PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2007

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

 

PUBLIC HEARING

7:20 P.M.

 

 

OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROPOSED REZONING AND

FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 8.76 ACRES AT 376 HILL ROAD SOUTH

 

 

Mayor Shaver opened the public hearing at 7:23 P.M. with the following members present:  Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mayor Shaver.  Others present were:  Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Lance Schultz, Dan Heitmeyer, Chad Flowers, Gary Smith, and others. 

 

Mr. Schultz stated Planning and Zoning Commission and Service Committee approved this rezoning and Final Development Plan in July 2007, with the 13 conditions that are attached to the Ordinance.  He stated Planning and Zoning held a public hearing and there was no opposition to the rezoning.  Mr. Schultz stated the owner’s proposal to rezone the property from Rural District to Planned Central Business/Mixed Use would include a spa, bed and breakfast, and office developments.  He stated the owner would relocate the existing spa to this site and expand the operation.  He stated the house would be expanded and converted into a bed and breakfast, and is also proposing a sandwich shop with a drive thru, and four proposed office buildings would encompass approximately 24,000 square feet.  Mr. Schultz stated there would be a single curb cut from Hill Road South into the development and a private road would meander around the pond.  Mr. Schultz stated he would be happy to answer any questions. 

 

Mr. Smith clarified that Violet Township Fire Department’s concern regarding a second access point to the site from the Pickerington Central High School parking lot has been agreed to by the owner. 

 

Mayor Shaver ascertained there were no further comments or questions from Council members regarding the proposed rezoning.

 

There being no further questions or comments, Mayor Shaver closed the public hearing at 7:26 P.M., September 4, 2007.

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

 

 

_______________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

_______________________________

David Shaver, Mayor

 

PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2007

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

 

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

7:30 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND INVOCATION. Council for the City of Pickerington met for a regular session Tuesday, September 4, 2007, at City Hall.  Mayor Shaver called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.  Roll call was taken as follows:  Mr. Fix, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Riggs, and Mayor Shaver were present.  No members were absent.  Others present were: Judy Gilleland, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Phil Hartmann, Ed Drobina, Tim Hansley, Lance Schultz, Chris Schornack, Randy Navaroli, Tony Barletta, Dan Heitmeyer, Gary Smith, Chad Flowers, Rex Myer, Rachel Scofeld, Dave Rossman, Rick Ricketts, Gary Weltlich, Jennifer Robertson, Linda Scott, and others.   

 

2.         A.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2007, WORK SESSION.  Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

B.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2007, REGULAR MEETING.  Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. fix, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

3.         APPROVAL OF AGENDA.  Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

4.         COMMUNITY COMMENTS: 

 

A.        Richard Ricketts.  Mr. Rickets stated he was present this evening on behalf of Barnyard Primitives and Windmiller Square office condominiums with respect to the legislation that is on tonight’s agenda dealing with impact fees.  Mr. Ricketts stated he appreciated the concerns that were expressed at the last Council meeting, and he would also like to express his appreciation to staff and the Finance Committee for their professional approach throughout this process.  Mr. Ricketts stated further he appreciated Finance Committee’s patience and effort in listening and understanding all of the facts that relate to these two particular projects.  Mr. Ricketts stated when this process began the position of his client’s had little or no support as shown in the initial opinion of staff.  He stated, however, over the course of the process with Finance Committee that involved three meetings over the last six months, there was over four hours of dialogue with himself and the applicants.  He stated this was an explanation of facts and a solid effort of trying to communicate and understand positions and try to reach common ground in an effort to do things that were productive not only for these two businesses but also in the context of trying to make sure that the system worked going forward.  He further stated he felt the result of the unanimous vote coming out of Finance Committee was due to the fact that if you wholly appreciate the facts of these two cases, the only fair and equitable conclusion is that these two businesses are entitled to some kind of a credit.  He stated, in addition, it was clear that the process worked in that the dialogue between the Finance Committee, the applicant, and staff was designed to try to reach a win-win scenario, and he felt that had occurred and was before Council in the context of the ordinances before them this evening.  He stated he understood there were several concerns and he would like to address those items.  He stated, again, that while clearly staff was against these requests, the dialogue resulted in staff coming forward with the recommendation before Council.  Mr. Ricketts stated, therefore, he did not feel this was before Council without the recommendation of staff, but was before them with the inclusion and participation of staff.  He stated he also understood that Council did not want to set adverse precedent, and that was a source of much discussion in Finance Committee, and he felt everyone had done a very good job of trying to come up with an ability to make sure they were not doing something for the benefit of what was right for two people, but would be detrimental to the City on a going forward basis.  Mr. Ricketts stated he appreciated that at time language needs to be tweaked and he had no problem with that, and he also had no problem if the members of Council feel they need to take more time to better understand the facts and the situation before they vote.  He stated he did come before Council this evening asking for them to support the ordinances that are being proposed for the third reading, and he hoped that if they did not feel they could support them they would give him the opportunity to have a dialogue with Council members and to have them meet with the owner of Barnyard Primitives to discuss the situation, because he was sure they would then support the legislation.  Mr. Ricketts stated this is simply a case of two businesses getting caught in a situation that the system, at no fault to anyone, did not allow them to get the final approval before implementation of the impact fees.  Mr. Ricketts also stated that he felt in many cases it is normal for there to be a phase in period to allow for these kinds of situations to be equitably addressed.  Mr. Ricketts stated he would be available to answer any questions or concerns of Council members and, regardless of how they voted, he was more than willing to meet with anyone after this meeting to explain why he felt these ordinances were the fair and right thing to do.  

 

B.         Jennifer Robertson.  Ms Robertson stated she is the co-owner of Barnyard Primitives, and she would like to thank staff and Council for all of the work that has been done just to get to this point.  She further stated she is a long time resident of the community, and she felt her business helped to make this community better.  She stated when Council voted this evening she would ask that they take into consideration all of the facts, look at everything as a whole, and vote based on that.  Ms Robertson stated no matter what the vote, she is still very proud to say she is a Pickerington resident and she owns a business in this City. 

 

5.         APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA:  Mayor Shaver stated there were no consent agenda items this evening. 

 

6.         COMMITTEE REPORTS:   

 

A.        FINANCE COMMITTEE.  Mr. Smith stated Finance Committee had moved three items out of Committee that are on tonight’s agenda for first readings.    

 

7.         REPORTS:

 

A.        MAYOR.  Mayor Shaver stated he would request this evening that Council table Ordinance 2007-51.  He stated through meetings with council members and Violet Township representatives he believed they had come to an equitable solution, and when that is put together in the proper form we will be able to go forward with this project.  He stated in addition to the Township Trustees, he would like to thank Councilmen Fix and Sabatino for their cooperation in moving forward with this project.  Mayor Shaver stated the community lost someone truly special recently with the death of retired Police Chief Don Pruden, and he asked that everyone try to remember him and his family in their prayers and activities.          

 

B.         LAW DIRECTOR.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would be preparing an updated Diley Road spreadsheet to give everyone the status of where those stand, and he may request an executive session at the next meeting to discuss those items.  Mr. Hartmann stated he would answer any questions anyone may have.   

 

C.        FINANCE DIRECTOR.  Mrs. Fersch stated she had four pieces of legislation on tonight’s agenda and she would request three readings on the two appropriation ordinances as there are some items that need to be taken care of.  She stated the ordinance authorizing a premium only plan allows the employee’s health care to be done on a pre-tax basis, and she also has the resolution accepting the amounts and rates on the tax levies that was approved by Fairfield County Budget Commission.  Mrs. Fersch stated that Resolution will require three readings and declaring the emergency as we have a deadline of October 1st to file it with the County Auditor’s office.  She stated she would be happy to answer any questions.         

 

D.        SERVICE MANAGER.  Mr. Drobina stated he has one piece of legislation on the agenda this evening and that is to authorize the contract with Perram Electric for the Pickerington Signal Improvements, ACS Lites, Phase I.  He stated this project was publicly bid, with four companies submitting bids, and Perram Electric was the lowest bidder.  Mr. Fix clarified that we originally bid the project with an alternate bid because we thought we would have to replace the housing that holds the walk/don’t walk signs, however, it was decided we would not have to replace those.  Mr. Fix further clarified the base bid was what was being voted on this evening.   

 

E.         MANAGER.  Ms Gilleland stated on behalf of city staff she would also like to extend our deepest condolences to Chief Pruden’s family as it is always very difficult to say goodbye to one of our own.  She further stated she would like to thank our Parks and Recreation staff for the Arts Festival that was held this past weekend, and it was a very nice event.  Ms Gilleland stated Mr. Hansley is present to discuss the impact fee exemptions that Mr. Ricketts addressed earlier, and he can take questions at the completion of her report.  Ms Gilleland continued there is legislation on tonight’s agenda that would allow the City to submit for the wastewater treatment plant expansion loan, and the first step is to apply for approval to submit an application, and then there would be further legislation to authorize actually applying for the funds.  She stated also that staff is requesting the final reading on the biosolids contract be tabled this evening as we believe we may have a second company that may be able to supply this service to the City, and we would therefore like to bid this contract out. 

 

Mayor Shaver inquired if any council member had questions for Mr. Hansley with regard to the impact fee waiver legislation.  Mr. Fix stated it has been portrayed that staff was against the approval of these two ordinances and it was his recollection from the Finance Committee meetings that staff was working toward a compromise with the two businesses, and asked how Mr. Hansley felt about the two ordinances. 

 

Mr. Hansley stated the original report provided to Finance Committee was that based on the five or six points Mr. Ricketts raised on both of these projects, relief under the ordinance as it was drafted at that time, could not be granted on the merits that were presented.  He stated Finance Committee struggled through many hours of discussion and asked staff if there was a way, under the ordinance, that if the Committee wanted to make a recommendation to Council that was favorable for reimbursement of these projects that it could be done, and staff did that.  Mr. Hansley stated as Mr. Ricketts had stated, these two projects had a long history, were close to being approved, and but for issues that were taxing to both of them, they could have been approved prior to the effective date.  Mr. Hansley stated it would not be unusual to have language in an ordinance to provide relief for projects that were nearly completed.   Mr. Hansley stated as indicated in the ordinances before Council tonight, these projects were substantially complete.  He stated the concern of Finance Committee, and that some council members may still be concerned about, is if there are other projects out there that can make the same or similar argument.  He further stated based on what staff researched, he knows of no other projects that were substantially along or nearly complete.  Mr. Hansley stated in the case of Barnyard Primitives, there was a provision in the original ordinance that capital improvements that were of benefit to the project as well as the general public, could also be granted a relief, however, that should have been approved prior to.  He stated Finance Committee determined that because the ordinance was so new, there was no effective way for them to make application for that prior to because the ordinance was not effective yet, so this present ordinance gives relief after the fact but still keeping with the intent of the original ordinance.  Mr. Hansley further stated with regard to the Windmiller Square project, the way to grant full relief was based on giving them some relief up front and then relief if after a certain period of time when they get the next tenant in their project they achieve the minimum of a million dollar payroll and 20 jobs.  Mr. Hansley stated he was not able to give a positive recommendation on the original application, a modification was arrived at through the hearing process. 

 

Mr. Fix clarified with regard to any exposure the City would have with other commercial projects that were in the pipeline at that time, if he understood Mr. Hansley correctly, it is not only that no-one else has come forward, but that some of those that came forward have already been dealt with and staff’s research in looking at the commercial properties that were being developed at that time, led him to believe the City’s exposure is minimal if at all.  Mr. Hansley stated he knows of no other projects that would be able to make the same arguments that have been made in the cases before Council tonight.  Mr. Fix further clarified with the law director that, if there were other projects out there that was in the pipeline at the same time, Council would still be able to consider their situation on a case-by-case basis.  Mr. Fix stated if these ordinances were approved tonight, it did not automatically give someone else a free pass down the road.  Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct, his concern, from a risk management standpoint, would be that there could possibly be other projects beyond commercial that might try to utilize this.  Mr. Hansley stated although these two projects were brought forward at the same time, they are two different cases and each has a unique finding based on the particular project.  He stated that is the same burden anyone else would have to bring in, and they would be considered under the new legislation, which has even stricter standards.  Mr. Hackworth ascertained the process to build a new business can take as much as a year before you can file for a building permit.  Mr. Hackworth stated his question was when the individual was actually told what the impact fees were, and Mr. Hansley stated under the current process the property owner is informed immediately and they are given a list of all the requirements, which includes impact fees.  Mr. Hansley stated the problem with these two developments is that the impact fees would not have been mentioned at the beginning of the process because they were pending but not effective at that point.  Mrs. Riggs stated, for clarification, in the original ordinance staff could not support it because there was not a way to make this exemption, and Mr. Hansley stated that was correct.  Mr. Hansley stated the ordinance states that an appeal can be made to Finance Committee, and Mr. Ricketts made the appeal to Finance Committee.  He further stated that the finding of the Finance Committee was to draft legislation that would identify a basis this could be granted if that were the final recommendation of the Finance Committee to Council.  Mrs. Riggs stated further, in the original ordinance there is no distinction between residential or commercial in the process, and Mr. Hansley stated that was correct.  Mrs. Riggs further inquired if the law director were consulted at all, since we cannot distinguish between residential and commercial, and how do we know we do not have any builders that may have been in the process.  She stated that was her concern.  Mayor Shaver stated he shared Mrs. Riggs’ concerns.  Mr. Hartmann stated from a practical standpoint he takes a much more conservative approach in the sense that his concern would be that, notwithstanding we do have the ability to say no, if, in fact, it were appealed to a court, there would be some equitable argument that while it was granted in this situation, from an equal protection claim there is some type of precedent.  He stated he did not feel that was very valid, but it might cause an issue in future litigation if some residential developer was partially underway during this time and decided to take this on.  Mayor Shaver stated his concern is because originally the City did not want to touch commercial development, but was advised that you could not make a distinction between commercial and residential.  He stated if it were not something where we couldn’t legitimately make a distinction in the beginning, he would be more comfortable with making a distinction at this point.  Mr. Fix stated he would like to clarify because he felt the perception was becoming that Finance Committee wanted to find a way to make this happen and instructed staff to go and find a way.  He stated he did not want that perception to be out there, because over the course of several months as Finance Committee heard arguments and facts from Mr. Ricketts on behalf of his clients, they continued to ask questions and get clarifications.  He stated at the last Finance Committee meeting they were able to reach what they thought was a reasonable solution to very unique situations.  Mr. Fix stated this was not something that Finance Committee did not think about, they spent months on it, and they weren’t trying to find a way to make it happen because they were not excited about offering these waivers.  Mr. Fix stated, however, the arguments were compelling, the facts were there, and he felt the reasonable solution was the one they recommended.  Mr. Fix stated he would encourage all of his fellow council members to vote in favor of this legislation.  Mr. Sabatino stated the process to educate Finance Committee to the unique circumstances that dealt with these two projects was exhaustive, and he would also encourage his fellow council members to vote in favor of these ordinances. 

 

8.         PROCEDURAL READINGS:

 

            A.        ORDINANCE 2007-44, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PART TWO OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF PICKERINGTON, THE ADMINISTRATION CODE; TITLE TWO (CHAPTERS 202-208), TITLE FOUR (CHAPTERS 220-222), TITLE SIX (CHAPTERS 230-250), AND TITLE EIGHT (CHAPTERS 268-280),” First Reading, Fix.  (TABLED, 07/17/07)

 

            B.         ORDINANCE 2007-53, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LOAN FUNDS (WPCLF) FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT,” First Reading, Hammond.  Mrs. Hammond moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mrs. Hammond stated as Ms Gilleland had reported earlier, this will allow us to apply for the loan for the wastewater treatment plant.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

            C.        ORDINANCE 2007-54, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO MODIFY THE CITY’S PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROCUREMENT OF PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES,” First Reading, Fix.  Mr. Fix moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Mr. Fix stated this would allow us to not only go through qualifications on engineering services, but would also allow us to ask for a rough estimate of the bid.  He stated this would allow when reviewing potential design firms we would know not only if they were qualified but roughly what it would cost us to do business with them.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

            D.        ORDINANCE 2007-55, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH PERRAM ELECTRIC, INC., FOR THE PROJECT ENTITLED ‘PICKERINGTON SIGNAL IMPROVMENTS ACS LITE, PHASE I,” First Reading, Fix.  Mr. Fix moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mr. Fix stated Mr. Drobina briefed on this ordinance earlier in the meeting.  Mr. Hackworth stated this project will also allow us to put back up batteries at our major controllers and make our traffic signals much more reliable than they have been.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

            E.         ORDINANCE 2007-56, “AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE REZONING OF 8.76 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED AT 376 HILL ROAD SOUTH, FROM AG (RURAL DISTRICT) TO PC-2 (PLANNED CENTRAL BUSINESS/MIXED USE DISTRICT),” First Reading, Hammond.  Mrs. Hammond moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mrs. Hammond stated a public hearing was held on this development just prior to Council this evening, and it appears this development will be a great benefit to our community.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

            F.         ORDINANCE 2007-57, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2007 APPROPRIATION, ORDINANCE 2006-164,” First Reading, Mr. Smith.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Mr. Smith stated this contains the monthly appropriation changes and he or Mrs. Fersch would be happy to answer any questions.  Mr. Sabatino clarified that each department has a line item for health insurance premiums and run-out claims, so claims on anyone from the department can be taken from the proper department.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Mr. Smith moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.”  Suspension of Rules passed, 7-0.  Second Reading.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Third Reading.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

            G.        ORDINANCE 2007-58, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A PREMIUM ONLY PLAN FOR HEALTH CARE BENEFITS,” First Reading, Smith.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Mr. Smith stated this is intended to allow health insurance premiums to be paid out of pre-tax dollars, and this is a normal practice with health care premiums.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

            H.        ORDINANCE 2007-60, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, TO SERVE AS JUDGES OF ELECTIONS ON THE DAYS OF ELECTIONS HELD IN FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO,” First Reading, Fix.  Mr. Fix moved to adopt; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Mr. Fix stated the Board of Elections had approached the City some time ago and asked, as they have asked other governmental entities within the County, to allow workers to take a paid day and work as a judge in any of the polls.  He stated we have the option of not having city employees serving as presiding judges within city precincts.   Mr. Wisniewski stated he could not support this if the employee would be given time off with pay.  He stated he did not feel it was the responsibility of the citizens of Pickerington to use their tax dollars to pay employees to man the polls; that is a County responsibility.  He stated he did not have a problem, however, if the employee took a vacation day, a personal day, or whatever to work at the polls.  Mr. Sabatino stated he recalled that Lancaster recently passed legislation allowing their employees to take time off to do this, however, they would be required to take a vacation day or whatever.  Mr. Hackworth stated he shared Mr. Wisniewski’s concern on this issue.  Mrs. Riggs inquired if Mr. Hartmann was aware of how other counties were handling this problem, and Mr. Hartmann stated he has not heard of any other counties doing this.  He stated the Board of Elections told him they have been upgrading machinery and there is an aging population of poll workers that don’t understand the computerized machinery and they are losing poll workers rapidly.  He stated he was not aware of what other cities were doing, but he could look into that before the next meeting.  Mr. Wisniewski further stated the ordinance does not have a provision that the City has the right to deny the request of an employee to have time off to work at the polls.  Mr. Smith stated he felt the department head would retain the right to say no.  Mr. Hackworth stated he has a lot of concern with this and he has not had enough time to do research on the issue.  Mr. Sabatino stated he would like input from the City Manager to see if she felt this would cause a problem for her.  Mayor Shaver stated as there are several questions about the ordinance perhaps Council would want to have a reading this evening and have further discussions and perhaps have an amendment at the next meeting.  Ms Gilleland stated this ordinance did not come from staff, it was introduced to the law director by the County.  She stated she has done no research on this, however, she has heard of other cities in Fairfield County addressing this, and if Council chooses to approve it, she did not feel it would be a problem.  She stated she did not feel the city employees would take advantage of this, and she did believe she had the right to deny the time off if it would interfere with the City’s business.  Mr. Fix stated he would ask for the first reading this evening, and that proposed amendments be forwarded to the law director and himself so he can have them prepared for discussion at the next Council meeting.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Hackworth voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-2. 

 

            I.          ORDINANCE 2007-61, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2007 APPROPRIATION, ORDINANCE 2006-164,” First Reading, Smith.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Mr. Smith stated this appropriation will tie up all the loose ends and comply with the results of the audit that was done on how we spend the money on Diley Road.  He stated this put the money in the right places and, in effect, advances the money until we are reimbursed from the State.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Mr. Smith moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.”  Suspension of Rules passed, 7-0.  Second Reading.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Third Reading.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

            J.          RESOLUTION 2007-14R, “A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO APPLY FOR THE 2007-2008 SCHOOL YEAR DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION (DARE) LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS PROGRAM,” First Reading, Fix.  Mr. Fix moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Mr. Fix stated this will allow us to apply for the DARE grant and continue our DARE program.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

            K.        RESOLUTION 2007-15R, “A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE AMOUNTS AND RATES AS DETERMINED BY THE FAIRFIELD COUNTY BUDGET COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY TAX LEVIES AND CERTIFYING THEM TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND DECLARING THE EMERGENCY,” First Reading, Smith.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Mr. Smith stated this is the annual resolution we must file with the County Auditor.  He stated this is done as an emergency each year because we do not get the information from the Budget Commission until right before it is required and the filing deadline with the County Auditor is October 1, 2007.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Mr. Smith moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Suspension of Rules passed, 7-0.  Second Reading.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  Third Reading, with emergency.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Smith, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, with emergency, 7-0. 

 

9.         LEGISLATIVE READINGS:

 

            A.        ORDINANCE 2007-38, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1286 (CONDITIONAL USES) OF THE PICKERINGTON CODIFIED ORDINANCES TO ADD SECTION 1286.34, OUTDOOR SERVICE FACILITY REGULATIONS,” Third Reading, Hackworth.  Mr. Hackworth moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated this is the result of several establishments applying for patios outside of their restaurants and we needed to have some ability to regulate them.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

            B.         ORDINANCE 2007-46, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SECOND EXTENSION OF THE CITY’S CONTRACT WITH SYNAGRO CENTRAL, LLC, FOR BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT SERVICES,” Third Reading, Fix.  Mr. Fix moved to Table; Mr. Hackworth seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  (TABLED)

 

            C.        ORDINANCE 2007-48, “AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CREDIT FOR FEES PREVIOUSLY PAID UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE BY THE WINDMILLER SQUARE OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS PROJECT AND ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE FOR AN ADDITIONAL CREDIT BASED ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROJECT WAS SUSTANTIALLY UNDERWAY PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LEGISLATION AND THAT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE MAY CREATE AN EXTRAORDINARY ECONOMIC IMPACT AND/OR EMPLOYMENT GROWTH,” Third Reading, Smith.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.    Mr. Smith stated this was discussed earlier in the meeting and he had nothing further at this time.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he appreciated the work that everyone had put forth on this issue, however, he was still concerned about the way the impact fee exemption was being applied for these two projects.  Mr. Wisniewski stated he had prepared a compromise ordinance that had been distributed to all of Council.  He further stated his proposal was to move any reimbursement of impact fees paid until after the eighteen month time period.  Mr. Wisniewski stated if they did perform as they predicted, then the impact fees would be reimbursed, and if they did not, then they would not receive a reimbursement.  Mr. Wisniewski moved to amend by substitution; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Mr. Hackworth stated he did not feel he could support this amendment as he felt it was an issue of fairness as when they started the process for the project he did not think they had budgeted for impact fees since they were not in effect at that time.  Mr. Wisniewski stated one of the reasons he was struggling with this so much was because of the precedent setting for residential.  Mr. Wisniewski stated we put the impact fees in effect and he felt Council needed to follow the standards they set forth themselves.  He further stated he felt the fair thing was to apply the same rules across the board.  Mr. Sabatino stated he respected Mr. Wisniewski’s views, but from his discussions with staff regarding the time it takes to complete a project in our city, had this been proposed in another community they would have completed the process before the impact fees were effective.  Mr. Sabatino stated he is comfortable with the recommendation of Finance Committee.  Mr. Wisniewski stated the impact fees did not come about over night, during the process there were public hearings, three readings, etc., and there was plenty of notice that impact fees were coming.  It did not just occur over night.  Mr. Fix stated he was not thrilled with the idea of impact fee waivers, but these properties were purchased before any discussion of impact fees and the development was starting down the path before the public discussion about impact fees began.  Mrs. Riggs stated she felt this had been a very good debate on this issue and she understood the position of the property owners, however, to her it was the idea that the original ordinance did not distinguish between residential or commercial and she cannot believe we may not have a builder that was in the same position as these property owners.  Mrs. Riggs stated she agreed with Mr. Wisniewski that there were many meetings and much discussion on the impact fees and she had no problem supporting the amendment Mr. Wisniewski had put before them.  Mayor Shaver stated the ordinance in it’s present form would be vetoed and suggested Council may want to table the ordinance because he needed to be thoroughly convinced this would not become a problem to the City.  Roll call was taken on the motion to amend by substitution with Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.”  Motion to amend failed, 3-4.  Mrs. Riggs moved to Table; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 4-3.  (TABLED)  

 

            D.        ORDINANCE 2007-49, “AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CREDIT FOR FEES PREVIOUSLY PAID UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE BY BARNYARD PRIMITIVES, INC., BASED ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROJECT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERWAY PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LEGISLATION AND THAT THEY CONSTRUCTED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STORMWATER SYSTEM THAT PROVIDE A PUBLIC BENEFIT,” Third Reading, Smith.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Mr. Wisniewski moved to Table; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix and Mr. Smith voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Hackworth, Mrs. Riggs, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-2.  (TABLED)

 

            E.         ORDINANCE 2007-50, “AN ORDINANCE GRANTING AN EXEMPTION TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE TO VIOLET TOWNSHIP, OHIO, FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE BUILDING PROJECT BASED ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PROJECT IS ENTITLED TO AN EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 1486.03(d)(6) OF THE ORDINANCE,” Third Reading, Smith.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Mr. Smith stated this ordinance is completely different than the previous two.  He stated it is in accordance with our impact fee ordinance we have a legal opinion from the law director that it may or may not even need to come before full Council, that Finance Committee approval would have been sufficient.  He stated Finance Committee elected to send it before Council for a full vote so there would be no question on it.  Mr. Wisniewski moved to amend by substitution with the version he had presented to all of Council this evening; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion.  Mr. Wisniewski stated the only change in the amended ordinance is to show the estimated amount that would be waived so it is in line with the other ordinances we have passed.  Mr. Wisniewski clarified that by putting in the amount as estimated, the law director felt that would provide for some flexibility.  Mr. Hackworth stated he did not know why we needed to add the amount in because when we exempt other governmental entities we will not be reimbursing our Impact Fee Funds from the City’s General Fund.  He stated further the fee is based on square footage and he was not sure if we even had the plans as yet, so he did not see the purpose to it.  Mr. Wisniewski stated it was basically to be consistent; we have granted exemptions in the past and we put the amount in the legislation.  Mr. Smith clarified we have not done a government exemption in the past and Mr. Wisniewski stated that was correct, this would just be consistent with the way we have done others.  Roll call was taken on the motion to amend by substitution with Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Hackworth voting “Nay.”  Motion failed, 0-7.  Roll call was taken on third reading with Mr. Fix, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Riggs, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0. 

 

            F.         ORDINANCE 2007-51 (AS AMENDED), “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH VIOLET TOWNSHIP,” Third Reading, Smith.  Mr. Smith moved to Table; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 7-0.  (TABLED)

 

10.       OTHER BUSINESS:  Mr. Smith stated he would just like to remind everyone of the Council Work Session for tomorrow evening at 7:30 P.M. to continue review of the Administrative Code.    

 

11.       MOTIONS:     There were no motions. 

 

12.       ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Hackworth, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Wisniewski voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 7-0.  The meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M., September 4, 2007. 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

 

 

_______________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

 

_______________________________

David Shaver, Mayor