PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2008
CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
7:30 P.M.
1. ROLL CALL. Council for the City of Pickerington met for
a Special Meeting on Wednesday, August 13, 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, Mr. Smith,
Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders, and Mayor O’Brien
were present. No members were
absent. Others present were: Tim
Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Chief Taylor, Ed Drobina, Nick LaTorre, Rachel Scofeld,
Susan Lent, Robert Alger, Carol Alger, Gail Martineau, Jonathan Kissell, Gary
Weltlich, Any Rumpke, Brian Wilson, Brian Price, Todd Wielinski, and others.
Mayor O’Brien stated the purpose of tonight’s reading is to
discuss the appropriation ordinance relating to contractual services for public
information, for campaign information on an income tax issue. He stated he would like to remind everyone
that the purpose of a special meeting is to deal with the agenda item
specifically and comments must be on the subject matter only.
2. COMMUNITY
COMMENTS:
A. Brian
Fox. Mr. Fox stated he was present to
speak about the $10,000 appropriation on tonight’s agenda. He stated he would ask every council member
to vote this down as it is unnecessary and contradicts everything that has been
said in the past few weeks. He stated
everything the citizens have heard from this council in the past three weeks is
that we have no money, no money to pave the streets, no money to pay our
police, etc. He continued that all of a
sudden there is $10,000 that can be spent on a political campaign, taxpayer
dollars, and that is wrong. He stated he
would ask council to think twice before doing this as there were a lot of
voters that would see this as a waste of their money and some people who would
be predisposed to vote for the tax may be turned against it. He stated he would also ask if this
appropriation is subject to a referendum, and he knew that it was not. He stated he would ask council to amend this
legislation and make it subject to a referendum. Mr. Fox stated his last question was who was
in charge here because the Mayor had been quoted in the paper as stating he had
no plans to run a campaign, that this was not a good time for the city to spend
money on a campaign, and now he is running this special meeting. He stated he thought that was wrong and he
would ask the Mayor to show leadership and stand by his comments which were
correct two weeks ago and to use his veto power and stand with the
taxpayers.
Mayor O’Brien stated he would respond by saying he was misquoted
in the paper and he did not ask for a retraction.
B. Mike
McKinley. Mr. McKinley stated he would
ask that council not pass this ordinance because it is a political
campaign. He stated it was to inform the
voters but by the same token the voters can get that information from the web
site, by coming to City Hall, and by reading the ordinance for themselves and
making an informed decision. He stated
taxpayer dollars do not need to be used to do that. He stated further if this were before the
expense subcommittee, would it be something they would pass on to the taxpayers
or would it come under the axe of that subcommittee.
3. SCHEDULED MATTERS:
A. ORDINANCE
2008-54, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2008 APPROPRIATION, ORDINANCE 2007-85,” Second
Reading, Finance Committee. Mrs.
Hammond moved to adopt; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond stated sometimes you need to
spend money to make money, and she knew that some people thought this was
inappropriate, that it was political.
She stated she would beg to differ, as this is not political in the
usual sense of the word. She stated this
is a decision this council has reached after much discussion, many meetings,
the advice of professional staff, and consultants that not this current year,
but in the future if we do not do something the city may have financial
difficulty. She stated, therefore, she
felt it was appropriate to use the funds we have now in order to explain to the
citizens the purpose of the tax and all the ramifications of it. She stated there were a lot of misconceptions
about who will pay, who will not pay, etc.
Mrs. Hammond stated she would like to be sure that the information is
out there correctly. She stated it is
well and good to say people can read about it on the web site or come to City
Hall, and we will do all those things, however, everyone does not have a
computer or read the paper. She stated
she has read the reports in the paper and she does not understand everything
they have said about this, even though she knows what it is supposed to
say. Mrs. Hammond stated because she
knew this is a very important thing for the City of Pickerington she will
recommend that council vote for it.
Mr. Sabatino stated as a businessman when it was appropriate he has spent his own money to make money for himself, but this is a different issue here spending the taxpayer dollars. Mr. Sabatino stated council had this discussion in the past on a different issue and his position then was the same as it is today, and that is that this is a situation that does not have a unanimous opinion on council, the same as the master economic agreement did not have the unanimous opinions on council, and there were deliberations about spending city money to sway the voters in that discussion and he voted against it then. Mr. Sabatino stated this is political in nature in that there are different opinions on the proper way to deal with this tax issue, and as happened before on the master economic agreement those that felt a different way garnered support and waged a campaign to go out and collect signatures and did so successfully. He stated in that vernacular he thought this was not a good use for taxpayer money. He stated he did not feel we could forget the rights of the people and the people have opinions as well as council does and it is council’s duty to be as responsible as they can be.
Mr. Smith stated with regard to Mr. Sabatino’s statement on the referendum for the JEDD the actual vote of the constituents affirmed the majority of council’s action. Mr. Smith stated he does support the use of these funds. He stated he was concerned about its legality and he has looked at other cities, most recently the City of Delaware, who did a very similar effort to what we are looking at. He stated they had a vote this past week to increase their income tax and it did pass. He stated further council has a legal opinion that affirms this is not only legal but also an appropriate use of public funds and he is comfortable with that legal opinion. Mr. Smith continued that he felt council had done a wise thing with the leadership of the Mayor and the President of Council by taking itself out of this campaign. He stated city staff would develop fact based information to be distributed to the residents and council will not review, will not approve, and will not preview any of these communications; they will be fact based explaining to our residents the ballot language and why the city is in need of the income tax and its impact on the various segments of our residents.
Mr. Sauer stated he did not support this the last time and he would not support it now. He stated he felt it was an oxymoron to ask the taxpayers to fund a campaign to convince the same people to potentially increase taxes on a portion of that population. He stated from his view, this has been covered very well in the newspapers, when he talks to people in the community it is not like this has been hiding under a rock, they are aware this debate is taking place. He stated based on some of the comments that were made when the debate was going on regarding the campaign literature for the master economic agreement, there were comments made by a number of members on this council that the information should be disseminated on the web site and that city funds should not be utilized to mail that particular information out. Mr. Sauer stated to post it on the web site was fine, that was what that is there for, but asking to spend $10,000 to run a campaign to essentially push a tax, and he did not buy the idea that that was going to come from an objective viewpoint or a nonbiased viewpoint. He stated furthermore, in terms of some of the information council received, it has been corrected on a few occasions and he would struggle to say whether or not that information is adequate at this point in time without review by council. He stated, once more, he would not be supporting this.
Mr. Sabatino stated as far as the referendum reference goes, there were 900 and some signature collected for that referendum, and after the way things were handled by this council it was made a moot point. He stated as far as the legal opinion, he felt everyone knew that whichever direction council would lean, there were two sides to every question and he felt it could be defended either way, so he was not exactly buying that totally. He stated he would also like to comment that Mr. Smith stated this would be fact based by staff, and one of the facts staff presented was what this tax was going to yield. He continued that after a citizen had brought it to the attention of staff the fact that their numbers were wrong, it was wrong by the tune of $1.1 million, so he was a little concerned, as Mr. Sauer had stated, on what basis the statement was that this would be fact based. He stated in the one of the Whereas sections of the ordinance it states that…City desires to appropriate and expend public funds in order to campaign for passage of the Tax Initiative, as passage of the Tax Initiative shall generate revenue that will be utilized for a public purpose, namely, the welfare and prosperity of City’s residents. He stated that is partially true, but he was at a loss to understand how for those who live here and work here and who’s tax will be doubled, how this is going to help their welfare and prosperity. He stated this will benefit some citizens to the detriment of others and some on council thought that was an okay thing to do. Mr. Sabatino moved to amend by substitution with the amended ordinance council was provided that states in Section 2. that in accordance with Section 2.06 of the Pickerington Charter this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage by Council and approval by the Mayor; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino stated the reason for this amendment is so that we don’t overlook the citizen’s right to do a referendum if they so choose. Roll call was taken on the motion to amend with Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion to amend failed, 5-2. Roll call was taken on the second reading with Mr. Sabatino and Mr. Sauer voting “Nay,” and Mr. smith, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-2.
4. ADJOURNMENT. There
being nothing further, Mr. Smith moved to adjourn; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr.
Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr.
Wisniewski voted “Aye.” Motion
carried, 7-0. The special meeting
adjourned at 7:55 P.M., August 13, 2008.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
_______________________________
Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Mitch O’Brien, Mayor