WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2008

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mrs. Hammond called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Wisniewski were present. Mr. Smith and Mrs. Sanders were absent as both were out of town. Others present were Mayor O’Brien, Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chris Schornack, Ed Drobina, Brenda VanCleave, Dennis Schwallie, Miriam Segaloff, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF September 17, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

3. Presentation by Bond Counsel (Dennis Schwallie) regarding upcoming note renewals. Mr. Schwallie stated he was present this evening to give Council a preview of what to expect as far as the note issues that are coming up. He stated we have synchronized the City’s General Obligation note issues to come due at one time during the year, and this year they will come due in the early part of February. Mr. Schwallie stated as everyone is aware, the municipal bond market, along with other finance markets, have been in an uproar lately and there is serious concern about whether on a given day there will be a market for notes, bonds, or anything else. He stated the advice that is being given is that, if possible, we move up the date for getting proposals on those notes to allow time for a Plan B if for some reason the market is not there on that date. He stated Mrs. Fersch was proposing a timeline so that we have the ordinances start through the process even before the results of the November election are known, with some not to exceed numbers, with the idea that if things go favorably there will be more of a payout principal shown. He stated the ordinance would be passed in December and effective in early January which would allow him to go forward with the note sale earlier in January and provide a cushion to do something else if the markets have not settled down by that time and we are looking at the prospect of not having a purchaser for our notes. Mr. Fix clarified this moved our schedule up about seven weeks or so. He stated rather than have the new money come in the same day the old notes come due, we will have the money come in a few weeks early and have it sitting there in escrow and then pay off the old notes. He stated we would not prepay the old notes, but let them run out normally. Mr. Fix inquired if there was any concern that accelerating the calendar might be to our detriment because of the way the financial situation is right now, and Mr. Schwallie stated if it gets that close we can always postpone it. He stated passing the ordinance is just setting the stage, it is not locking us into a firm schedule, and if it looks like the market is not going to be that favorable, it will give us time to wait a week or two. Mr. Schwallie stated generally you need to give the market at least two weeks notice of your sale so people have time to put their bids together, etc. He stated we rely on the expertise of our advisors to determine if the market is there. Mr. Fix inquired what would happen if we did not get anyone to bid on our notes, and Mr. Schwallie stated we would then see if the underwriters would be willing to do a placement for three or four months, or perhaps a six month issue to get us a little time. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided all Committee members with a history of all of our notes and the interest rates we had on them. Mr. Schwallie gave a brief explanation on the difference between notes and bonds. Mrs. Fersch stated she had also provided the Committee with a handout from Moodys on rating methodology and an explanation of the Bond Rating Scale.

Mrs. Fersch stated she would request a Special Finance Committee meeting for October 29^th to move the note issues forward to the first Council meeting in November if there were no objections. Mrs. Hammond stated if there were no objections she would request a Special Finance Committee meeting for October 29, 2008, at 7:30 P.M. for committee action on the note renewals. All members concurred.

4. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT:

A. Expense Subcommittee. Mr. Fix stated the Expense Subcommittee held its final meeting on October 1^st, and he would like to thank everyone for their support during those meetings. Mr. Fix stated a memo from the Expense Subcommittee summarizing their findings was forwarded to Finance for discussion later on the agenda this evening.

(1) Review and discussion regarding in-house engineer. Mr. Fix stated everyone had received a copy of the memorandum from Mr. Hansley and Ms Frommer regarding bringing the city engineer position in-house. He stated depending on the individual hired, we would have the opportunity to save roughly $57,000. He stated there were quite a few assumptions on this issue and they are presented in the memo. Mr. Fix stated it would be his recommendation that we start down the path of looking for an in-house engineer to replace Stilson. Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed the potential for the City to save money was there, but it was dependent upon the individual hired. Mr. Fix stated he felt with the salary range that was built into the model, after conferring with Ms Frommer, he felt it would allow us to find a high quality, somewhat experienced engineer. Mr. Wisniewski inquired what type of skill set we would be trying to hire and Mr. Fix stated in speaking with Ms Frommer she felt we could find someone with complimentary skill sets to what we already have with Ms VanCleave, which are in the water and sewer area of expertise. Mr. Fix stated finding someone with traffic expertise would probably most benefit us and part of what is in the memo is that when you go away from an outside source that has multiple areas of engineering at their disposal to bringing a person in-house who has a more limited skill set than an entire firm, that we will still have to farm some things out. He stated even with that, it seemed we would still save money. Mr. Sabatino questioned if we decided to go this way, would this individual remain an employee of council or a staff member, and Mr. Fix stated until the Charter review process is completed it would remain a council employee. Mr. Hartmann stated in the initial Charter review he thought this was discussed and it could go either way. Mr. Sabatino clarified then, currently, if we hired a city engineer, their office would be here but they would be an employee of council. Mr. Sauer stated while the savings sounded great, the flip side would be if you did not get the right person those savings might evaporate. Mayor O’Brien inquired what process would be used to hire this person if the decision was made, and Mr. Fix stated he felt we would want the involvement of the City Manager, the Mayor, President of Council, and other engineering firms that know us and know what we would want to look for. Mr. Hansley stated he would recommend perhaps having the engineers from another community, such as Reynoldsburg, Hilliard, Dublin, or whatever; act as a panel to do a screening of the applicants to take it down to a short list. He stated then a Council committee, or some other process, could conduct the final interviews. Mr. Hansley stated further we should develop a profile of what skills we are looking for and we would want to avoid the appearance of anything that looked like a conflict. Mr. Sabatino stated he thought that was a very good idea. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that it was Mr. Hansley’s recommendation, as City Manager, to bring the engineering position in-house. Mr. Hansley stated if cost savings is an issue, clearly you would save money, depending on the person you hired. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to see a firm recommendation from staff, as well as something showing the skill set we are looking for, how you would recommend we approach it, how we would plan on doing the interviews, and how it would be presented to Council so we could get the best person possible. Mr. Hansley stated he could recommend a process to Council, but the final determination would be made by the majority of Council. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood that, he was looking for a concise, precise process. Mr. Fix stated the discussion this evening was to see if Council was in favor of bringing this position in-house, and it appeared there is a consensus of Council. Mr. Fix stated he felt the next step would be to prepare the qualifications needed, the process to go through, a time line, etc. Mr. Fix moved to request the City Manager provide Council with a recommendation on skill sets and process for the purpose of hiring a new City Engineer for the next Finance Committee meeting; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

Mr. Sauer stated he would like to comment that he is willing to look at this, however, he did not want his vote to be interpreted as being in favor of doing this at this point because he did not know that as yet.

(2) Review of Expense Subcommittee Summary Report. Mr. Fix stated the Expense Subcommittee provided a summary of all the activity they have done along with six points that were found as potential savings. He stated one was the opportunity to look at RITA as our income tax department was identified and the debate has been started on that. He further stated the engineering department was another area, and that was just discussed. Mr. Fix continued the Urban Forestry Fund was another area and we will need to decide if we want to continue this or have our citizens be responsible for the trees on their property. Mr. Fix stated there was the potential for some savings in the building department, and Mr. Hartmann is going to present a new contract for the Law Department that has a few more items included in the retainer. He stated the miscellaneous government expenses that were discussed earlier in the Budget Work Session is money that we pay out that is not necessary, but politically correct to do. Mr. Wisniewski stated then the Expense Subcommittee did not have a recommendation regarding potential staff reductions if we do run into that scenario, and Mr. Fix stated if the tax issue does not pass there will be cuts across the board. Mrs. Hammond stated if the tax issue does not pass the Finance Committee as a whole will have to address these issues.

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. She stated we did receive the increase from Medical Mutual for health insurance today. She stated last week they had indicated an increase of 18.7 percent and today they changed that to 13.8 percent. She stated the next closest was from Blue Cross Anthem and their preliminary proposal was 15 percent higher than our current rate. Mrs. Fersch stated with this increase we will not have to change our insurance company and she would ask that this be added to the agenda for the Special Finance Committee meeting on October 29^th, so it can go to Council in November and be in place at the first of the year. Mrs. Fersch stated she and Mr. Hansley were recommending funding the Health Savings Accounts at $1,400 for single coverage and $2,800 for family coverage. She stated the employee’s share will go to eight percent, and the union contracts are also at eight percent, however, the union employee’s share is capped at $55 for single and $110 for family. She stated for the buy-up plan the employee’s share for family coverage would be $122 so the union employees will only be paying $110, and for single coverage we are okay because their share is $50.84. Mrs. Fersch further stated the employee’s share per month for the Health Savings Plan is $41 and $84. Mrs. Fersch further stated Delta Dental has a slight increase and there is no increase for VSP. Mrs. Hammond stated she would ask that the health insurance renewal be placed on the agenda for the Special Finance on October 29^th.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2008 appropriation, Ordinance 2007-85. Mrs. Fersch stated she apologized for not getting the draft appropriations out to everyone earlier, however, she just got the information in today for Diley Road and WPCLF. Mr. Fix clarified the Diley Road Improvement Fund capital increase of $7 million was because the auditor’s office has stated we must reflect the money we are getting for the grant from ODOT and MORPC. She stated that will inflate our budget, but we cannot help that. Mr. Fix stated then this is a paper trail, and Mr. Sabatino clarified it is an accounting for ODOT’s activities. Mr. Fix moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

C. 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. (TABLED, 09/17/08) Mr. Fix stated at the last meeting Mr. Wisniewski had requested further information and ascertained that information had been provided.

6. 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 we have made an employment offer for one dispatcher, and we will be filling the additional part-time position. Mrs. Fersch further stated the Deputy Municipal Clerk has resigned, and Mr. Sabatino clarified this position is a general fund position and will not be filled at this time. Mrs. Fersch further stated we received 31 applications for the Utility Billing Clerk and testing will be held on October 23^rd.

7. CHAIRMAN:

A. Review and discussion regarding draft ordinance rescinding Ordinance 2000-139, which provided for a reimbursement to Violet Township for road and bridge levy revenues lost upon land being annexed into the City of Pickerington. Mrs. Hammond requested Mrs. Yartin provide a copy of the draft ordinance to Committee members as it had been on the agenda for a while and they might not have the draft with them. Mr. Wisniewski stated this is more for going forward as right now we have an ordinance that we will pay road and bridge levies toward any uncontested annexations that we perform. Mr. Fix clarified this will not impact any agreements that are already in place, only those going forward. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was correct and he did not see the need for leaving this open-ended ordinance on the books. Mrs. Hammond stated basically this will not rescind anything that has been done, but we don’t want to pay this on any future annexations. Mr. Sauer stated as he understood it, if any issues come up we will deal with them on a case-by-case basis instead of there being a blanket situation. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was correct, this would rescind the old ordinance and allows each one to be reviewed and handled by separate contract if we decide to do anything. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve and forward to Council; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Mayor O’Brien clarified that Spring Creek was not included in this because we entered into a separate agreement for that development. Mr. Hartmann clarified this would apply to any annexation that occurs from the time this is passed, however, if you wanted to go back and renegotiate any of the prior agreements there is nothing stopping you from doing that. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

8. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Pickerington Local School District Board Meeting – Update. Mrs. Hammond stated Mrs. Sanders is not present this evening and she had not forwarded a report.

B. Review and request for recommendation regarding Rule (3) Impact Fee Waiver Request. Mr. Hansley stated the applicant had requested this be tabled this evening as he has hired an attorney to handle this request and would like to allow him time to review it. Mrs. Hammond stated she would request this be continued on the agenda until the next meeting.

Mrs. Hammond stated everyone had received a draft Resolution acknowledging the annexation of 67.298 acres from Violet Township into the City. She stated this is the City’s water treatment plant and the annexation is already effective so this is a formality only. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

Mrs. Hammond stated everyone should have received a draft copy of Version 9 of the JEDD, and she would request Mayor O’Brien lead the discussion on this issue. Mayor O’Brien stated this was moved back to this Committee at Council the other evening. Mayor O’Brien stated the major change in this document is that we will do a Resolution to adopt this template to be effective or to be used and signed only when a property owner or developer comes to the three parties to request a JEDD. He stated in the meantime it is shelf-ware. Mr. Sabatino inquired with regards to it not being used until a deal comes along, would that be an open-ended document or is there a time limit. Mayor O’Brien stated no time limit has been discussed and if we think there should be we can go back to the other parties and discuss it with them. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt there should be some kind of date certain for action and if for five years or ten years nothing happens it could be extended but would not leave us with something that is just hanging out there forever. Mr. Sauer stated in reading the document it appeared there is a 30-year time limit on it and then it automatically renews unless there is an objection from any of the participating parties at that time. Mayor O’Brien stated for clarification that is 30-years from the time a JEDD is signed, not for this agreement. Mr. Fix stated this agreement is currently in perpetuity and he felt that would be to our advantage so if down the road a JEDD comes up then we would not be playing with dates as has happened in the past. Mayor O’Brien stated while Lancaster is still a player in this, it is their thought that since they are the most detached from this to let everyone else come to the terms and get it through their councils, but they do intend to join the JEDD so it will be a four party JEDD.

Mr. Wisniewski stated he has not seen the maps that are to be attached to this, and he would like to see Exhibits C-1, C-2, and C-3 before he could support this. Mr. Wisniewski stated further in reading this, it seems that we are still bound to help fight an annexation that is within this entire area for perpetuity since there is no end date on this. Mr. Hartmann stated it does say you must use best efforts, and this has not changed from the previous versions. Mr. Hartmann stated it is correct that all the parties use their best efforts together to oppose any person or parties. Mr. Wisniewski stated he has a real problem with us using resources from the City to fight annexations that we may not care about that are in this area. Mr. Sauer stated he thought the intent of that paragraph was to preserve that particular area, that so-called corridor, so that the type of development that occurs in that area is more inclined to office or light industrial development along S.R. 33. He stated in areas where an agreement such as this is not in place it is very easy for that particular land to be annexed or zoned in a particular way where you are going to see the types of uses that are not beneficial to the communities around it, such as residential, storage units, or more retail. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood that, but his point was we were being asked to provide funds to help fight annexations that may occur from a party that is not a part of this JEDD. Mr. Wisniewski stated there are a lot of unincorporated or incorporated communities that surround this area that may want to annex into this area. He stated we would be dedicating our resources, our best efforts, for eternity to fight that. Mr. Hartmann stated he did not view this as putting the City at risk as the annexation agreements did just because the parties that are a part of this agreement are obviously going to be on the other side because you would have Violet Township, Canal Winchester, and Lancaster all with you so who would that leave out there as a municipal corporation that would be pushing it. Mr. Sauer stated there was Bloom Township and Carroll. Mr. Wisniewski stated for example Carroll could offer someone a zero percent income tax for something in this area as an incentive to annex, and Mr. Hansley stated that was correct. Mr. Hartmann stated since Bloom Township has been removed, that would have changed the maps that would be attached to this. Mr. Hartmann stated this document is a JEDD contract, meaning the municipalities have gotten together and figured out how they will divvy this up if, in fact, we have an individual that comes into this area. He stated you cannot get a JEDD created without also having the landowner and the business owner sign a petition that they want to be part of it. He continued that will not be occurring here, and what he will put into the Resolution is that the City Manager will be authorized to enter into this agreement but only when presented with a petition signed by a majority of the property owners and a majority of the business owners in the JEDD area or a portion thereof as outlined in the agreement. Mr. Hartmann stated basically, you would pass enabling legislation and the agreement never gets signed, therefore it is not binding on anyone. He stated it only becomes binding once someone presents a petition that you could then put together along with this agreement and the other necessary documents to send to the State and get approval for that JEDD. Mr. Fix then clarified that when we sign a single JEDD a certain area would kick in, and you would have to draft it that way. Mr. Wisniewski stated once this document is adopted, what would bind anyone from annexing into the area if no JEDD has been requested, and Mr. Hartmann stated it certainly would not prevent anyone from doing that.

Mr. Hartmann stated we have had public hearings on the JEDD, and very little has changed since the last public hearing, but he felt we should have another public hearing and that must be advertised 30-days before the actual adoption of the JEDD. He stated in looking at the calendar if this moves forward tonight, the third reading would be on December 2^nd, and we could schedule the public hearing for prior to Council on December 2, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. to meet the public hearing requirement. Mr. Sauer stated if we hold a public hearing would the other public entities also be required to hold one and Mr. Hartmann stated that he would assume they would and he would talk to them about it. Mayor O’Brien stated we are working with Canal Winchester and both councils are pretty much on the same clock so if one has to stop for something, the other will stop as well. He stated we do not know what the Township has to do procedurally to get on the same schedule.

Mrs. Hammond stated since someone cannot be forced to join a JEDD it does state they need to file a formal, written, legal objection and she assumed that meant they would have to get an attorney to say they do not want to join this. She stated her question was if the means would be provided so they would know they can do that. Mayor O’Brien stated this is a public document they will have access to it. Mr. Hansley stated the objection could be as simple as a notarized statement.

Mr. Wisniewski inquired if his work on this was included in the retainer or was it an additional charge and Mr. Hartmann stated it was an additional charge. Mayor O’Brien stated language was written in the agreement for the Townships to recoup their legal costs and Mr. Wisniewski clarified the City was not included in that. Mayor O’Brien stated the Township had a large investment in starting this process, but since we are leveling the playing field we either need to take out the part where only they can recoup their legal costs or add that we all can. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt it should be inclusive and not take it away from the Township.

Mayor O’Brien summarized that Mr. Hartmann was going to get copies of the Exhibits for everyone to look at, that the language regarding best efforts to fight annexations should include a cap in the amount of $15,000 per municipality for the life of the contract, and check with the other parties about the public hearing. He stated if everything goes on schedule we are looking at having the public hearing on December 2^nd prior to the third reading at Council.

Mr. Wisniewski clarified the Township of where the JEDD is occurring would get 15 percent of the revenue off the top and he would like to make sure that any debt we would incur to improve infrastructure did not exceed what our net would be. Mr. Fix stated he thought that was included, and Mr. Wisniewski inquired if there was a section that limits our debt to be comparable to the benefits we receive from it. Mr. Hartmann stated you did not incur anything; the JEDD Board incurs the debt. Mr. Wisniewski stated he thought it stated in the agreement that all parties that are a part of the JEDD have to agree to any debt that they incur over $5,000. Mayor O’Brien stated someday when we have a JEDD we will negotiate those things, but that is not part of the template. Mrs. Hammond stated the document, in talking about the contracting parties of the JEDD Board, it does state that we will help them obtain financial assistance and those sorts of things but we shall not be required to assume any financial obligation in doing so. Mr. Sabatino inquired if each individual project would be a separate JEDD unto itself with its own JEDD Board, and Mr. Hartmann stated it would probably depend on the proximity to a JEDD that is already set up, would it be worth amending the JEDD to include additional territory that is adjacent to it, it would all depend on the factors presented to you. He stated this could end up being six or seven different JEDDs or it could be one JEDD with a bunch of different amendments so depending on how it all comes together it could go either way. He stated there is no way to tell how the development is going to occur.

Mr. Sauer moved to forward the JEDD Resolution to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr. Hartmann stated he would talk to Canal Winchester’s attorney and coordinate the schedule and then let Mrs. Yartin know to advertise the public hearing for December 2, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. Mr. Fix ascertained Mr. Hartmann would also include the language in the document to cap everyone’s legal fees at $15,000. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

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 an executive session was not needed this evening.

10. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer voted "Aye." Motion carried, 5-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 9:05 P.M., October 15, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk