WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 2008

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mrs. Hammond called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders present. Mr. Wisniewski arrived at 7:10 P.M. Mr. Smith was absent. Others present were Mayor O’Brien, Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Lance Schultz, Chris Schornack, Phil Hartmann, Larry Jones, Carol Carter, Greg Chamblin, Jim Woods, Miriam Segaloff, Marc Lucas, Norm Hopkins, Greg Hall, Lora Gischel, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF April 16, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

3. Presentation by Violet Festival Representative. Mrs. Hammond stated Mr. Greg Chamblin was present this evening representing the Violet Festival. Mr. Chamblin stated the Violet Festival this year will be held July 23^rd through July 26^th, and they plan to have some very good bands for the Festival this year. Mr. Chamblin stated the Violet Festival has a budget of approximately $150,000. He stated the Festival is run by donation and they receive donations from the City and the Township, however, most of their budget, about 75 percent, comes from local businesses. Mr. Fix stated the City is looking at the budget and they were asking every group that puts on some type of event in the City that uses City resources to come before this Committee and talk about what type of expenses will be incurred by the City through the use of City manpower or City services so we can determine if we can fit that into our budget, and if not make sure we communicate with everyone that it will cost something or if there were other alternatives. Mr. Chamblin stated he had met with the City Manager and Chief Taylor and for the Festival police overtime for this year is estimated at about $5,400 of which $2,637 is billed to the Festival. Mr. Fix inquired if there were any other manpower needs they had such as parks department personnel, etc., to help set up or tear down. Mr. Chamblin stated they did get some assistance from the parks department, but only if they forgot something or they needed an extra golf cart or whatever. Mr. Fix stated then, the City’s exposure was perhaps $3,000, and Mr. Chamblin stated he would estimate somewhere between $3,000 to $5,000. Mrs. Hammond stated the Committee appreciated Mr. Chamblin coming in to address the members this evening.

4. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:

A. Income Subcommittee. Mrs. Sanders stated she felt the subcommittee was very successful and a few options were on the agenda later this evening as far as possibly adding an income tax to the ballot in November.

B. Expense Subcommittee. Mr. Fix stated the subcommittee met on May 6^th and reviewed the expenses of the Finance and Income Tax departments. He stated they had also looked at an outside source for doing our income taxes and were impressed with the savings that we might be able to generate by outsourcing that process. He stated that would be evaluated further at the subcommittee later this evening.

C. Review and discussion regarding draft income tax ordinances: Mrs. Hammond stated the Committee had four ordinances to review with the first being an ordinance to place the income tax increase on the ballot.

(1) An ordinance amending Section 882.03 of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances to increase the income tax rate to two percent (2%) per annum and to place this amendment before the electors in November of 2008. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if it were necessary to put the credit into the language of the ordinance or if it could be done by separate ordinance as we are now doing. Mr. Hartmann stated it can be done separately and there is an actual case on point that allows the credit to be passed separately as an ordinance and just the tax put on the ballot. Mr. Wisniewski stated that would be his preference. Mr. Hartmann stated the first ordinance is just to place on the ballot a tax increase from the current one percent (1%) to two percent (2%), and the next three are alternatives that will spur conversation and the Committee may even come up with a different alternative after that conversation. He stated the first ordinance is straightforward and places the change in the tax rate from one percent (1%) to two percent (2%) on the ballot. Mr. Sabatino inquired if the intention was to move one of these ordinances out of Committee this evening, and Mrs. Hammond stated if everyone agreed something could be moved forward, and if not, it can be continued on the agenda for further discussion. Mayor O’Brien clarified that with the August 21^st deadline for the Board of Elections to have something put on the ballot, something would have to be on Council floor no later than the second Council meeting in June to allow for three separate readings and the thirty day waiting period. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt how the credits were dealt with would determine whether or not certain council members would support raising the tax to two percent, so he felt they should look at all the options before deciding whether or not to put the issue on the ballot. Mr. Sauer stated he would like to know the difference in revenue each of the three options regarding the credit would generate. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt the basic conclusion was that the income tax would have to be increased. Mr. Wisniewski stated the alternatives were that the income tax be raised, property taxes be increased, or both, or you cut staff. Mrs. Hammond stated the subcommittee has determined the tax increase was what they felt should be considered and that is why it is forwarded to the full Finance Committee this evening. Mr. Sauer stated he would like to know from the Finance Department the target number we are looking for so that we would not be coming back in a few years asking for more. Mrs. Fersch stated she felt we were looking at somewhere between $800,000 and $1,000,000. She stated as the businesses come into the community if you raise the tax rate for those that are benefiting directly by having employment in the community, the revenue will grow. She further stated if you bring the property tax back to the 5.5 mills, it would generate about $760,000, and we were looking at close to $1,000,000, because you have your Diley Road payments and you want to do street paving. Mrs. Fersch stated with this if we can get it started, with new development coming in, it will grow. Mrs. Sanders stated she was very much anti raising taxes, and she had asked what the magic number was that we needed, and she felt we had been just getting by, and that two percent would not just make up that million dollars, but would help in preparing for the future. Mr. Sauer stated what he would like to see is if we implement a policy, that it is a policy that will have longevity not something where the City is constantly coming back year after year saying they are short. Mr. Wisniewski stated it is up to the administration to live within the budget that they have, and the City taxes have not been raised since 1976. He stated we have been able to live under the one percent for almost thirty years, and we should be able to live off of two percent for a considerable amount of time if we are able to maintain a solid budget. Mr. Sauer stated he appreciated that, but once again he felt it was the fiduciary responsibility of this council, and whoever is on council in the future, that the City does have to live within the budget that this council sets. He stated ultimately that responsibility falls on this council as they are the ones setting the numbers, and he wants to make sure what this council does is the responsible thing. He stated further it is not that he is against it or for it, he just wanted to make sure he made the right decision. Mrs. Sanders stated with the history that Pickerington has with school issues so often on the ballot that is what a lot of the residents remember, so Council will have to present exactly what Mr. Sauer is saying, that we will not keep coming back every couple of years. Mr. Sauer further questioned how this would impact our payments on Diley Road. Mrs. Fersch stated in order for us to get the low three percent interest rate, we went with the State Infrastructure Bank. She stated their requirement is they will not extend it more than ten years so we have a set payment based on what we owe, and this year’s payment, because of the grant money we got in, we will be spending close to $300,000 as our debt payment. She stated by next year we will have borrowed the full amount and the payments will be higher. She stated the Infrastructure Bank was originally looking at between $500,000 and $600,000, and we have to pay so much each year with a balloon payment in the tenth year of something like $3.7 million. Mrs. Fersch stated the goal was that at that point in time we would roll that into a bond issue and extend it for another twenty years, and that would make lower payments. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt the previous administrations have done a wonderful job of working with one percent for all of this time, but just because we are considering raising the rate from one percent to two percent, that does not mean that we will double our income because of the way the credits are going to be potentially treated. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was correct, and the majority of the income we receive is from people who live here and work somewhere else. Mr. Sabatino stated using any of the three proposed credit treatments, effectively the percentage of people that live here and work here would be paying somewhere close to the same number as people who work here don’t work here, after this would be applied. Mr. Sabatino stated from the numbers provided by Mrs. Fersch, basically 20 percent of the people who live here and work here would be paying the same amount of money as 80 percent of the people who live here and work somewhere else. He stated this was a disproportionate amount, basically it is a four to one ratio. Mr. Fix stated the residents are still paying less taxes. Mr. Sabatino stated he is not concerned with what people pay outside of this community. Mr. Fix stated people that live here are concerned about that. He stated if someone lives here and works in Columbus, they will be paying both taxes, and he didn’t think it mattered to the individual living in the City where the money goes, he just knows it is not in his wallet. He stated it was not up to Council to say that doesn’t matter because it does matter to the people who pay the taxes. Mrs. Hammond stated it matters to the people who live here and work here as well. Mr. Fix stated he felt it made sense to put together a tax proposal that balances that out, still not totally even, but that balances it out. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not feel it was the job of this body to balance out what someone’s total tax payment is, it should be this body’s job to make sure we have enough funding to do what this City needs to do. Mr. Fix stated that was correct, and one of the ways to do that is to balance out the taxes. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt it was an inequitable situation to have someone who lives here and works here pay four times the amount than someone who lives here and works in Columbus. Mr. Sauer stated that doesn’t take the whole picture in mind, because to say that someone who lives here and works here pays four times the amount as someone who lives here and works in another community, you are not looking at it for all sides. He stated the individual who is paying that tax is not necessarily as concerned as to where that money is going as much are they are the fact that they know they have families to feed and house payments to make. Mr. Sabatino stated his comment was why all of the responsibility should fall on 20 percent of the people. Mr. Sauer stated he did not feel all of the responsibility was falling on 20 percent of the people. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was not close to being correct. Mr. Wisniewski questioned how every other community for the most part in the area is giving a 100 percent credit, so he questioned what Mr. Sabatino would want on the ballot. Mr. Sabatino stated he would want both classes of people equally. Mr. Wisniewski stated then perhaps we should raise property taxes and then we would hit everyone, the senior citizens, and everyone. Mr. Sabatino stated perhaps we should do that. Mr. Wisniewski stated then the people that live in Park Place, that live in the Township and everywhere else but work in the City of Pickerington would not pay any extra even though they receive the same services as our residents. Mrs. Hammond stated she did not feel the issue was what anyone paid to someplace else, it is what they were willing to pay to support the city they live in to support the services they are getting in the city. She stated if you were going to say the only people who would be forced to do that are the people that live here and/or work here, then from that viewpoint it is not fair. Mr. Wisniewski stated people that work in Pickerington and live somewhere other than the City are going to share in the increase of the taxes. Mrs. Hammond stated the concern she had was that we would not really raise enough money to advance us beyond the point we are at right now. Mrs. Fersch stated she was asked what we would need, and the information she provided to the Committee shows, based on the 2007 withholding accounts, what the potential was; the $1.7 million. Mrs. Fersch stated to break even we would need about $1 million. Mr. Fix stated he felt this Committee must consider what this will look like in year 5, year 10, year 20, etc., and realize that for generations the City has relied on the people who live here and work somewhere else to pay the taxes. He stated we are trying to shift that to commercial and focus on commercial development instead of residential development. He continued that with that, we need to shift the focus of the tax structure to commercial development instead of residential, and that is what this allows us to do. Mr. Fix stated there are some people that live here and work here that are now going to pay more than they have in the past, less than others, but the vast majority of people that work in Pickerington today, and if five or ten years, are the folks that live here. Mrs. Hammond stated, however, there is no guarantee that we will have commercial growth in the next five years. She stated she still questioned if we would generate enough money to cover the expenses we will have. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we generate $1.7 million we will have enough to cover Diley Road, enough to cover street paving, but we would not be flush with cash. Mr. Sabatino stated if we do not raise the taxes on the people that work outside the community, we should do the same thing for people that live and work in the community, so it would be a level playing field. Mr. Hartmann stated Mr. Sabatino had asked him if there could be a credit for living in the City and in his initial look there is a great deal of latitude given to municipalities and what they can do for credits. He stated, however, he could find no municipality that had any credit like that, and he also felt it would violate the Revised Code and the State Constitution because he did not feel it provides a uniform tax. He stated the argument would be that it is arbitrary to provide a residency one percent credit versus someone that doesn’t live there. Mr. Hartmann stated Mrs. Fersch had also spoken with our bond counsel and he was in agreement with Mr. Hartmann on this issue. Mr. Wisniewski stated the question was, what would Mr. Sabatino like to see put on the ballot. Mr. Hartmann stated Mr. Sabatino’s question was how could we not raise the taxes on the residents, and the only way to do that is not to raise the tax rate. Mr. Hartmann further stated if you change the credit around, you could remove the entire credit, so the people in Pickerington are still paying one percent, but if you remove the credit you are increasing everyone else’s taxes and not the people that live here. Mr. Sabatino stated he would like Mr. Hartmann to find a way that we could treat all of the citizens equally, and he has obviously made some effort, but he did not know if he had looked everywhere to do that. Mr. Hartmann stated Mr. Sabatino was correct, he had not exhausted all resources, but he had this question only two days ago. He stated he has had research completed and also our bond counsel concurs, so he did not feel he was giving an incomplete answer. Mrs. Sanders stated she did not know of any other community out there that has not had a tax increase since 1976 and gone through the changes that we have gone through. Mr. Sauer clarified that Mrs. Fersch felt this increase would allow the city to make a dent in the debt the city currently has. Mrs. Fersch stated this, combined with the impact fees we are getting in for commercial, could help make a dent in the debt. Mr. Sauer stated he is not one to favor an income tax increase, however, in sitting on the Expense Subcommittee and reviewing the expenses of the City, and in looking at what the responsible move to make would be, he did not see any other way. Mr. Wisniewski stated we are not looking to raise the taxes to a point where it is beyond reason we are looking to restore basic services that we will pay dearly for down the road. He stated if we do not restore street paving it will just get worse and we will have to pay ten times the cost to replace the road versus paving it every couple of years. Mr. Sabatino stated he wanted to be perfectly clear, he was not saying we did not have the need; he was just trying to find a way to create a little more equity for everyone involved. He stated he felt everyone understood the one percent has lasted as longer as it could be expected to, but he would like to find some mechanism to have the residents treated on a more even level. Mr. Wisniewski stated the ballot issue he would recommend would be an increase to two percent with an ordinance following up on that dealing with the credit. Mrs. Hammond stated this draft ordinance is a stand-alone item; the question is if we want to recommend an increase to two percent or some other amount. Mr. Sauer clarified this item must be passed and submitted to the Board of Elections prior to August 21^st to go on the ballot. Further, Mr. Hartmann stated the legislation regarding the credit is written to be passed before the election, but would not be effective until January 1, 2009, if a tax increase is approved by the voters, so there would be some certainty at the election as to what the credit is. Mr. Wisniewski stated the credit is outside of this and Council has the opportunity to move it up, down, do away with it, double it, whatever. He stated the ballot is actually do we want to do two percent or do we want to do more. Mrs. Hammond stated she wanted to be sure that everyone was on the same page to increase the income tax to two percent. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve the draft ordinance increasing the income tax to two percent and forward it to council; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-1.

Mrs. Hammond stated due to the length of the next items on the agenda she would like to take a five-minute recess at this time. Finance Committee recessed at 8:25 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 8:35 P.M.

Mrs. Hammond stated the next three items on the agenda all deal with the credit issue. She stated she would like to have Mr. Hartmann give a brief overview of the three ordinances. Mr. Hartmann stated he was asked to draft legislation and he had provided three options for the Committee to consider. He stated the first option provides for a 100 percent credit if you work outside of Pickerington and live in the City, up to 1.5 percent. He stated the second option provides that anyone who lives in Pickerington but does not work in Pickerington will be paying a 2.5 percent tax overall. He stated no matter what your tax difference is; everyone pays at least 1.5 percent to Pickerington. He stated the third option provides for a 75 percent credit, and if you live in Pickerington and work outside the City, Pickerington would be getting less. Mr. Sabatino clarified that, for example, if Columbus increased their rates, Pickerington residents would still pay .5 percent to Pickerington. Mr. Hartmann stated under Option one if Columbus went to three percent, a resident would get a 1.5 percent credit and Pickerington would get .5 percent and Columbus would keep the rest. He stated under Option two, you would get a 100 percent credit after the first .5 percent. Also, under Option three, the credit is going up so Pickerington would get less.

(2) An ordinance amending Section 882.17 of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances to provide up to a one and one-half percent (1.5%) credit on income taxes paid to other municipalities, from fifty percent (50%) of the taxes paid to other such municipalities per annum.

(3) An ordinance amending Section 882.17 of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances to provide a one hundred percent (100%) credit for income taxes paid to other municipalities above one-half percent (.5%), from fifty percent (50%) of the taxes paid to other such municipalities per annum.

(4) An ordinance amending Section 882.17 of the Pickerington Codified Ordinances to increase the credit for income taxes paid to other municipalities from fifty percent (50%) of the taxes paid to other such municipalities to seventy-five percent (75%) per annum.

Mr. Wisniewski clarified with Option one; you get a 100 percent credit up to 1.5 percent. Mr. Hartmann stated if the City raised their tax rate to two percent but kept the current credit, the current credit is 50 percent of the lower tax rate. Mrs. Hammond stated Option 1 would actually be the same as our current credit. Mayor O’Brien stated we have always been the lowest taxing entity of the area, and now we are considering going up to be with the others so we have to rethink how our credit plays. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt Option one was basically the option that was the leveling factor and would get everyone closest across the board. Mr. Fix stated then with Option two, anyone who works outside of the City and lives here will be paying 2.5 percent for local income taxes, and if you live in the City and work in the City, you would pay 2 percent.

Mrs. Hammond clarified that Mrs. Fersch’s proposal was that people who are currently getting a .5 percent credit, would still get a .5 percent credit. Mr. Sabatino stated then Mrs. Fersch’s recommendation was to raise the taxes on the people that work in the City, and that would be Option one. Mr. Sabatino stated he could not support any of these three options as he would like to see a little more equity. Mrs. Hammond ascertained that no committee member was in favor of Option three. Mr. Fix stated of the three options presented, he felt Option one would be the one that had the best chance of being passed by the residents and Mrs. Sanders stated she agreed with Mr. Fix. Mr. Sauer stated he was in favor of whatever would have the least impact on the most people in the community and he felt Option one did that. Mr. Sauer moved to forward legislation for Option one, providing for up to one and one-half percent (1.5%) credit on income taxes paid to other municipalities, from fifty percent (50%) of the taxes paid to other such municipalities per annum and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-1.

Mr. Wisniewski clarified that the legislation regarding the credit would only go into effect if the tax increase was passed at the ballot. Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct, it would only be effective in January of 2009, if in fact, the electorate voted in favor of increasing the tax rate from one to two percent. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had another commitment and requested he be excused from the remainder of the meeting.

5. FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

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

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2008 appropriation, Ordinance 2007-85. Mrs. Fersch stated she had submitted two draft appropriation ordinances to the Committee for review. Mrs. Fersch stated on the first ordinance she was requesting an increase in income tax refunds. Mr. Sabatino stated he would like to know the net amount we collected in income tax in 2007. Mrs. Fersch stated she would not have that number until after October due to extensions. Mr. Sabatino stated when Mrs. Fersch had that figure, he would request she provide it to him and all other Council members. Mrs. Fersch continued that on the appropriation ordinance she was requesting to transfer $63,000 for engineering administration, and she was also requesting appropriations in several funds as the result of five refunds from permits that have expired from Rockford Homes. She stated we do not refund the actual building permit, but we do need to refund the capacity fees, meter fees, and the capacity fees. Mr. Sabatino clarified when refunding impact fees the City retains a three percent administrative charge. Mr. Sabatino further clarified that we do not have a total amount on legal fees for the imminent domain cases on the Diley Road project, and requested the figure we have paid thus far and how many cases we still need to deal with and a projection of what those fees may be. Mrs. Fersch stated she would check with Mr. Hartmann on what he thought those fees might be and provide that information to Mr. Sabatino. Mr. Fix requested Mrs. Fersch explain the request for the $63,000 for Diley Road engineering administration. Mrs. Fersch stated she was estimating $5,000 of that for additional legal fees and $58,000 is for Stilson’s administration fees. Mr. Hansley stated this is a contract that was negotiated last year and the original contract was for $25,000 as that was the best guess at time and it was subject to the complexity of the project and how many questions they had to deal with. He stated a lot of the money was spent this year on questions out of Service Committee about sound walls, web sites, etc., and anything that Ms Frommer works on for Diley Road is charged against this contract. Mr. Hansley stated this is Ms Frommer’s best guess on what it will take to finish up the project. Mr. Sabatino stated if that was the case, why did the appropriation not state that $5,000 was for legal fees and $58,000 for Stilson. Mrs. Fersch stated she had done that on the Diley Road Fund that appropriates the money on the second page of the appropriation ordinance. Mr. Fix stated he was not okay with this appropriation and would ask that this be reviewed in Service Committee and removed from this appropriation ordinance. Mr. Hansley stated Stilson is working in a deficit now and it would be up to them if they are going to continue to work on the project. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt the contract should be reviewed by Service Committee. Mr. Fix moved to approve the appropriations and forward to Council with the $63,000 for engineering administration deleted under the General Fund (101) and also in the Diley Road Widening Fund (414); Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer and Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 3-2. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not feel the motion passed as Mr. Wisniewski was present when the meeting began. Mr. Fix stated the motion passed by a majority of the members voting. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt this was a potential conflict and he would like to state his official objection and his belief that this motion did not pass. Mrs. Hammond stated this was a vote to forward this to Council.

Mrs. Fersch stated the second appropriation ordinance dealt with the Diley Road project and under the General Fund she was requesting an advance to the Diley Road Widening Fund from the 2008 budget up to $500,000. She stated she was requesting this just in case we reached a stage where we do not have the actual cash because we are waiting for the State to approve the 80 percent of the previous eminent domain cases, and she was requesting she have the capability of advancing money in order to pay the bill and then we will be reimbursed from the State. She stated it will not be advanced unless the money is needed for cash flow purposes. She stated some of the cases are being settled quickly and she needs to come up with the check. Mr. Sabatino clarified that when the cases are settled we need to write a check to the court within a couple of weeks. Mr. Sabatino stated he would not support this and if we have a need we could call a special meeting to handle it. Mr. Sauer moved to approve the appropriation and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-1.

C. Review and request for motion to approve four draft ordinances providing for the issuance of not to exceed (1) $2,100,000 of revenue notes for Street Improvements in the Windmiller/Diley area; (2) $175,000 of revenue notes for constructing Street and Traffic Signal improvements in the S.R. 256/Stonecreek Drive area; (3) $290,000 of revenue notes for constructing street improvements in the Cycle Way area; and, (4) $371,000 of revenue notes for street improvements on Hill Road and Blacklick-Eastern Road. Mrs. Fersch stated these are our TIF ordinances and they are due the first week in September. She stated she had provided the history of the four TIF issues we still owe monies on to the Committee this evening and they are all negotiated issues with US Bank. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-1.

6. PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT:

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

B. Review and request for motion to approve proposed amendments to the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual. Mrs. Fersch stated Mr. Marc Lucas from our consultant Clemans Nelson was present to address the proposed amendments to the Personnel Manual. Mr. Lucas stated in 2007 the State Legislature undertook many civil service reforms, most of which addressed how certain employees were hired, moved around, and rendered inactive. He stated this mostly dealt with positions that are not full time, civil service tested, long term employees, but more toward temporary employees. He stated in order for the Personnel Appeals Board to adopt their Rules and Regulations Council must adopt some changes to the Personnel Polices and Procedures Manual. Mr. Lucas stated the Committee had received copies of what these changes would be and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Sanders clarified that on page 7, the word “generally” had been added. Mr. Lucas stated this dealt with employees who may be called in and 1,000 hours was the cap not to be exceeded. He stated the term “generally” was added in to provide a little flexibility in case you need someone more than 1,000 hours during the year. Mrs. Fersch stated we do have four or five individuals who come in and help when employees are on vacation, but they do not come close to 1,000 hours. Mrs. Fersch further stated when the manual was adopted, the section regarding e-mails was inadvertently left out and this change will include it in the Manual. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve the amendments to the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

7. CHAIRMAN:

A. Review and discussion regarding Ordinance 2000-139, “An ordinance to reimburse Violet Township for Road and Bridge Levy Revenues lost upon land being annexed into the City of Pickerington” Mrs. Hammond stated she would like to carry this item on the agenda for the next meeting.

8. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Township Trustees Meeting – Update. Mrs. Hammond stated she had attended the Trustees Meeting and the Trustees did approve giving the Violet Festival $8,000.

B. Pickerington Local School District Board Meeting – Update. Mrs. Sanders stated the school district will be hiring several administrators.

9. 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 stated the Executive Session was not necessary this evening.

10. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voted "Aye." Motion carried, 5-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 9:45 P.M., May 21, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk