr. Hansley stated this is mainly for repeat offenders and is meant to stop people from putting the signs up. Mr. Sabatino stated if you want to discourage them that’s fine, but he did not feel that Mayor’s Court is appropriate. Ms Gilleland stated technically we can take them to Mayor’s Court now.

Mr. Lane stated he would answer any questions anyone might have on the fees proposed for the Building Department Fee Schedule. Mrs. Hammond clarified that an industrialized unit is a modular home. Mr. Lane stated under Additional Fees, item 6, the contractors required to register should be eliminated in this section and in the multi-family section as that is covered in another section of the Code. Mr. Hansley clarified we do not do inspections on the contractor’s work, this is more of an effort to ensure that contractor’s performing work in the City are qualified for that work. He further stated this is an annual registration, they do not register for every job they perform. Mr. Smith stated he did question the fees for a furnace or hot water tank replacement inspection fee. Mr. Sabatino stated he questioned those fees as well. He stated the homeowner would probably have a contractor replace their furnace, however, most homeowner’s would replace the hot water heater themselves and he did not think we should be requiring an inspection on that let alone charge a fee for doing it. Ms Gilleland clarified that we have inspected the replacement of hot water heaters in some apartments, and Mr. Lane stated he was not aware of any inspections we have done for single-family homes. Ms Gilleland stated the question was if we wanted to require an inspection of furnace and hot water heaters when they are replaced. Mr. Smith stated he would propose those two fees be deleted from the fee schedule and all Committee members concurred with that suggestion. Mrs. Hammond stated with regard to the furnace and hot water heater replacement inspection fee for multi-family that might also be removed because that would include condominiums that are individually owned. Mr. Lane stated it would be his recommendation to remove these fees from the multi-family section as well so everyone will be treated the same. Mr. Sabatino clarified that the fees charged by the Police Department, Parks Department, Utilities Department, Municipal Clerk’s Office, Mayor’s Court, Finance Department, and Tax Department that had been updated and reviewed by this Committee would be included with the Planning and Zoning and Building Department fees that were reviewed this evening into a complete Fee Schedule. Mr. Smith moved to approve the complete fee schedule and forward to Council; 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.

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

8. MOTIONS:

A. Motion for Executive Session under Section 121.22(G)(1)(b), Matters involving an employee’s or public official’s employment, Section 121.22(G)(2), Purchase or sale of public property, Section 121.22(G)(3), Conference with law director regarding pending or imminent court action, and Section 121.22(G)(4), Matters involving bargaining sessions with public employees. Mr. Smith stated there was no need for an Executive Session this evening.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Hammond voting "Aye." Motion carried, 4-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 9:20 P.M., May 17, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk