PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2008
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, June 3, 2008, at City Hall. Mayor O’Brien called the meeting to order at
7:30 P.M. Roll call was taken as
follows: Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mrs.
Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders, and Mayor O’Brien were
present. Mr. Smith was absent as he was
out of town on business. Others present
were: Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chief Mike Taylor, Phil
Hartmann, Pastor John Moriarty, Larry Jones, Gary Weltlich, Nick LaTorre,
Miriam Segaloff, and others. Pastor
Moriarty, of Eastside Vineyard Church, delivered the invocation.
2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2008,
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO PICKERINGTON CODIFIED ORDINANCES. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mr. Fix
seconded the motion. Roll call was
taken with Mr. Wisniewski abstaining, and Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr.
Sauer, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.”
Motion passed, 5-0.
B. APPROVAL
OF MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2008, REGULAR MEETING.
Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr.
Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Wisniewski voting
“Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
3. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA. Mr. Fix moved to approve;
Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion.
Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr.
Fix, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
4.
COMMUNITY
COMMENTS: There were no community
comments.
5. APPROVAL OF
CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor O’Brien stated
there were no consent agenda items this evening.
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A. FINANCE
COMMITTEE. Mrs. Hammond stated Finance
Committee met on May 21st and the minutes have been
distributed. She stated nine items on
tonight’s agenda came out of that meeting and they will be discussed as they
come up on the agenda. She stated
further the Expense Subcommittee will meet tomorrow evening.
7. REPORTS:
A. MAYOR. Mayor O’Brien stated he would like to thank
everyone who helped with the plantings at the arboretum as well as the city
employees who helped with the planting at City Hall. Mayor O’Brien further stated the Monthly
Mayor’s Court Report had been distributed.
B. LAW
DIRECTOR. Mr. Hartmann stated he would
address three items on tonight’s agenda, Items 8.G, H, and I. He stated these all relate to an income tax
increase and he would just explain that the first ordinance establishes
amending our Code section to raise from one to two percent. He stated the third item is a resolution that
requests that matter be placed on the ballot.
He stated the Ohio Revised Code requires an ordinance and a resolution,
and that is why it was done that way. He
stated the second ordinance deals with how we will deal with the credit, and he
would be happy to answer any questions on any of these items. Mr. Fix inquired if an income tax was
reversible by a citizen’s initiative, and Mr. Hartmann stated it was voted on
at the ballot and the election could be challenged. Mr. Fix stated five years or so down the road
there could not be a citizen’s initiative, and Mr. Hartmann stated there could
be no initiative on something that was voted on. Mayor O’Brien inquired if this were the same
for all citizen’s initiatives and Mr. Hartmann stated they could put an
initiative on to lower the tax rate, but it would have to be voted on. Mr. Fix stated then they could do it. Mr. Hartmann stated he believed they could
put an initiative on to lower the tax rate, but he would have to look at that
and he would get back with Mr. Fix on that.
Mr. Sabatino inquired if the credit portion, being legislative and not a
ballot issue, be something that would be subject to referendum. Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct, it
would be.
C. FINANCE
DIRECTOR. Mrs. Fersch stated she would
request three readings on the first appropriation ordinance on tonight’s agenda
as several items that affect several funds are included on that. Mr. Sabatino inquired if these items could be
taken care of without doing three readings tonight. Mrs. Fersch stated the appropriation includes
income tax refunds and we have 90 days from the time someone files a tax return
to pay the refund or we have to pay interest.
Mr. Sabatino stated his question was if the ordinance went through the
normal process would we still be within that time window and Mrs. Fersch stated
it would be very close.
D. SERVICE
MANAGER. Mr. Hansley stated Mr. Drobina
was not present this evening, and he would like to report the latest proposed
closing for the railroad crossing on Diley Road is scheduled for Thursday, June
5th, and it will be a two week closing.
E. CITY
MANAGER. Mr. Hansley stated his written
report had been distributed and he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Fix stated it was his understanding from
Mr. Hansley’s report is that the Diley Road project is not being impacted by
the removal of the engineering administration funds from the appropriation
ordinance at this time.
8. PROCEDURAL READINGS:
A. ORDINANCE 2008-31, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2008 APPROPRIATION, ORDINANCE 2007-85,” First Reading, Finance Committee. Mrs. Hammond moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0. Mrs. Hammond moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of three readings; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion failed, 5-1.
B. ORDINANCE 2008-32, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2008 APPROPRIATION, ORDINANCE 2007-85,” First Reading, Finance Committee. Mrs. Hammond moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-1.
C. ORDINANCE 2008-33, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $371,000 OF REVENUE NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING REVENUE NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING (1) STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON HILL ROAD AND BLACKLICK-EASTERN ROAD, INCLUDING WIDENING STREETS, CONSTRUCTING SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS AND INSTALLING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, AND (II) STREET IMPROVEMENTS KNOWN AS THE HILL ROAD CONNECTOR, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTING STREETS, SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS,” First Reading, Finance Committee. Mrs. Hammond moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
D. ORDINANCE 2008-34, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $290,000 OF REVENUE NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING REVENUE NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CYCLE WAY AREA,” First Reading, Finance Committee. Mrs. Hammond moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
E. ORDINANCE 2008-35, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $175,000 OF REVENUE NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING REVENUE NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING STREET AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE STATE ROUTE 256/STONECREEK DRIVE AREA,” First Reading, Finance Committee. Mrs. Hammond moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
F. ORDINANCE 2008-36, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $2,100,000 OF REVENUE NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING REVENUE NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WINDMILLER/DILEY AREAS, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTING WIDENING AND TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS FOR STATE ROUTE 256 TO ESTABLISH AN EXIT POINT FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF DILEY ROAD,” First Reading, Finance Committee. Mrs. Hammond moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
G. ORDINANCE 2008-37, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 882.03 OF THE PICKERINGTON CODIFIED ORDINANCES TO INCREASE THE INCOME TAX RATE FROM ONE PERCENT (1%) TO TWO PERCENT (2%) PER ANNUM AND TO PLACE THIS AMENDMENT BEFORE THE ELECTORS AT THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008,” First Reading, Finance Committee. Mr. Wisniewski moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr. Sauer stated he has had time to think this over and moved to amend to include the language “That this ordinance shall expire at a date that is ten years from the effective date of this ordinance as approved by the citizens of the City of Pickerington and that Ordinance 2008-38, which is a subsequent ordinance, shall be added to Ordinance 2008-37 to be voted on by the citizens of the City;” Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Mr. Sauer stated his reasoning is that he is a conservative and he looks at the people that put him in this position and he firmly believes he was elected by taxpayers who believe they already pay to many taxes and they want smaller, more efficient government and they wish to be able to keep more of the money and property they have earned. He stated he firmly feels they feel betrayed when their own leaders are maneuvered into supporting bigger and ever more intrusive government by agreeing to raise taxes. He stated he is not adamantly opposed to the tax because he knows the need is there, however, what he would prefer to see is a contract, essentially, that is made with the citizenry of the City that this tax would be temporary only. He stated it would still, with the proposed amendment, enable the City to make inroads into the debt that it has incurred over previously administrations when combined with future impact fee collections, that the tax with the proposed amendment would address the immediate need of the City to maintain and improves its roadways over the next ten years, that the tax, with the proposed amendment, would still address the next ten years of Diley Road payments while maintaining the low interest rate of three percent. He stated this would leave a possible balloon payment of $3.7 million that can be rolled over into a bond issue and spread over a longer period keeping the payments lower. He stated further this tax, with the proposed amendment, will illustrate to the citizens that this Council or any future Council in the next ten years will not arbitrarily raise taxes without their consent by prohibiting Council’s ability to remove any credits that have been put in place with this tax by making the credit based on voter approval and not Council approval. He continued this tax, with the proposed amendment, will show the residents of the City that this body is committed to limiting expenses and in finding all alternative ways of raising revenues other than direct taxation of its citizens by stating its intent to make this tax increase temporary and not permanent in nature. Mrs. Sanders clarified that in ten years we would revert back to our current one percent. Mrs. Sanders inquired if the Council at that time would have the option to put something on the ballot to keep it at two percent if it were still needed. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would ask Mrs. Fersch to address this because there are issues regarding a limitation and our finances.
Mayor O’Brien questioned if the credit is dealt with in the Charter or if it should be done by ordinance or whether it should go to the ballot, and Mr. Hartmann stated he thought the Charter was silent on how the credit is set for the income tax, and he felt there is the option to do it either way. Mr. Hartmann stated the issue could go on the ballot or it could be done to provide more flexibility through an ordinance. Mayor O’Brien clarified that merging the income tax and the credit is okay, but he questioned why this did not come up before, and Mr. Hartmann stated it was discussed. Mr. Wisniewski stated it was discussed and in Finance it was decided against putting the credit on the ballot.
Mrs. Fersch stated she felt more research should be done because when you have a limitation on your income tax, there are times we pledge our income tax as repayment on a debt, for example the TIF issues. She stated if someone sees there is a limitation that might not be renewed by the voters that could put a damper on them lending us money. She stated she has discussed this at different times with our Bond Counsel, and the other things we pledge are our general obligation which would fall back on the real estate property taxes on our general notes. She stated she felt it should be researched further to see what ramifications could result by putting a time limitation on something.
Mr. Sabatino stated we would not be giving up income tax in its entirety and would have a continuing income tax if Mr. Sauer’s proposal is successfully passed and also passed by the voters. He stated we would have the one percent underlying tax rate and this would be a temporary tax hike. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not think Mrs. Fersch’s argument had a lot of credence because we would always have something in place. Mrs. Fersch stated she would defer to Mr. Hartmann on if legislation can be passed saying you have your existing tax and then this increase. Mr. Hartmann stated he would look into it, but he did not see any reason it would be prohibited under the law, he was sure there was a way that it could be worded legally, that it could be done. He stated he would have to confer with Bond Counsel, but he felt there was probably a legal way to do what Councilman Sauer wants to do.
Mrs. Hammond stated she could not imagine that the time would come where a City would be in a financial situation to reduce a tax. She stated you have to assume that ten years from now expenses will have increased. Mr. Sabatino stated with regard to Mrs. Hammond’s concern about increased costs over time, he felt that was a valid concern, but he also felt it was also a reason the credit language should be included for the ballot. He stated if that language is not included there is nothing to prevent, if the people would approve the two percent rate increase, there’s nothing to guarantee them that the credit is always going to remain at the level that it currently is and if four votes of council can put it on, four votes of council can change it, and he felt the spirit and intent of having voter approval for any income tax over one percent is better dealt with in terms of actually stating what the taxes would remain over time and if we do it without including that language then we have a situation where we are kind of circumventing the intent of having the people vote on any increase over one percent. He continued he thought it would be more straightforward with the people if we went that way and he is still not crazy about the distribution of the way the credit is handled but he believed that if we had this as Mr. Sauer has proposed he thought it was something that he could probably support and the reason is because of the fact that the people know exactly what they’re voting on and that won’t change until the next time they have to make a decision on whether they are going to effectively raise their taxes again or not. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if we included the credit language in the ordinance could Council increase the credit to one hundred percent or would that have to go to the ballot. Mr. Hartmann stated he believed it would have to go to the ballot because it would have been voted on. Mr. Hartmann stated he understood the one that was passed, in your current code, was not part of the original income tax, and was never put on the ballot. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt this was the first time the question of an income tax would be placed before the voters, and Mr. Hartmann stated he felt that was correct.
Mr. Fix stated he had great respect for Mr. Sauer and he ran on the idea of not increasing taxes and from his perspective this was a compromise, however, he respectfully disagreed with him. Mr. Fix stated we talk about putting an expiration date on this and making it a temporary tax, with the answer we got from our law director earlier this evening every tax is in essence a temporary tax, the voter’s can decide at any point. Mr. Hartmann stated he would have to look at that and he would make a couple of calls right now to try and find that answer. Mr. Fix stated the reason he is comfortable with this is because it balances the tax base. He continued that for a generation Pickerington has relied on the residences to support our city government and all the things that we do by levying an income tax that is paid primarily by the residents of the city. He stated this change in tax will even the burden between residences and those who work here, and all the things we have been working on over the past couple of years has been trying to balance the tax base, to try and bring in the commercial development to grow our revenue by growing commercial development and being able to benefit from that. He stated this tax will allow us to balance that tax base between the residences and the commercial development and that is why he is comfortable with it. He stated there is no change in the amount of taxes paid for the vast majority of the citizens of this community, so to him it made sense that we continue this tax because it impacts businesses more than citizens, and because we don’t know what is going to happen in the next ten years. Mr. Fix stated Pickerington is a very nice community to live in, but there are certainly things we could spend money on to make it a great community to live in. He stated we have talked for over a year about a community rec center, but that is a pipe dream. He stated we are already six policemen short of what should be on the street. Mr. Fix continued there are many ways we could find to very frugally and very responsibly use the dollars generated by this tax to make this an even better community to raise our families in, and that is what this is all about. He stated he did not think it made sense to, ten years from now, give money back to the businesses that have established themselves here and will have paid that tax over the ten years. Mr. Fix stated the idea of tying the hands of future councils by taking away their ability to decide how credit should be used, he felt, was a mistake. He stated he understood the desire to have the citizens vote on that, but that is, by state law, something that councils are responsible for and he felt it was a mistake to not allow future councils to decide how best to collect taxes and spend them in this community. He stated he has respect for Mr. Sauer and Mr. Sabatino and their stance on this, but he disagreed and would like to see it move forward without this amendment.
Mrs. Sanders stated she also understood where Mr. Sauer was coming from, and would love it if we did not have to raise taxes at all, but we do. She stated she agreed with Mrs. Hammond and did not see it as being realistic that in ten years, if we can’t get by on the one percent now, in ten years could we really get by on one percent. She stated she felt that was unrealistic. Mrs. Sanders stated with regard to tying the hands of future council members, she feels that this council is dealing with past councils, and she did not feel another group or body should be put in that same position. Mrs. Sanders stated she would support the ordinance as it stands.
Mayor O’Brien stated he just wanted to make it clear that collectively this body is not voting to raise taxes, they are voting to ask the voters to make the decision.
Mr. Wisniewski stated for 32 years the credit has been the way it is and it hasn’t been on the ballot and it hasn’t been changed in 32 years, so obviously that is not something that needs to be part of the Charter or part of something that is voted on by the citizens. He stated if an emergency arises, and it is a critical emergency, then council has the opportunity to dip into that. He stated he hoped we never had to and for 32 years we have not had to, so why would we have to in the future. Mr. Wisniewski stated ten months ago we did not know gas would be $4.00 per gallon or that oil would be $135 a barrel, and nobody knows what it is going to look like ten months from now let alone ten years from now. He stated as to where we would be in ten years when a majority of our income tax goes away, is extremely ill thought through and there is no way he could support this amendment as it stands.
Roll call was taken on Mr. Sauer’s motion to amend with Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sauer and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion to amend failed 4-2.
Mr. Hartmann stated as to Mr. Fix’ question earlier, he had spoken to two other attorneys in his office and they all agree that it probably is susceptible to initiative meaning that someone could put an initiative on to lower the tax. He stated they cannot really put something on to repeal this, it would be an initiative to lower the tax rate. He stated this was under the caveat that he would like to at it, but generally nobody could think of why there would be a prohibition on it. He stated he would get an answer tomorrow and he has someone who is going to try and look at it right now and if he gets a text message before the meeting concludes he will tell them.
Mayor O’Brien stated he would resume the discussion on the original ordinance. Mr. Sauer stated he had no further comment. Mrs. Hammond stated she found herself in a strange position, because while she firmly felt the city needs to raise the income tax to ease the financial burden, she does not like the ordinance that goes after this because she does not feel that by leaving the credit with the way it is that we would generate enough money to solve the problem. She stated since she could not vote for the one, she did not feel she could go along with the other.
Mr. Sabatino stated he felt Mr. Sauer’s idea was very considerate and he felt the reason he chose the ten-year term was the fact that Mrs. Fersch gave the compelling reason for the need now is to deal with the increased costs of Diley Road. He stated according to what they were told, Diley Road has a ten year repayment schedule so he would surmise that was his motivation for looking at the ten year scenario. Mr. Sabatino continued that to him it made a lot of sense that if that truly was the driving need, ten years from now it is not the driving need and do we just want to go ahead and keep going on, maybe so, maybe no. He stated the one thing they all knew is that they don’t have very much of an idea of long term projections with the economic environment being the way it is, so what he would like to do is to suggest or make a motion for combining Ordinance 2008-37 and 2008-38 and both of them being voted on by the citizens. He stated he felt the citizens have the right to vote when their taxes are raised over one percent and he felt that was the spirit and intent of the way Ohio law deals with this and along that line he thinks the citizens would know exactly what they are voting on, and they wouldn’t be voting on something that, well, yes, we’re getting a credit now but we’re now sure how long that is going to last, particularly because as has been illustrated we don’t know what things are going to look like downstream. He stated he felt this was the most responsible way. Mr. Sabatino moved to amend by combining Ordinance 2008-37 and 2008-38; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion.
Mr. Fix stated he has already stated his position and he feels it is irresponsible to tie the hands of future councils. He stated like, Mr. Wisniewski, he would hope that we would never have to change the credit, we haven’t done it in 32 years, but we don’t know what the future holds. He stated as Mr. Hartmann had indicated few other communities have put this on the ballot, they reserve the right as councils to make that call, so he did not feel it was a good decision to combine these and he would not support this amendment. Mrs. Sanders stated she agreed with Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Fix and she felt council needed to allow themselves a little flexibility in case of an emergency, so she could not support this amendment. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had no further comments. Mr. Sauer stated he agreed with Mr. Sabatino and that any time you are going to approach an income tax situation such as this, he felt the citizens have the right to make that determination. Mrs. Hammond stated she had nothing further. Mr. Sabatino stated before we proceed he would like a clarification on Mr. Fix’ statement that no other community has put this on the ballot. Mr. Fix stated it was his recollection that Mr. Hartmann had stated that very few, if any, have it done by citizens instead of by council, and Mr. Hartmann could verify that. Mr. Hartmann stated generally most councils like to provide themselves with the flexibility in the future, and that is what he has generally seen. He stated he has also seen communities that do it the other way, however, most councils like to provide themselves with that flexibility with respect to changing the credit without a vote. Mr. Sabatino stated then there are others that have done exactly what he is proposing. Mr. Hartmann stated absolutely, however, he has not taken a survey and could not tell them scientifically what each community around here has done. Mr. Sabatino stated we would not be the first. Mr. Hartmann stated either way, you would not be the first.
Roll call was taken on Mr. Sabatino’s motion to amend with Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion failed, 4-2.
Mayor O’Brien resumed discussion on the ordinance as originally presented. Mr. Fix stated no-one on this council likes the idea of even putting before the voters the opportunity to increase taxes. He stated none of them took it lightly, but it is an unfortunate necessity as our city’s financial situation is difficult at best and not going in the right direction. Mr. Fix stated if this council does not offer the citizens the opportunity to help fix the financial situation the minimal services being provided today will no longer exist. Mr. Fix stated he does not like to think of our community in three or four year when we would have fewer policemen on the street rather than more, he did not like to think of this community when our streets are more beat up than they are today, he did not like to think of this community without the ability to provide basic services much less nice parks and recreation and great streets and easy in and out, and all the things that when we look to other communities that surround Columbus have. He stated we are on the low end of the totem pole with the income tax that we collect, when you look at all the other suburban Columbus communities we are on the low end of that. And, we are on the low end of the services that we provide, we are on the low end of the pay scale with most of the employees we have, and it is time for us to step up and do the things that are necessary to make this a great community rather than just a really nice one. He stated he is in favor of giving the voters the chance to tell council how they want their community to look over the next generation, so he was asking all of council to send this forward to the voters.
Mrs. Sanders stated just as Mayor O’Brien had pointed out, this would give the citizens of the community the opportunity to speak. She stated they have entrusted council to look out for the best interests of the city and council needs to trust them. She further stated that given this opportunity and the consideration that the taxes have not been increased since 1976, she felt the citizens would tell council what they wanted and we would go from there. She stated she felt this was the starting point and she would support the two percent increase on the ballot.
Mr. Wisniewski stated there has been a lot of discussion about Diley Road and the debt going away from that. He stated the debt on Diley Road is not going away after ten years, there will $3 million left, and he would like someone to tell him what the bond rate would be in ten months or in ten years. Mr. Wisniewski stated we do not have a clue as to where we will be financially, we don’t know where the country is going to be, we don’t know what the interest rates will be, nobody has a crystal ball as to where we will be. He stated the one thing we do know is that we are running out of money and we have cut the budget down to the bone. He stated the next thing they will cut is employees, either city hall employees or the police department because those are the people that come out of the general fund. He stated it is not the water and sewer people, they are paid for by the water and sewer rates, so it is down to general fund employees. The police department or out of city hall. He stated the expense committee will have to come up with that if this is not going to the ballot. He continued it is either that or we make the amendment to remove part of the credit. Mr. Wisniewski stated this city is tax weary of property taxes, we are property taxed to death on things, and the reason he thought we were going this route, out of all of the discussions in Finance Committee, was that this was the most logical course of action. He stated he was taken aback by the number of amendments proposed this evening, and in ten years when we find ourselves with $3 million of debt on Diley Road at an interest rate we have no clue of, and how we will pay for that no-one has any idea. He stated in 32 years the credit has not been touched, and he hoped to not have to touch it, but if he did have to touch it he would like to move it up to one hundred percent. He stated he would rather give everyone a one hundred percent credit versus locking it in and having to go back and change it. He continued though that if an emergency situation arose, one that is unforeseen, then that opportunity is there. He stated council just voted on $3 million in notes tonight, for one-year notes. He questioned if anyone knew what the interest rate would be in a year, it could be at 12 percent, and if it were at 12 percent the credit would have to be changed or do away with the police department altogether. He stated the most logical course of action he could think of was going forward with the two percent income tax and the credit is another discussion item outside of this ordinance and that is where he preferred to put it.
Mr. Sabatino stated one of the commitments he made to himself when he first decided to represent the people of this community, back in the 80s, was to always be as truthful with them as he could. He stated that is why he really cant’ support two separate ordinances because everyone has just stated why this probably isn’t going to last over time. He stated we need to be truthful when we tell the people that what they are voting on is what is going to be, not what it is going to be for this year, for next year, or for two years, and trust us we are always going to have their best interests at heart. Mr. Sabatino stated in the past he has seen situations where that wasn’t the case although he would not elaborate on that. He stated we need to be as truthful as we can with the citizens and let them know exactly what they are voting on and what we are doing now should have at least some sense of being not just a bare bones thing but something that has some forward looking projections into it and if that’s not the case we are not coming out of the box right. He stated that is why he thinks it is important the people know exactly what they are voting on and they can make a cognitive choice and he felt it would garner far more community support where people know if they vote for this and this credit says I’m working elsewhere, my taxes aren’t going to increase, that situation isn’t going to change two years from now because of something else that happens. He stated when and if that happens it comes back before the voters and they have the right to say yes or no and make a cognitive choice of the economic conditions going on at that particular place in time. He stated he felt it was a little disingenuous to raise the tax rate and then come up with a four vote piece of legislation that deals with the credit with a wink and a trust us we are going to take care of you. He stated he just couldn’t vote for it. Mr. Wisniewski stated he resented that, he has been on council for five years and the credit has not been touched, there was no intention to touch it, but the opportunity is there and has been there for the past 32 years. He stated that is not what this is about and he has no intention of changing this credit so he resented the fact that Mr. Sabatino was trying to make this come across as some wink and a spit in the handshake thing, which it is not. Mrs. Hammond stated Mr. Fix had mentioned the fact that we would like to have a lot of the things that other communities have, and even with the money we are asking for it would not pay for that. She stated we really need to consider changing the credit and the credit is one thing council could change back in five years or ten years if so desired, with an ordinance. She stated she felt it was better to get it out up front that we really need the extra money from everyone and they could vote on it knowing that.
Mayor O’Brien stated he thought it took five votes to go to the polls and questioned if that would be on all readings or the third reading. Mr. Hartmann stated the third reading is the one that counts. He stated it has come up before where there were four votes and it moved on to the next reading.
Roll call was taken on the first reading of Ordinance 2008-37 with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion failed, 3-3.
Mr. Wisniewski questioned if this would automatically go back to Committee and if the two remaining pieces of legislation get a motion and no second and everything is taken off the agenda. Mr. Hartmann stated that would make sense. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would request that no-one second the motion on the next two items and let it die for the lack of a second.
Mayor O’Brien stated he would like to remind Council that we are on a time limit to get this to the Board of Elections.
H. ORDINANCE 2008-38, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 882.17 OF THE PICKERINGTON CODIFIED ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE A ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) CREDIT ON THE FIRST ONE AND ONE-HALF PERCENT (1.5%) OF INCOME TAXES PAID TO ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY FOR THE INCOME TAX LIABILITY INCURRED UNDER CHAPTER 882, FROM A FIFTY PERCENT (50%) CREDIT ON THE LOWER OF THE TWO APPLICABLE TAX RATES ON THE INCOME TAXES PAID TO ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY,” First Reading, Finance Committee. Mr. Wisniewski moved to adopt. Motion died for lack of a second.
I. RESOLUTION 2008-07R, “A RESOLUTION TO PLACE THE ISSUE OF INCREASING THE MUNICIPAL INCOME TAX BY ONE PERCENT (1%) PER ANNUM AS PROVIDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2008-37, ON THE BALLOT AT THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4, 2008, AND DIRECTING THE BOARDS OF ELECTIONS FOR FAIRFIELD AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES TO CONDUCT SUCH ELECTIONS,” First Reading, Finance Committee. Mr. Wisniewski moved to adopt. Motion died for lack of a second.
J. ORDINANCE 2008-29, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1254.10 (PLATTING PROCEDURES), CHAPTER 1256.05 (DESIGN STANDARDS), AND CHAPTER 1258.30 (CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS) OF THE PICKERINGTON CODIFIED ORDINANCES,” Second Reading, Service Committee. Mr. Wisniewski moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
K. ORDINANCE 2008-30, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE ALL ACTION NECESSARY TO AFFECT AN OPT-OUT NATURAL GAS AGGREGATION PROGRAM PURSUANT TO SECTION 4929.26 OF THE REVISED CODE,” Second Reading, Service Committee. Mr. Wisniewski moved to adopt; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
9. LEGISLATIVE READINGS:
A. RESOLUTION 2008-05R, “A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE 2009 TAX BUDGET TO MEET THE JULY 15, 2008, DEADLINE AS SET FORTH IN THE OHIO REVISED CODE, SECTION 5705.28,” Third Reading, Finance Committee. Mrs. Hammond moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
10. OTHER BUSINESS: Mrs. Hammond stated she would request a Special Finance Committee meeting be scheduled to consider the three items discussed this evening. Mr. Hartmann stated in order to be on the ballot it must be to the Board of Elections by August 21, 2008. Mrs. Hammond stated she would like to schedule a Special Finance Committee meeting for Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at 7:30 P.M. with these three items on the agenda.
Mr.
Wisniewski moved to direct the law director to draft legislation to change the
current existing credit from .5 percent to .25 percent. Motion died for lack of a second.
11. MOTIONS:
A. MOTION FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER SECTION 121.22(g)(2), PURCHASE OR SALE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY. Mrs. Hammond moved for Executive Session under Section 121.22(G)(2); Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-1.
Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:40 P.M., and reconvened in open session at 9:05 P.M.
12. ADJOURNMENT. There
being nothing further, Mr. Sauer moved to adjourn; Mrs. Hammond seconded the
motion. Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr.
Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Sanders voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:07 P.M., June 3,
2008.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_______________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Mitch O’Brien, Mayor