WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2008

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mrs. Hammond called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Wisniewski were present. Mr. Fix was absent due to a business commitment. Others present were Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Ed Drobina, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF December 13, 2007, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sauer moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski abstaining, and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

3. FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

A. Finance Director’s Report. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report to the Committee and would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Fersch stated she was notified that ODOT will be returning the $560,000 within the next few weeks. She stated based on that, our General Fund ending balance would be $1.3 million, and she had estimated $940,000.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2008 appropriation, Ordinance 2007-85. Mrs. Fersch stated she has three appropriations this evening; two are the repayment of money. She continued the first ordinance is the repayment of the $560,529.02 from the State on the Diley Road project. She stated the $270,000 is money that we are borrowing in February and that will repay the money the General Fund put up front for the purchase of two Diley Road properties. Mrs. Fersch stated the third appropriation ordinance contains a decrease of $100,000 in the Diley Road Widening Fund for eminent domain legal fees, Police Impact Fee Fund, an increase of $4,200.77 due to a change in building identification from Commercial to Office/Institutional on the Orthopedic Laser Technology and the refund of the Barnyard Primitive impact fees, Municipal Impact Fee Fund an increase of $3,776.45 also for the Barnyard Primitive impact fee refund, and Water Fund an increase of $74,924.26 caused by an error in billing to Canal Winchester for industrial park water usage. Mrs. Fersch stated she would request three readings on the appropriations at Council. Mr. Sabatino clarified that we are not sure of the amount needed for legal fees for Diley Road; Mrs. Fersch was estimating the amount of $100,000 so she would have enough in the fund. Mr. Smith moved to forward all three appropriation ordinances to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

4. PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT:

A. Personnel Director’s Report. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report and would be happy to answer any questions.

5. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:

A. Development Director’s Report. Mr. Hansley stated he had provided a written report and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Wisniewski stated as Mr. Hansley stated in his report, Service Committee did have a discussion regarding the noise walls on Diley Road. He stated Service wanted to make sure that the residents knew what those walls would look like and that they still wanted them. He stated they had requested a rendering be included showing what the entrance to the subdivision would look like. Mr. Wisniewski stated since the original decision was made four years ago, he felt it would be a good idea just to make sure the residents still wanted them because once the walls are up, they are up. Mrs. Hammond stated the walls only impact certain properties, and Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to send it out to the entire subdivision. Mrs. Hammond stated when the decision was made to put the walls in; it was not the entire subdivision that made the decision. Mr. Sabatino stated basically, the people that were surveyed were the ones whose property actually abutted Diley Road. Mr. Smith stated the City is picking up a huge responsibility forever once the walls are up, and it makes sense to make sure this is something that everyone wants. Mr. Sabatino stated part of getting Diley Road acceptable to everyone was for the people that had concern about safety and noise that abut Diley Road, the City made the commitment to put these walls in. He stated those residents feel the City made a commitment and if we don’t do it we will be reneging on our commitment to them. Mrs. Hammond stated it is not a question of not doing it, we just want to make sure they know what it will look like and that they still want them. She stated this is the only point where they can change their mind, and if they do not want the walls we would put in landscaping. Mr. Sabatino stated landscaping would not do the job as far as abating the noise or providing the safety factor of a physical barrier. Mrs. Hammond stated she just did not know if people realized that having a ten-foot wall in the backyard will obstruct their view of everything, and some people may not have realized that. Mr. Sabatino stated he would go on record by stating that if we go there, it will open a can of worms we would wish we hadn’t. Mr. Wisniewski stated if someone has bought a property and they didn’t know there would be a ten-foot wall in their backyard, and he knows there are at least three properties in Cherry Hill that went up for sale, this would let them know. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not feel we could retroactively visit the issue to accommodate those people. Mr. Smith stated he felt this was an opportunity to give them one more shot for comment, and Mr. Wisniewski stated he was not trying to take the walls away; he just wanted to make sure they knew what they were getting. Mr. Sabatino questioned how the residents would view this, and Mr. Wisniewski stated he hoped they would view it as a way of ensuring this is the majority of the will of the landowners that back up to the property. Mr. Sabatino stated that determination has already been made once. Mrs. Hammond stated if the properties have changed hands, do the new owners even know about the walls. Mr. Sabatino stated that was not the City’s responsibility. Mrs. Sanders stated she under stood Mr. Sabatino’s point, however, she felt we owed it to the residents just to let them know what is coming and see if they have any comments. Mr. Sabatino questioned the purpose of doing this, what would we do if some people came and said they didn’t like it. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we have a majority of people that are landowners that back up against Diley Road, they should have a say in it and they may not want this thing in their back yard. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt if we proceeded in the way we had planned, we would be in a far better defensible position than if we open up a can of worms, but that was his opinion. Mr. Wisniewski stated if the majority of Council does not want to send a notice, then we can just stop it and not do anything. Mr. Smith stated one of the common themes over the past two years has been citizen input and keeping citizens informed, and he felt this honors that commitment. Mr. Sabatino stated that should have been dealt with at the time the original decision was made, and the people whose property will be impacted shouldn’t be penalized now. Mr. Sauer stated he understood Mr. Sabatino’s position, but he didn’t think it was a bad idea to send out something. He stated if he purchased a house and was not aware that a ten-foot wall would be put in along his fencerow, he would be pretty upset. He stated if he were the landowner he would rather know before he came home and found a wall in his yard. Mr. Smith stated the residents of the subdivision have an interest in knowing what the entrance to the subdivision will look like because it might impact their property values. Mr. Wisniewski stated the only thing Service had recommended was that a mailer be sent out that will inform everyone, and if there is a public outcry about it, that will give everyone an opportunity to review this issue. He stated if there is not, then it is a moot issue. Mr. Wisniewski stated as far as the City is concerned, they will still be built as ordered, but he wanted to inform the public that this is coming and what it will look like. Mr. Wisniewski stated he appreciated everyone’s input and this will be discussed further at Service Committee.

Mr. Sauer stated Mr. Hansley’s report indicates he and Mayor O’Brien discussed the JEDD agreement with Canal Winchester representatives, and questioned if they had given any indication of what their slower schedule was. Mr. Hansley stated he thought it was much like us, just to be cautious and make sure it is understood by everyone since they have some new council members and a new mayor. Mr. Wisniewski inquired after all of the public hearings have been held, when would the group meet to discuss the concerns and changes, etc. He stated there is a lot of concern about a lot of language in the document and what it is trying to accomplish. Mr. Hansley stated he would assume the group would provide a draft back to all the entities after changes have been made, and he did not know when that group would meet. Mr. Sabatino clarified there would be no intention of voting on the document until it is in its final form.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance granting an exemption to the applicability of the impact fee ordinance to the Pickerington Local School District for their Sycamore Creek Elementary School 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. Mr. Hansley stated this is self-explanatory as the Code allows for a government-use exemption and he would recommend this be forwarded to Council. Mr. Hansley stated they are required, and have done, a traffic impact study and will pay directly for adding a turn lane and some re-stripping in the direct area and that is what our Code requires they do. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

6. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Hammond stated she had just a couple of things to bring up. She stated in the past when someone was appointed Interim City Manager their salary has been adjusted to make up the difference and she would like to suggest an Executive Session this evening to discuss that. Mrs. Hammond further stated she would like to discuss the possibility of a Council retreat and see how everyone felt about that. She stated she did not want a decision this evening; she just wanted to see how everyone felt about it. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the temperament of a get together is much more conducive than it was at that last attempt, and he felt it was a good idea and had a chance of being productive. Mr. Smith and Mr. Sauer stated they would be supportive of a retreat. Mr. Sauer clarified the retreat would be something like a Saturday morning to start with and see how it goes. Mrs. Hammond stated the next item she would like to discuss is that in the past some council members have taken turns going to Township Trustee meetings, and it has been suggested that we might want to have a representative attend school board meetings. Mrs. Sanders stated she attends school board meetings so she could brief Council on that meeting. Mrs. Hammond stated the Township meets on the first and third Wednesdays and since Finance meets on the third Wednesday perhaps we can have a representative attend the first meeting of the month. Mr. Sauer stated he would be happy to rotate attending those meetings and Mrs. Hammond stated since Rules Committee meets on the first Wednesday, she and Mr. Sauer would rotate attending the Township Trustees meetings. Mrs. Hammond stated she had nothing else to discuss this evening. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that MORPC has regular meetings and Mrs. Hammond stated she could attend that meeting. Mr. Hansley stated he understood that Ms Gilleland had been attending that meeting and if she was not available, an elected official was the alternate. Mr. Smith stated he usually attended with Ms Gilleland. Mr. Hansley stated he would be attending and he and Mrs. Hammond could either go together or alternate going. Mrs. Hammond stated she would discuss it with Mr. Hansley.

7. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Wisniewski stated with regard to the refund to Canal Winchester, what was the conflict between the two vendors. Mr. Drobina stated there are two different meter readings and on the low size you need to add one zero and on the high side you need to add three zeros. He stated Mrs. Young has tried to have CMI make the system do that and they say they cannot, it needs to be done in the meter reading equipment. He stated the meter reading firm says the billing software must do it. Mr. Drobina stated he will be working with both of them to see if anyone can do it, or if it is impossible to do. Mrs. Hammond stated in the meantime we have to do it manually. Mr. Wisniewski stated it appeared that it was just that no-one wanted to do it, and Mr. Drobina stated that was his thought; someone would just have to write a program to make it work. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to know how many hours a month the billing department spends doing this manually so Council would have an idea if paying to write the program would offset these expenses. Mr. Drobina clarified that in a compound meter there are two registers, when we take the reading with our meter reading equipment, you have to add one zero, but on the high size you need to add three zeros because they are stationary zeros and the meter reading equipment does not read stationary zeros. He stated when Mrs. Young was doing the billing she got them confused and she was adding two zeros when she should have been adding one, so it made the reading ten times higher than it should have been. Mr. Wisniewski clarified this was only for these 60 accounts and compound meters read more accurately than regular disc meters. Mr. Drobina stated the accuracy of a turbine meter, such as Canal used to have, is 94 percent accurate at 8 gallons per minute, so the 8 gallons would never get registered. Mr. Drobina continued that a compound meter is 97 percent accurate at .1 gallons per minute. He stated for big users we try to put in compound meters. Mr. Wisniewski clarified these meters are not used for residential, but for all commercial. Mr. Wisniewski further clarified it was only the Canal Winchester accounts where the mistake occurred. Mr. Hansley stated he would speculate the reason this did not show up sooner is because this is our largest single user and with the big number it just wasn’t caught. Mr. Drobina stated further that last year Canal was buying so much water from us that they did not notice either. Mr. Sabatino stated this must be an industry-wide problem and questioned if there was different meter reading equipment for these meters. Mr. Drobina stated he has asked Mrs. Young to contact other communities who have CMI and find out how they handle compound meters, to see if they have to manually adjust the reading. Mr. Sabatino further stated perhaps Mr. Hansley could pose this question through the City Manager’s Association to see what other communities do as well.

Mr. Sauer questioned if Council could receive a breakdown of what was budgeted for the sewer plant, what was spent so far, or what is committed to be spent so far. Mrs. Fersch stated the main items were the engineering and the administrative fee for Stilson. Mrs. Fersch stated she would provide that information.

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. Mrs. Hammond moved for Executive Session under Section 121.22(G)(1)b, Matters involving an employee’s or public official’s employment; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

Finance Committee adjourned into Executive Session at 8:40 P.M., and reconvened in open session at 9:55 P.M.

Mrs. Hammond moved to forward legislation to Council concurring in the Mayor’s appointment of Tim Hansley as Interim City Manager and providing for additional compensation of $2,500 per month during the period he is serving as Interim City Manager, that the additional compensation shall be retroactive to January 5, 2008, and the ordinance shall have emergency language included; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Smith moved to adjourn; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sabatino voting "Aye." Motion carried, 6-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 9:57 P.M., January 16, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk