THURSDAY, JULY 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 Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Tim Hansley, Ed Drobina, Bruce Englehart, Bob Slingluff, Daryl Berry, Richard Ricketts, Jennifer Robertson, Linda Scott, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 21, 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 June 21, 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 today. She stated she was under General Fund she was requesting to transfer $25,000 to the Diley Road to cover Stilson’s contract for administration of Diley Road. Mrs. Fersch stated at this point we do not know if this is a reimbursable item, so in order to write the purchase order she needs to have the money transferred. She stated under the Sewer Plant construction fund she was requesting an increase of $1,612 in Contractual Services for the issuance cost on the engineering borrowing, and under the Diley Road Widening Fund she was requesting to increase Contractual Services by $25,000 and decrease Capital by $25,000 for the Stilson contract. 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. Mr. Fix ascertained it appeared we were going to have some funds left in the accounts for the insurance run off claims at the end of the year. Mr. Fix further questioned how we were doing on impact fees collected for the year, and would we have to make some adjustments later in the year due to not having impact fees coming in? Mrs. Fersch stated we still have some commercial that have not paid their impact fees as yet. She stated the fee is not due until their permit is issued, so by the time we begin working on the budget she should have a better idea of where we stand. Mr. Fix clarified the current Board of Health was formed when the Fairfield County and the Lancaster Board of Health merged. Mrs. Fersch stated when the merger occurred, we decided to stay with the Fairfield Health Department as it is in Fairfield County. Mr. Fix clarified they were not funded by the County government because it is a merged district. Mr. Hansley stated the City does have an obligation to provide a Board of Health for the residents, and we could do that by contracting with this agency, we could form our own Board of Health, or we could contract with any other adjacent Board of Health, such as the Franklin County Board of Health. Mr. Sabatino clarified there are certain services that are dictated by the State that we have to provide. Mr. Fix further clarified the City pays based on assessed property valuation. She stated she could provide the Committee with a listing showing what all of the member communities pay to the Health District. Mr. Fix stated he would appreciate receiving that information.

C. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance to authorize the City Manager to write off uncollectible water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater charges. Mr. Smith stated at the last meeting the Committee had requested more information regarding the accounts that he was proposing we write off. Mr. Sabatino stated he was expecting a little more information than what was received, such as a list of the accounts, service addresses, etc. Mr. Smith stated he thought perhaps if the Committee received a listing of the number of accounts for each year, and Mr. Fix stated he felt there was some value in seeing the number of accounts each year that we would be writing off. Mr. Sabatino stated there were a couple of years where the uncollectilbe amount was much greater than the previous year, and he would be interested in knowing what caused that. Mr. Smith stated he did not know how that would add anything to this unless you are looking at accounts over x-amount of dollars. Mr. Sabatino stated that would be one thing, because if we have one account for, say, $7,000 in one year he certainly wouldn’t want to write that off. Mr. Fix clarified that our collection rate is in the high ninety percent range. Mrs. Fersch stated we have done very well in the past two years, and the fact that we went to monthly billing instead of quarterly, has helped a great deal. Mr. Drobina stated we have been passing out over 100 shut off tags per month, and he did feel that residents having the ability to pay with their credit card has helped a lot. Mr. Fix stated that was still a lot of shut off notices per month. Mr. Drobina stated some of these are the same people every month, and if we shut off the water there is a $50 fee to turn it back on, and if it is after hours there is an additional $50 fee. Mr. Sabatino clarified that we do not require a deposit when we have the service turned back on. Mrs. Fersch stated the only deposits we collect are from renters and some landlords state they will assume responsibility for the account and do not want their renters to have to pay a deposit. Mr. Sabatino stated if we have someone who habitually does not pay until they receive a shut off notice, we need to look at changing things so a deposit is required before we resume service. Mr. Fix stated he would like to see what our collection rate is before making decisions like that. Mr. Smith stated the collection rate each year would be a relevant piece of data, and also the number of accounts in certain dollar ranges, such as under $10; under $50; and things like that. Mr. Drobina stated he could provide that information to the Committee. Mr. Smith stated if they can get the information with enough time to review it, request additional information if necessary, and provide input back to Mr. Drobina prior to the next meeting the Committee should be able to dispense with this issue at the next meeting. Mr. Drobina stated he could provide that information. He further stated since the last meeting he and Mr. Schornack met with a collection agency and they had requested our attorneys review the information. He stated our attorneys had some concern because other clients have used this collection agency and they are dropping it because of some problems. Mr. Drobina stated he is looking at other collection agencies. Mr. Smith stated he has mixed emotions about using a collection agency on our residents. Mr. Smith stated this would remain on the agenda for next month.

4. PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT:

A. Personnel Director’s Report. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report and she would be happy to answer any questions. She stated we had one dispatcher resign and a part-time employee assumed that position. She stated an offer has also been made for a new part-time dispatcher. Mrs. Fersch further stated Mr. Peter Boyle accepted the offer of employment for the Service Worker/Preventive Maintenance position. Mrs. Fersch also stated on September 6^th, we will have SERB training for our AFSCME interest-based bargaining negotiations.

B. Employee Manual – Council work session scheduled for August 7, 2007. Mr. Smith stated the work session regarding the employee manual will be rescheduled as the August 7^th work session has been pre-committed to continue the review of the Administrative Code.

5. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:

Mr. Smith stated if there were no objections, he would address items C and D at this time. Mr. Hansley stated the last time this was before the Committee you asked for some information such as projects that were in the pipeline. He stated further one of Mr. Ricketts’ main discussion points for Barnyard Primitive as that they had provided improvements that were over and above the improvement. He stated he would like to draw the Committee members attention to a report dated May 9^th from Mr. Schultz that addresses those issues that came before you the last time. He stated staff recommendation on a waiver on both of these issues remains the same, they do not meet the test of the ordinance. Mr. Hansley stated one option on the Windmiller project, that staff could support, was that if they achieved the numbers that are in the previous projects granted, and that are also pending in the new proposed legislation, that if and when they meet those standards they could come in at that time and present that data. He stated Council could then recommend a partial exemption at that point.

Mr. Ricketts stated he was present representing both the Barnyard Primitive and Windmiller office condo owners. Mr. Ricketts stated although he does not agree with staff on this particular issue, he would note his appreciation for staff throughout this process. He stated they have been extremely professional and communicative and he appreciated the professional treatment he has received. Mr. Ricketts stated he would summarize where this issue stands and he felt it was important to bring this matter to a head. Mr. Ricketts stated he does have one piece of information on each of the properties he would like to bring to the Committee’s attention this evening. Mr. Ricketts stated the impact fees we are talking about that have been paid by Barnyard Primitives amount to $23,750 and for the Windmiller project the amount is $15,926. Mr. Ricketts stated as he had stated in the past, he felt the most significant point to consider is that these were both pipeline projects, and while it is not unusual for there to be the ability of Council to phase in, or grandfather, whenever you are talking about this type of scenario. Mr. Ricketts stated in this instance we have two projects that were in the pipeline. Mr. Ricketts stated should there be a determination that you provide some type of credit, waiver or abatement of these impact fees, would not open the door for precedent for other applicants to come in. He stated, in fact, based upon the time that has passed and the fact that there is a timetable in which you have to submit the request for appeal, that there would be little or no possibility for there to be any other applicants in a similar situation.

Mr. Ricketts stated several issues are consistent with both applicants. First, both applicants involve local developers or residents that have vested interest in the community and they contribute to the economic climate of the community. He stated these are also individuals who have worked within the system and have come through this process in a positive, productive fashion to try to note ways the system could possibly be improved, and they have worked with staff in terms of trying to analyze some of the information. Further, one of the more important scenarios in both of these cases is that in both instances the real estate was purchased with the intent to develop it, by the owners before impact fees were ever discussed in Pickerington. Mr. Ricketts stated he felt we need to look at some methodology to try and be fair with these players when they were really very, very close and along the pipeline when the impact fee legislation went into effect.

Mr. Ricketts stated with respect to the Windmiller office condos he would like to note some specific reasons why the Committee should consider their application. He stated as indicated in the information he has provided to this Committee at past meetings, there is a substantial estimated amount of economic revenue that will be generated from jobs. He stated if you look at the anticipated revenue from that project alone, you are looking at less than a two year pay back in the context of the ability to recover any impact fee waivers granted. He stated there is also the private improvements that are for the benefit of the public; a private road was developed to public road specifications that will not need to be maintained by the City, but will open up substantial access to future developments all along Refugee Road, with the additional benefit of not putting a lot of additional traffic or curb cuts on Refugee Road. He stated further as Mr. Berry indicated at the last meeting, the property is in a TIF. Mr. Ricketts stated this is a very strong project and he hoped the Committee would strongly consider the abatement of all of the impact fee with respect to this property.

Mr. Ricketts stated with respect to Barnyard Primitives, this project was truly being finalized right at the eleventh hour, and if not for a potential throw back of the Certificate of Appropriateness it might have made it in under the door. He stated further there is the equitable scenario that he pointed out last time, that the impact fee on this project was five percent of the additional construction costs. He continued that between the additional requirements coming out of the Certificate of Appropriateness aspects and the impact fee, the cost of that project went up 25 percent. He stated that is a staggering increase in the context of a project for a local person that buys a piece of ground and then is looking at a number of additional items. He stated he understood Mr. Schultz did not agree with his analysis of the additional project costs, but he did speak with Ms Robertson and Mr. Eversole, and as a result of the requirements for the Certificate of Appropriateness, the costs went up for use of hardy plank, extra cupolas, special lighting, and the additional improvement to provide for a 100 year storm, by about $80,000. He stated these are all things that you should be able to negotiate with the City, and would be able to negotiate with the City, if you are on the front end of the project and not in the pipeline. He stated there was no opportunity for there to be a good interaction negotiation process between the City and the developer and he felt that threw a substantial equitable benefit as to why things should move forward on this request. Mr. Ricketts stated he would acknowledge that the return on investment was a lot slower on the Barnyard Primitive project, and that is because it is more retail than it is professional, however, it is still a four to five year recovery not counting the TIF.

Mr. Ricketts stated these are two local people who are vested in this community and we should do what is fair and equitable. He stated these are two projects that were caught in a trap that was not caused by the City or the builders, they were just at the wrong place at the wrong time. He further stated in looking at all of the considerations, he did not feel this would not set a precedent that in any way impacts the future proposals of what staff is recommending for new projects. Mr. Ricketts stated he hoped the Committee would give consideration to what is fair and equitable, and that is providing an abatement or credit for all of the amounts in question, which for Barnyard Primitive is $23,750 and for Windmiller Condos $15,926. Mr. Ricketts stated he would answer any questions the Committee members may have.

Mr. Sabatino stated he felt Mr. Ricketts had made the Committee aware of some situations that are rather unique to these two projects and he felt it was an unfortunate timing situation. Mr. Sabatino stated he had personal knowledge of Barnyard Primitives because they reached out to him when they first encountered the situation and he passed that on to the City Manager. He stated he was not sure of what level of follow up there was, but this is a unique development in the City and if the City does its due diligence in making sure they are collecting the income tax from all of the merchants that are there, he felt there was the potential to recoup any action taken on this project. He stated further on the Windmiller project, he felt it was also an unfortunate timing situation and the amount of the impact fees versus just the road it didn’t take a lot to see that there is some equity there.

Mr. Smith stated as a matter of process he would like to separate the two projects. He stated he would begin with the Windmiller project and get all questions answered before any recommendation is made. Mr. Hansley stated staff would agree that it is common to address a pipeline situation when an ordinance is drafted, and the City did that a little bit by making the effective date a little bit out in the future, but did not specifically address projects that were already started. He stated he agreed with Mr. Ricketts that those projects were trapped in the pipeline. Mr. Hansley further stated to his knowledge there were no other projects that were actually in the pipeline, but one other project applied and it was turned down for other reasons.

Mr. Fix stated, as with all other impact fee waivers, the City would be responsible for paying back any amount that would be waived. Mr. Hansley stated that was correct, it would come from income tax not out of the impact fee fund. Mr. Fix stated the Windmiller property is one of the unique situations discussed earlier, where they only have someone’s best guess rather than hard numbers. Mr. Fix stated in putting together that best guess, he questioned if we knew what types of businesses that would be in this development. Mr. Hansley stated we know what they propose to put in there, but right now it is a shell building. Mr. Fix clarified the projections were based on a mix of office and retail. Mr. Fix stated given the projections he has heard, at best we have a two-year payback, and that is assuming it is leased tomorrow and filled with offices. He stated he would be uncomfortable with moving forward with an impact fee waiver not knowing what would go into the buildings. Mr. Sabatino questioned if it would make sense to consider giving the developer a reasonable amount of time to generate the income tax and then Council approve a credit on the impact fee if they meet those numbers. Mr. Smith stated it would then become an administrative matter, and Mr. Hansley stated that would be an option for the Committee to consider. Mr. Sabatino stated that would then quell the question of if the business would meet the numbers or not, if it would make sense or not, and give the developer the feeling that the City would not consider any options. Mr. Fix stated there is no easy or right answer here, and no matter what this Committee recommends, there would be arguments on both sides. He stated his concern with the Windmiller property and the pipeline argument is that he was sure that Mr. Berry was aware that impact fees were coming and there was an effort to get the project started before the impact fees became effective. Mr. Daryl Berry stated he is in discussion with two kidney dialysis companies right now for space in the building, and they would take the balance of the building already constructed. He stated he has two other buildings to be constructed and he hoped to attract businesses like that. Mr. Berry stated further he did receive the letter about the impact fees coming and he started the process soon enough to be completed before the impact fees officially went into place. He stated there were small issues with his application at the building department that slowed up the process. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt this was somewhat of a dilemma for everyone because the City wants to help everyone out, but the impact fees were enacted in order to keep the City running smoothly also. She stated if we start waiving the fees right and left we will be in trouble. Mrs. Hammond continued we have established some type of criteria and she was hoping there was some way we can come up with a compromise that will make everyone happy. Mr. Smith clarified the process would be that this Committee would make a motion for an ordinance to go before Council. Mr. Hansley stated that was the recommendation from the attorney that drafted the ordinance. Mr. Smith stated he leaning toward a fifty percent credit for being a pipeline project and then establish a criteria by which a credit or refund be given once a hurdle was reached. He stated he would like to have discussion on what that hurdle might be. Mr. Smith clarified that it was Mr. Hansley’s position that the criteria for an automatic refund be the guideline that is in the pending ordinance that once the business meets a one million dollar payroll, has the ability to generate 20 jobs, and has an 18 month payback. Mr. Smith stated his problem with the 18-month payback was that when we were discussing this two months ago we were talking about a three-year payback. Mr. Smith stated two months ago the staff recommendation for both of the cases before the Committee was a three year payback. Mr. Hansley stated if the Committee did recommend a fifty percent credit, the amount for payback will be lowered. Mr. Smith stated he was just trying to be consistent with what had been discussed at past meetings. Mr. Fix stated he appreciated this was a difficult situation for the applicants and for this Committee. He further stated he felt it would be fair and equitable to give a fifty percent credit to both applicants on the pipeline argument. He stated he felt the City has worked very hard over the past couple of months to establish a reasonable and fair criteria for someone asking ahead of time for a waiver of impact fees, and when you add to that this is well after the fact, and if the development that Mr. Berry puts together is able to meet that criteria that it is a very reasonable approach for this Council to take in granting an impact fee waiver. Mr. Fix stated his concern was the 18-month period versus the 36 months. He stated if we go along with the criteria we are establishing, then it is fair and equitable to everyone and he felt it was fair if this Council gave a fifty percent credit due to timing issues, to expect that criteria be met for the other fifty percent. Mrs. Hammond stated she agreed with Mr. Fix assuming the 18 months doesn’t start until Mr. Berry gets tenants this would be an incentive for him to get the dialysis business or someone in there, in which case the 18 months should be sufficient. Mr. Sabatino clarified the Committee was discussing a fifty percent credit off the top and the other fifty percent contingent upon performance. He stated he felt that was a fair way to approach it and his only question would be if we were giving them enough time to qualify for the rest of the credit and when the clock would start for that. Mr. Smith stated he felt the Committee could determine when that time was, if it would be 18 months from the effective date of the ordinance, or what. Mr. Smith stated he felt the Committee had reached a consensus on concept. Mr. Berry stated he appreciated the credit and he did not have a problem with the 18-month period if it began when he brings a tenant forward. Mr. Hansley stated the current building has one tenant, but he felt when the next tenant comes in, the 18-month clock would start. Mr. Smith stated he agreed with that concept and Mr. Sabatino stated he also concurred. Mr. Smith moved to forward to Council a recommendation for a fifty percent credit on impact fees paid by the Windmiller Office Condo project due to the fact that the project was in the pipeline at the time the impact fee ordinance became effective and that the developer receive an automatic payback of the remaining fifty percent if they meet the criteria as established by Mr. Hansley for a payback period within an 18 month period beginning when they get their first next tenant; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt this was a fair way to deal with this. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

Mr. Smith stated with regard to the Barnyard Primitive project he would like to discuss a fifty percent credit on impact fees paid due to being in the pipeline at the time the impact fee ordinance went into effect. He stated the other area where this project is different is in the argument for infrastructure improvements. He stated he was willing to give some leeway to Barnyard Primitives and the remaining fifty percent could be covered by an infrastructure credit. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt that would be a fair way to approach this because they did express their concerns to him early on, and he would support that recommendation. Mrs. Hammond stated she supported the fifty percent credit on the pipeline argument, however, she was not sure about returning the other fifty percent simply because of the criteria established for other businesses. She stated this is essentially a retail business and Council has pretty much stated they do not waiver the impact fees for retail businesses. Mr. Fix stated he concurred with Mrs. Hammond and he was not comfortable with the fifty percent refund on the infrastructure argument. Mr. Fix stated the way that property is structured was bound to cause some additional infrastructure costs to try and get the parking lot level, etc. Mr. Ricketts stated the property was originally engineered for a ten-year storm and Stilson required it be designed for a 100-year storm to address other issues that were going on with stormwater in the area. He stated the argument is that by Pickerington’s Code it only requires a ten-year storm. Mr. Ricketts stated this project was saddled with additional infrastructure to provide for a 100 year storm, and while no-one was objecting to the fact that it did help solve problems, but the property owner did not like the fact that a lot of the cost was paid by her. Mr. Fix clarified there was disagreement with staff who found that in absence of other information by the developer the storm sewer upsizing was not specifically requested by the City but a choice made by the developer in their attempt to meet City standards for design. Mr. Hansley stated our Planning and Zoning Director and our engineer were of the opinion that they did not make a community wide improvement, it was an improvement they needed for their site. Mr. Fix stated he just did not feel comfortable with a fifty percent refund on the infrastructure argument. Mr. Sabatino stated this is unique because it is not just one business since each booth in there is an individual business. Mr. Hansley stated he would point out this is still retail and our income tax is really not a profit tax it is really a payroll tax. He stated with retail you have very few people working and relatively low incomes, and these stall businesses are not going to be making a big profit they will be paying us one percent of. Mr. Ricketts stated he felt strongly about the fact that on this project a substantial amount of money had been expended over and above what should be dealt with in a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Smith moved to recommend Council approve a fifty percent credit of the impact fees paid by Barnyard Primitive due to the fact that the project was in the pipeline at the time the impact fee ordinance became effective and an additional fifty percent credit for infrastructure; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Fix moved to amend that motion to reflect a fifty percent credit for the pipeline argument and a twenty-five percent credit for the infrastructure; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion to amend. Mr. Fix stated he just could not feel comfortable with a fifty percent credit on the infrastructure argument. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the property owners were trying to get some assistance at the time the project was being developed and he felt the fifty percent credit for the infrastructure was appropriate. Mr. Fix stated he felt the City giving up seventy-five percent of the impact fees was reasonable and he felt asking them to participate at some level was not unreasonable. Roll call was taken on the motion to amend with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion to amend passed, 4-0. Roll call was taken on the motion as amended to recommend Council approve a fifty percent credit of the impact fees paid by Barnyard Primitive due to the fact that the project was in the pipeline at the time the impact fee ordinance became effective and an additional twenty-five percent credit for infrastructure with Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, as amended, 4-0.

Finance Committee recessed at 9:05 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 9:15 P.M.

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) Mr. Smith moved to remove from the Table; 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. Mr. Hansley stated the Committee had been provided with a draft annexation agreement to consider this evening that was prepared by staff with input from members of Council and other interested parties. He stated he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Hansley stated the property owner has seen this draft and has no objections to it. Mr. Sabatino stated he had spoken with a Township Trustee and it was indicated they were still contemplating this agreement and felt they could come up with a response by their next meeting. Mr. Smith stated if this is moved forward to Council and the Township recommends an amendment, the agreement can be amended on Council floor. Mr. Fix stated he agreed with the draft in principal and was comfortable with moving it forward. He stated he understood the Township’s concern was the cost involved in what the City was asking them to provide by way of service in exchange for the road and bridge levy. Mr. Hansley stated State statue provides that to get the service payment they have to justify a service level. Mr. Fix stated what was being discussed was the portion of Stemen Road that is in the City is less than a mile, and the City was basically asking them to plow Stemen Road on that portion of Stemen Road. He stated he felt we were talking about plowing less than a mile of road between five and ten times a year. Mr. Fix stated he felt this would amount to a cost of somewhere around $500 a year to the Township. Mr. Fix stated he felt this should be moved forward to Council and if the Township came back with a significant change that has merit it could be amended by Council. Mrs. Fersch stated she would like to have the date this would commence clarified because the property is not yet annexed and it takes awhile for that process. She stated our responsibility would not take effect until annexation and taxes are a year behind. She stated she felt it was important to establish the date she would begin paying the Township. Mr. Smith clarified the road and bridge levy are also a year behind. Mr. Smith requested Mr. Hansley work with our attorney to ensure a date certain to begin payment to the Township is included in the ordinance that goes before Council. Mr. Fix further clarified the execution of the agreement is contingent upon both parties signing it. Mr. Smith moved to approve the draft annexation agreement and forward it to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

C. Review and discussion regarding Windmiller Office Condo and Barnyard Primitives, Inc., appeal of Impact Fees. Mr. Smith stated this was dealt with earlier in the 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 he would request this item be removed from the agenda.

6. CHAIRMAN:

A. Review of Legal and Engineering services invoices.

(1) Review and request for motion to approve legal services billing for election literature dispute. Mr. Smith moved to approve the legal services billing for election literature dispute; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-0.

(2) Review and request for motion to approve legal services expenses for Charter review. Mr. Smith moved to approve the legal services expenses for Charter review; 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 legal services expenses for contract document review. Mr. Smith moved to approve the legal services expenses for contract document review. Mr. Fix clarified this was the cost for updating and rewriting our boiler plate contract and bid documents to reflect changes in state and federal law at a cost not to exceed $4,000. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix voting “Nay,” and Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-1.

7. OTHER BUSINESS:

Mr. Smith stated the Committee had received a packet of information regarding the impact fee exemption for the Violet Township Service Building. Mr. Hansley clarified if this Committee would recommend granting the waiver, an ordinance would be prepared to forward to Council. Mr. Smith stated this is a government building and it does meet the criteria for impact fee exemptions. Mr. Hansley stated the language in the ordinance makes it somewhat automatic that you would grant waivers for the Township, school district, post office buildings, etc. He further stated further the impact fee fund can bear the expense of that, it does not have to come out of general fund dollars; it is a noncollectible revenue. Mr. Smith moved to forward the impact fee exemption request for the Violet Township Service Building with a recommendation for approval; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

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. Smith moved to adjourn; Mr. Fix 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 9:45 P.M., July 19, 2007.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk