WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 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. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Wisniewski were present. No members were absent. Others present were Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chris Schornack, Ed Drobina, Brenda VanCleave, Phil Hartmann, Paul Lane, Larry Jones, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 11, 2008, Special Meeting. Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF June 18, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT:

A. Expense Subcommittee. Mr. Fix stated the subcommittee will meet immediately following this meeting.

4. 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. Mrs. Fersch stated our contract with the Board of Health will end in 2009, and we will be reviewing our options to see if we are going to renew the contract with the Board of Health or look at another option.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2008 appropriation, Ordinance 2007-85. Mrs. Fersch stated she had submitted a draft appropriation ordinance to the Committee for review. She stated the majority of the appropriation requests were increases to reimburse the Fleet Fund for the gasoline that would be purchased. Mrs. Fersch stated under the State Highway Fund she was requesting an increase of $15,000 for the design work on the culvert on S.R. 256 that has recently been discovered is necessary and also an increase of $20,000 for the purchase of street salt. Mrs. Fersch stated we did receive $29,039 from FEMA and it must be deposited into the FEMA Fund and then reimbursed into the Street Fund. Mrs. Fersch stated she would answer any questions regarding any of the appropriations requested. Mr. Fix clarified the appropriation for the culvert was an estimate for engineering costs although it has not been put out bid as yet. Mr. Smith stated he understood we have had problems with the fuel pumps on our police cars that is related to gasoline and questioned if there would be a significant cost difference if we obtained our gasoline from a commercial source. Mr. Drobina stated we have had our gas analyzed and nothing was found to be wrong with it, and it appears that our Police Department were the only ones having the problem, although the fuel pump did go out on a few of our older vehicles. Mr. Drobina stated he has checked with other vendors and one company that do their bidding on-line. Mr. Smith stated he felt it would be prudent, from a financial standpoint, to look at using a commercial source. He stated he understood the Fairfield County Sheriff’s Department used a commercial source, and if it made sense for the County it might make sense for us. Mr. Drobina stated he would look at different options to see what programs were available. Mr. Sabatino stated there may be nothing wrong with the gas, but a problem with the storage tank. Mr. Hartmann stated other communities have had problems with their Crown Victoria fuel pumps. He stated most of the police departments he spoke to did not view it as a problem they wanted to pursue because they tend to get rid of the vehicles before the warranty runs out. Mr. Drobina stated he had contacted Franklin County and they were having the same problem with the fuel pump and they purchased their fuel from a different vendor than we do. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

C. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to continue membership with the Central Ohio Risk Management Association (CORMA) for the time period October 1, 2008, to September 30, 2009, and declaring the emergency. Mrs. Fersch stated we do not know the exact cost for CORMA as yet, however, she needed to get the legislation started. She stated she had estimated a not to exceed cost of $300,000 and hopefully it would be less than that. Mrs. Fersch further stated we have additional items this year, such as the swimming pool, that we will be charged for this year. She stated the Association is also looking at finding a less expensive third party administrator and it has not been determined how much we need for our Loss Fund in case there are claims that would not be covered by our main insurance company. She stated she would not know the exact amount until sometime in August, but because of our legislative process she was starting the legislation now. Mrs. Fersch stated the insurance pool has been good for us and hopefully more members will be added to the Association. Mr. Sabatino clarified the timing was the only reason the draft was written with emergency language, and if Council did multiple readings the emergency would not be necessary. Mrs. Fersch stated as long as it is in effect by October 1^st we would be fine. Mr. Sabatino suggested the legislation not be written as an emergency, and Mr. Fix concurred stating he felt Council would do multiple readings. Mr. Fix moved to forward the legislation to Council with the emergency language removed; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

D. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement for participation in the Regional Council of Governments for the purpose of utilizing the Regional Income Tax Agency to administer and enforce the City of Pickerington’s income tax ordinances. Mrs. Fersch stated RITA had provided a draft contract and Mr. Fix clarified that Mr. Hartmann had reviewed the contract. Mrs. Fersch stated Mrs. Eichner had attended a state-wide Tax Administrators meeting last week and there were some other communities that were interested in going with RITA as well. Mrs. Fersch stated Marysville had been with RITA from 2002 to 2004 and the residents did not like their taxes being handled by people outside of the community. She stated in 2005 Marysville hired a tax administrator and then went back to having it in-house. Mrs. Eichner stated she spoke to the Tax Administrator and the Tax Clerk and neither of them felt that RITA was good because people said they were treated badly, were put on hold for long periods of time, and their accounts were posted incorrectly. Mrs. Eichner stated if the wrong City Code is keyed in, the money goes to that City’s account and you may or may not ever find out about it. She stated you do not have specific clerks assigned to the City of Pickerington; everyone in the RITA office handles everything. She stated when Marysville left RITA they said that RITA was very uncooperative and would not give them back any information and the records were a mess. Mrs. Eichner stated before RITA they said they had an increase of 8-11 percent every year and after RITA they had a 12 percent increase, but refunds were not taken out of that. She stated the net result was no savings at all. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if we had talked to anyone that is still in RITA, and Mrs. Fersch stated that was done in our survey. She stated everyone seemed happy, but a lot of them had never been on their own. Mr. Sabatino stated in the survey Mrs. Fersch referenced there were at least a dozen communities and they all gave favorable opinions of their experience with RITA. Mr. Wisniewski stated Mrs. Fersch had also stated the majority of those had not had in-house service. Mrs. Fersch stated there was a combination, most of them were happy, and they liked it because of the enforcement, someone else was the bad guy. Mrs. Hammond stated she did not feel this would be a major savings and she is not in favor of RITA. She stated she did not feel it is worth giving up the personal service that we give to our residents to save somewhere between $40,000 and $70,000. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt there were a lot of other areas we could come up with that kind of money without giving up our personal service. Mrs. Hammond further stated she has dealt with RITA in the past and it is difficult to figure out how much money you owe. She continued that she knows accountants who hate figuring people’s taxes when RITA is involved. Mr. Wisniewski stated he has received positive feedback from more than one or two people about our income tax department. He stated people have appreciated the personal service and the help they have received when they had problems and were able to come into the office and have one of our tax people sit down with them and actually help them figure their taxes. He stated nobody likes paying taxes, but they have appreciated the personal touch they have received. Mr. Wisniewski stated if this is voted on tonight he will not vote for it. Mr. Smith stated he would have a hard time supporting this as well. He stated that somewhere between $40,000 and $70,000 is not really a significant enough savings. He stated further this is tantamount to outsourcing and he has not experienced, either personally or in literature, outsourcing deals that deliver the full value that they were supposed to. Mr. Smith continued the savings, if any, is much less. He stated he would like to know what control we have over how much we pay RITA, do we have any control over that price escalating. He stated we do have some control over our internal tax department and whether that cost escalates or not. Mr. Smith stated further the draft ordinance talks about entering into an agreement for participation in a Regional Council of Governments, and he questioned if we participated in that now, and Mr. Hansley stated RITA is the Regional Council of Governments. Mr. Smith stated if this were to be voted on tonight, he did not feel he could vote for it.

Mr. Fix stated the Expense Subcommittee brought this forward to Finance to show Council the opportunity we have to save some money. He stated he did not know whether or not he agreed that $50,000 to $70,000 was a significant amount of money, but that is all they have found so far. He stated this would be an opportunity to save the taxpayers some money, to potentially increase efficiency based on the information that was presented to the Expense Subcommittee. He stated our current tax personnel do a great job and that personal touch certainly has a value in a town this size. He stated this was brought forward for the Finance Committee to look at, and if more information is needed, perhaps this could be tabled and have RITA come in and make a presentation to Finance or at Council.

Mr. Wisniewski stated he has seen outsourcing, he has been part of it, and he has seen it when it did not work. He stated just because we are given an initial cost, that did not mean that the cost would be contained after years two or three. He continued that it is easy for someone to make a one-year pitch on how much we could save, but on years two, three, or five, or after you are locked into a contract for X-amount of time, and you have gotten rid of your staff, they kind of have you over a barrel. He stated he does not want this pushed forward, and he did want more information on this. Mr. Fix stated he felt all of Council needed to see the presentation, to get all the facts from other communities and what RITA can present themselves. Mr. Fix stated he felt it would be best if we ask RITA to make their presentation at the next meeting, have more conversations with the communities that have left RITA, and also with the communities that are with RITA. Mr. Smith stated his skepticism is based not on if someone is happy with RITA, this is being presented as saving as much as $70,000, but have we truly valued everything such as the personal service, the income tax advantage from paying the wages here in the City that we would lose to RITA. Mr. Fix stated there are a lot of benefits that the subcommittee heard, and he felt is was reasonable to ask for them to come in and spend 20 minutes or so with the full Finance Committee, and then we can make a good decision. Mr. Sabatino stated also there are two sides to the presentation; staff would present the side that justifies their argument for keeping things as they are and RITA would present the side that showed the advantages to going in that direction. He stated he felt as Mr. Fix suggested, it would benefit everyone if this was not acted on this evening, had the RITA folks come in and make a presentation next month, and anything that staff came up with could be presented as well. Mr. Fix stated the entire Finance Department has done a good job of trying to remain impartial and look at this from Council’s perspective and he would like to applaud them for that effort. Mayor O’Brien stated he had spoken to a tax accountant who felt that RITA is not the way to go because it could cause the tax preparation time to be extended if they need to contact anyone at RITA to get further information or clarification. Mayor O’Brien stated he appreciated the Expense Subcommittee’s efforts to bring something forward, he just wondered if this is the time to consider this or if we should wait to see if the income tax issue passes or not and then make a decision. He stated we would then be able to put together solid numbers. Mr. Fix stated he did not have a problem with pushing this back until the first of the year. Mr. Sabatino stated anytime that you have a change to the way we do things; you will have the personal service type concerns. He stated it comes to a point, not with just this issue, but we may find something else that would impact a different department. Mr. Sabatino moved to Table; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer abstaining, Mrs. Hammond and Mr. Smith voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-2. (TABLED)

5. PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT:

A. Personnel Director’s Report. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report, and she would answer any questions. Mrs. Fersch stated since she had provided her report, Dawn Romine submitted her resignation and her last day will be July 30^th. Mrs. Fersch stated due to the hiring freeze we are not looking at replacement.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance to amend Ordinance 2007-81, the Employee Pay Plan and Authorized Strength for 2008. Mrs. Fersch stated Council approved the addition of this employee at their meeting and this is the appropriate legislation to amend the pay play to add that position. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino clarified the position filled by Ms Romine will remain on the pay plan; it just will not be filled at this time. Mr. Sauer clarified adding this playground worker position will not increase the budget. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

6. 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 had asked for discussion on this issue only to review the sort of things that we are spending money on, not necessarily that we want to take any action on it. Mr. Sabatino clarified this discussion was with regard to the 362-acre annexation of Spring Creek, and he had asked Mr. Hartmann to look at some specific things. He stated it is a little confusing in that in the agreement it references monies to be paid to the Township for vehicles and businesses and road and bridge money, but in the main body of the agreement it does not specifically specify a time, however, in the future annexations portion of it it stipulates a ten-year term with two ten-year extensions upon mutual consent. He stated his question to Mr. Hartmann was if the main part of the agreement was something that went on forever.

Mr. Hartmann stated his recollection in going through this is that paragraph 2 is totally separate from the remainder. He stated he thought the easiest way to understand it right now is to take out paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10, as they have no effect anymore. He stated those paragraphs are completely gone because no-one entered into a JEDD. Mr. Sabatino stated paragraph 5 is where it talks about a ten-year period and the possibility of renewals, yet in the main body of the agreement it is silent on the term. He stated his question was if that was intentionally silent or was that an oversight. Mr. Hartmann stated it was his recollection, and in reading it, the intent was not to have an ongoing period of time, that it was to go on forever. Mr. Wisniewski stated it was his recollection, and he was under the impression, that it was definitely going to be a ten-year period and it was going to be based upon the JEDD as well. That if the JEDD did not go forward then the whole contract would end. Mrs. Hammond stated the question is whether there is an end period to this agreement. Mr. Fix stated we are three and one-half years into this agreement now. Mr. Sauer stated in looking at the agreement, paragraph 10 only refers to paragraphs 4, 5, and 6. Mr. Smith stated in paragraph 6, to establish intent, it talks about future annexations and a period of ten-years, that we would pay for the road services as set forth in paragraph 2, so the theme of 10-years is all over the document. Mrs. Hammond stated in paragraph 2 it states the Township will provide certain services, and she would question if they provided those services. Mr. Hartmann stated if the issue is road and bridge levy, this is not the road and bridge levy. The City has another ordinance that is related to road and bridge levy, and this is not it. Mr. Hartmann stated this was written to take out the language “road and bridge levy” and put in the specific mills. He continued the question would be, if they are not providing the services you are asking for or they are required to provide, then you would have a possible breach of this agreement and you could get out of it. Mr. Hartmann further stated this was done to settle an annexation battle that had gone on for six, seven, eight years and would have continued to go on. He stated it also allowed us the ability to annex in this property when, in fact, we could possibly have lost the lawsuit. He stated these are all trade offs for settling the suit. Mr. Wisniewski stated the reason we did this is because we did not want to continue to pay out attorney fees for this, we did not care about annexing this land, we just wanted to settle it and get it done with instead of paying another large amount of attorney fees. Mr. Wisniewski stated it was his recollection that we would pay the fees for ten years and the loss that we would get on that would be less than what the potential attorney fees were. Mr. Fix stated if that were the case, and the intention of the Council at that time was that it was a ten-year agreement, and we are four years into this agreement, the intent was to fulfill that first ten-year agreement. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was correct. Mr. Fix stated then, with all the other stuff that we have going on, and with the idea that we are trying to pursue a Joint Economic Development District with this same Township that we are talking about putting into breach of contract, does it make sense at this point, if our intent was to do it for ten years, does it make sense today to spend time on this. Mrs. Hammond stated the intent on bringing this up was to make Council aware of all the different areas where we are putting money out each year so we would have an idea of how much money we are spending in different directions. She stated we have the road and bridge levy, we have this, and a lot of areas that involve money. Mr. Sabatino stated further something specific to this agreement is it is based upon the improved value, and he was not saying we should undo anything, he was just saying that now was a good time to get a clarification that, as a couple of people remember it, that it was a ten-year agreement and not a permanent agreement. Mr. Wisniewski stated the other part is that he does not think that we need to keep on the books the road and bridge levy where we are paying it out for anything that we annex to the City. He stated there is no reason we should keep that out there. Mayor O’Brien stated given the paragraphs that Mr. Hartmann says are not valid, maybe this is the time to review this and see if it needs to be rewritten. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not think we could rewrite it, and Mr. Smith stated he didn’t think there was anything to do within the next few years. Mr. Hartmann stated that was correct, if the issue comes up in the tenth year you want to argue that it is over, you can do that, but right now you are four years into it. Mr. Sabatino stated he has an issue with the fact that our law director is telling us this is a permanent commitment when, in fact, that is not how he remembers it and he didn’t think that was how Mr. Wisniewski remembered it. Mr. Hansley stated he felt the short-term issue is if the services are being provided, and Mr. Fix stated he felt that was a conversation Mr. Hansley should have with Mr. Yaple and the Township should be providing what they are contractually obligated to. Mrs. Hammond stated she understood the Township was to provide those services to all the roads that fell under the road and bridge levy. Mr. Hansley stated he would talk to the Township. Mr. Sauer stated he felt this was something we should find out so Council would know exactly what was happening.

Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to discuss the ordinance that anything that is annexed into the City the Township automatically gets the road and bridge levy from. He stated he felt that was done as a goodwill gesture to get into a JEDD or some economic agreement vehicle that never occurred. Mr. Fix stated this is the ordinance that was reviewed at the last meeting, and that has a ten year term and the total we paid last year was $5,000. Mrs. Hammond stated she did not feel Mr. Wisniewski had an objection to paying the road and bridge levy on the property that has already been annexed, but he did not feel we should pay that on future annexations. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we were going to come into an agreement with the Township, then put it into an agreement, but we shouldn’t just leave it out there that we’ll pay it for whatever we annex down the road. He stated for example, Diley Road, he did not feel we should pay the Township the road and bridge levy on something that we paid everything for. Mr. Sabatino stated that ordinance stated it would be paid on the condition that the Township did not object to the annexation. Mr. Hansley stated the Township filed an objection to the water plant annexation. Mr. Wisniewski asked Mr. Hartmann to draft legislation with regard to the Road and Bridge levy regarding future annexations to get that off our books. Mr. Sauer questioned what service the Township actually is to provide with that road and bridge levy when that money is being provided to them. Mrs. Fersch stated in the first agreement it did not say they would provide anything, we are just giving them that money. Mr. Sauer stated then, we are paying them to provide nothing. Mr. Hartmann stated we are giving them that money not to object to the annexation. Mr. Wisniewski stated if the Township is not providing services, they are in breach of contract and we should find that out. He stated he thought it was clear-cut on what staff needed to check into.

7. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Township Trustees Meeting – Update. Mrs. Hammond clarified no members had been able to attend the last Trustees meeting.

B. Pickerington Local School District Board Meeting – Update. Mrs. Sanders stated she had nothing to report this evening.

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 stated the Executive Session was not necessary this evening.

Mr. Fix stated he would like to ask for a consensus of Council to request the Finance Director to move the budget process ahead to the point so Council could finalize the budget before Thanksgiving. He stated in that way the budget could be reviewed and approved without having to pass it as an emergency. Mrs. Fersch stated that could be done, but some figures would just be a guess as to what the end of they year estimate would be. Mr. Fix stated he was looking more at the expense side, and by moving it forward Council would have time to question and understand everything ahead of time. Mrs. Hammond stated considering the fact that we have been reviewing all of this anyway; she thought there would be fewer questions. Mr. Hansley stated he and Mrs. Fersch could give Council a budget schedule, and Mrs. Hammond was correct, given that everyone has been going through the budget lately, and the fact that all Council members have been through at least one budget process, he felt it would be possible to start things earlier. Mr. Sabatino inquired if the budget would be figured at our current tax rate or on the proposed increased tax rate. Mr. Hansley stated it would be figured at the higher rate and should the increase not pass then it would be adjusted. Mrs. Hammond stated then the general consensus is that we want to start the budget process earlier this year.

Mr. Wisniewski if we are going to allocate some funds for the staff to run a campaign on the tax issue, then it should happen fairly soon. He stated his question was if we needed legislation for $10,000 for resources or whatever. Mr. Hansley stated he would like the law director’s opinion on if the staff could run a positive campaign that would urge the residents to vote for specific reasons. Mr. Hartmann stated he wasn’t prepared to answer that question tonight. Mrs. Hammond questioned how much time Mr. Hansley would need to prepare and put into effect the campaign. Mr. Wisniewski stated this is mid-July and did we need legislation to allocate $10,000 or would a motion of Finance Committee be sufficient. Mr. Wisniewski questioned if the appropriation ordinance reviewed earlier this evening could be amended to add that appropriation. Mrs. Fersch stated it could be added to that ordinance; however, she did not want to jeopardize the appropriations on that ordinance. Mrs. Yartin stated a second appropriation ordinance could be done. Mr. Wisniewski moved to forward an appropriation request to Council for $10,000 for a positive campaign for the income tax issue; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, Mr. Sauer voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-1.

Mr. Smith stated realizing the cost of energy and gas today; he would like to discuss the possibility of bus service between here and downtown Columbus. He stated he would like to see what the will of Council would be as there would be a premium that would have to be paid either by the City or by the riders of COTA. He stated we are outside COTAs service territory, and he did not know if any staff member has had any discussion with COTA about extending a route out here to the park and ride. Mayor O’Brien stated he has read e-mail traffic on this issue, and they will not service us because we are outside of their taxing district, we do not pay COTA taxes. Mrs. Hammond stated MORPC is working with the City and Township on their Ride Share program and perhaps we could beef those up a little more. Mr. Smith stated a significant percentage of our residents work downtown and it would be nice if they could have that as an alternative. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had no problem with this, but he did not want the City paying for it because two-thirds of the riders would be Township residents.

9. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Sanders voted "Aye." Motion carried, 7-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 8:05 P.M., June 18, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk