PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY,
AUGUST 19, 2003
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, August 19, 2003, at City Hall. Mayor Postage called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Roll call was taken as follows: Mr. Wright, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Riggs, and Mayor Postage were present. Mr. Parker was absent. Others present were: Joyce Bushman, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chief Mike Taylor, Jeff Feyko, Jeff Kraus, Mike Maurer, Jennifer Wray, Chiree McCain, Sharon Buccilla, Gary Buccilla, Gail Oakes, Dave Huston, Steve Reade, Tony Barletta, Ian McKinney, Shaun McKinney, Jack Bowman, Wes Monhollen, and others.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 5, 2003, REGULAR MEETING. Mr. Wright moved to approve; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Wright, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Mr. Wright moved to approve; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wright, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
4. COMMUNITY COMMENTS:
A. Mr. Tony Barletta, 671 Montmorency Drive. Mr. Barletta stated once again signatures were collected from residents to get a referendum on the ballot only to be denied on a technicality. He stated he was disappointed as he felt it would have passed overwhelmingly. Mr. Barletta stated citizens went to the trouble to get signatures for petitions because they were fed up with their government, a government that seems more concerned with satisfying developers than satisfying the voters. Mr. Barletta stated it seems all the citizens do is complain that they want something different than what Council is prepared to deliver. Mr. Barletta stated he challenged Council to give the citizens a chance to speak, to put the moratorium on the ballot so those interested enough in voting will have a chance to express themselves, and he was willing to stand by the results.
B. Mr. Rex Myers, 261 Pearl Lane. Mr. Myers stated he would like to respond to Mr. Wright because when people talked about how bad the schools were they were talking about them being overcrowded, not about how bad they were. He stated a recall movement is underway and is way overdue. He stated all we have on S.R. 256 are gas stations, hamburger joints, traffic lights, and houses behind Kroger’s. Mr. Myers stated elections are coming up and they should ask not what taxpayers can do for the city, but what the city can do for the taxpayers. Mr. Myers stated the City Manager and law director have used taxpayers money to try to shut up the public, and developers donated land for the police station, but he questioned how much it cost the taxpayers after roads and tap fees were given away.
C. Mr. Dave Huston, 710 Andrea Lane. Mr. Huston stated he felt it was time the people took the city government back for the citizens as this government is totally out of hand. He stated it has been proven time and time again that the government of Pickerington is for the builders by the builders against the people. Mr. Huston questioned when Council would wake up and start doing something for the community.
D. Mr. Steve Reade, 10416 Wright Road. Mr. Reade stated he has had a chance to look at the draft Community Authority document and he hoped it was, in fact, a draft, as there are a variety of things in there that concern him. Mr. Reade stated he felt that, as a whole, the document pushed the cost of continued development back to new residents and the community as a whole. He stated he felt the developers were committing other people to the costs associated with this, they themselves were not coming forward with their dollars. He continued there are quite a few strings attached where they are trying to circumvent the two units an acre on all the land that would be in the Community Authority. Mr. Reade stated Mr. Hart of the BIA had stated it was delusional to pretend that the new residents can absorb all the costs, and Mr. Reade stated he would respond to Mr. Hart that he was delusional to think that this community, whether new residents or the people that already live here, can continue to subsidize the way the builders have gone about business over the past few years. Mr. Reade stated the builders interests were all business related, they do not live here. Mr. Reade stated a Community Authority could never bear all the costs associated with what it generates in terms of the development that goes on inside it. He stated he felt the builders need to step up to come as close as possible in supporting the schools and the city with the Community Authority, and right now it does not do that. Mr. Reade stated he felt the Community Authority, as it is now written, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He further stated he did not feel the Community Authority concept was ever intended to be a stand alone tool, but rather a component of a larger growth plan for this area. Mr. Reade stated what we have seen over the past six months was a deliberate attempt of the BIA and the developers to manipulate this community and the government entities within the community, to facilitate their own objective, which is to build as much as they can as fast as they can to meet their business interests. Mr. Reade stated he would ask Council to support the ordinance that would put the growth plan back on the ballot so the people could vote on it.
E. Mrs. Sharon Buccilla, 12646 Milnor Road. Mrs. Buccilla stated she would like to respond to an article that was recently printed in one of our local papers, the Southeast Messenger, regarding Hickory Lakes. Mrs. Buccilla stated some of the information printed was accurate and some was not and she would like to set the record straight. Mrs. Buccilla stated there have been many discussions between she and her husband and the City of Pickerington for a very long time. She stated the City did their due diligence in checking out the viability of Hickory Lakes and if the project would be qualified for the EPA program. She stated because of their business situation, they had requested all the information be kept confidential so their business would not be destroyed with hearsay, gossip, etc. Mrs. Buccilla stated this was done until a certain individual felt the need to bring the possibility of the purchase up at a City Council meeting rather than wait for the City to bring it to the people. Mrs. Buccilla stated had this individual contacted her or even the City she would have got the information straight from the beginning, however, that might not fit into the political agendas some people have. Mrs. Buccilla stated their property does not abut the 362 acres now in the appeal process for annexation to the City of Pickerington. Mrs. Buccilla stated she would like to know the political agenda of these people who are spreading untruths. Mrs. Buccilla stated Mr. Shaver has stated he abstained from voting on the contract to purchase Hickory Lakes because of a lack of information and because the process was flawed. Mrs. Buccilla stated Council votes on issues all the time, they ask questions and are prepared before they vote on an issue. Mrs. Buccilla stated she would assume that prior to voting on an issue all Council members would have gotten their questions answered. Mrs. Buccilla stated she hoped residents would know the facts before they sign any petition circulated because so many inaccuracies have been printed. Mrs. Buccilla stated she felt the Pickerington area is being destroyed by those with their own political agendas.
F. Mr. Gary Buccilla, 12646 Milnor Road. Mr. Buccilla stated he would like to address the issue of Hickory Lakes as well. He stated the article in the paper appeared to him to be just a bunch of gossip. He stated Council was well aware of what was going on with Hickory Lakes and everything was above board. Mr. Buccilla stated if the City purchases Hickory Lakes it will have to be preserved, and he would invite everyone out to take a look at the property. Mr. Buccilla stated this purchase would be for the betterment of the community, not just the City, but for the betterment of the community. Mr. Buccilla continued if you don’t know the facts, you should be quiet.
5. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Postage stated there were no consent agenda items.
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
A. SAFETY COMMITTEE. Mr. Fox stated Safety Committee met on August 4th, and the minutes had been distributed. He stated he would answer any questions.
7. REPORTS:
A. MAYOR. Mr. Postage stated he had attended a meeting regarding retention of businesses in the community and a report would be forthcoming. Mr. Postage further stated Mr. Parker had contacted him to let him know he would not be here this evening, but the Community Authority document will be sent to Service Committee for general discussion. Mr. Postage stated it would be Service Committee’s recommendation to forward the appropriate legislation on it to Council.
B. LAW DIRECTOR. Mr. Feyko stated Mr. Mapes is on vacation and he had nothing to report.
C. FINANCE DIRECTOR. Mrs. Fersch stated she would request two readings this evening on the appropriation ordinance, Ordinance 2003-70, as there are some items that need to be taken care of.
D. MANAGER. Mrs. Bushman stated the Manager’s Report had been distributed and she would be happy to answer any questions.
8. PROCEDURAL READINGS:
A. ORDINANCE 2003-76, “AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ON THE ISSUING OF HOUSING PERMITS AND/OR SEWER TAPS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR A PERIOR OF UP TO TWO YEARS AND THE DECLARATION OF IMMEDIATE NECESSITY AND EMERGENCY IN ORDER TO GET THE ISSUE ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT,” First Reading, Shaver. Mr. Shaver moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Mr. Shaver stated this ordinance says just what it intends to say. He stated over 500 citizens signed a petition requesting an ordinance to enact a growth management plan be placed on the ballot. Mr. Shaver stated as our citizens have shown an overwhelming desire to vote on growth management issues, he felt it was important they had the right to do so. Mr. Shaver stated he believed it was incumbent upon Council to, if at all possible, allow that vote. He continued this would not be a vote by Council on the substance of the ordinance, that is irrelevant, the issue was one of democracy. Mr. Shaver further stated the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld moratoriums as an effective planning tool, the State of Ohio has upheld moratoriums as an effective planning tool, and recently the Ohio Attorney General has voiced approval for the concept of a moratorium for Violet Township. Mr. Shaver further stated if there is a commitment to democracy we will see this voted through. Mr. Wright stated he would question if this ordinance would actually put the issue on the ballot or were they enacting a growth management plan, because the title of the ordinance was to enact a growth management plan. Mr. Shaver stated he felt it would have to be amended to state the ordinance would put this issue on the ballot. Mr. Wright stated we currently have a moratorium in place and asked what this one did differently because the only difference he could find was this legislation speaks to two years zero growth instead of one year 100 home growth. Mr. Shaver stated it also puts in a one and one-half percent growth rate, and is a more fleshed out statute. Mr. Wright stated further this legislation states the City of Pickerington would have to retain services of a professional firm to develop a ten year capital improvement plan for the City and the township and he questioned how the City could expend money on a capital improvement plan for the Township. He further stated how does the City do a development plan for the Township and what authority would we have to make them follow that plan. Mr. Shaver stated those questions went to the substance of the argument, and the point was if this is the legislation the citizens want they will vote for it. Mr. Wright stated further the Hudson, Ohio, plan has stood up through the U.S. and the State Supreme Court because they had a legal, valid reason for a moratorium, the lack of water and sewer. He stated the City of Pickerington does not have that. Mr. Shaver stated a valid reason could be as little as needing time to reorganize and come up with a plan. Mr. Wright questioned how this took care of the regional problem and how could the City expend money for the benefit of the Township residents, and Mr. Shaver responded we could engage in regional planning to the extent we want, but we could not force Violet Township to follow that plan. Mr. Wright stated this went further and stated we needed to proceed with the plan, and he did not see how we could proceed with a plan that is developing property in the Township. Mr. Shaver stated we could proceed with the plan with the development that is within the city. Mr. Shaver stated this is an alternative the citizens want to vote upon, and if they want to vote on it they can, and if Mr. Wright wants to campaign against it, that is his prerogative. Mr. Shaver stated if Council does not like the plan they should not deprive everyone of the right to vote on it. Mr. Sabatino clarified Mr. Shaver was asking Council to vote on something without paying attention to what it said, just put it out for everyone to vote on. Mr. Shaver stated this is a perfectly acceptable plan, and no court has declared moratoriums illegal. Mr. Shaver stated again 500 citizens had signed a petition and they should have a right to vote on it and we do regional planning all the time. Mrs. Riggs stated although there may be things we do not like in this ordinance, if it had not been rejected by a technicality, there would be nothing we could do. She stated the issue was not the ordinance, it is whether or not we want to put it out for the citizens because they have asked for it. Mayor Postage stated he would like to state that we do have the first law suit filed by a developer just this last week, and it is against the City and the Attorney General as well. Mr. Fox stated he would not vote for this ordinance because many of the signatures on the petition were gathered before Council passed the moratorium we currently have. He stated the petition was circulated under the idea that Council was not going to pass a moratorium or do anything about growth, but Council did do something, we do have a moratorium, it is 100 houses per year. He stated the situation has changed since the signatures were gathered. Mr. Fox further stated from a policy standpoint, he felt this would destroy any chance we have of coming up with a decent Community Authority, and the school board president has said a Community Authority is the only way to build schools without having to pass another levy. Mr. Fox stated that was important to him, and there is no way a Community Authority could survive under this legislation. Mr. Fox stated he also keeps hearing people say the petition was rejected on a “technicality.” He stated that could be technically correct, however, the bottom line is there are things that are mandatory, not that you may allow, that are mandatory to be done. Mr. Fox stated the State Supreme Court has ruled on this issue and the individual responsible for forwarding these petitions does not have the discretion to ignore that ruling. Mr. Fox stated when these items were rejected, it was based on the law and had nothing to do with Council not allowing the people to vote on issues. Mr. Sabatino stated he could not ignore the content of legislation when voting on it, and his objection was that it had not been through the committee process to have the details worked out. Mr. Shaver stated he felt people should be allowed to vote on alternatives. He further stated he has heard people complain that when they want to go forward with petitions, etc., they would like to have the ability to go to the city law director and obtain his opinion on whether something was sufficient. Mr. Shaver stated he felt not having that ability was a disservice to the citizens. Mayor Postage stated we do have that procedure and he did not think Mr. Mapes would ever reject that request. Mr. Shaver ascertained Mr. Feyko would have no objections to having someone speak to him as well. Mr. Shaver moved to amend the title of Ordinance 2003-76 to read, “An Ordinance to submit to the electors of the City of Pickerington a growth management plan on the issuing of housing permits and/or sewer taps for single family residential units for a period of up to two years and the declaration of immediate necessity and emergency in order to get the issue on the November ballot;” Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Wright, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion to amend passed, 6-0. Roll call was taken on the ordinance as amended with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wright, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Maxey voting “Nay,” and Mr. Shaver and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Motion failed, 4-2.
B. ORDINANCE 2003-70, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2003 APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE 2002-142,” Second Reading, Fox. Mr. Fox moved to adopt; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wright, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0. Mr. Fox moved to suspend the rules for the purpose of a third reading; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Maxey, Mr. Fox, Mr. Wright, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Sabatino, and Mrs. Riggs voting “Yea.” Suspension of Rules passed, 6-0. Third Reading. Mr. Fox moved to adopt; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Wright, Mr. Maxey, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
C. ORDINANCE 2003-71, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTINUE MEMBERSHIP WITH THE CENTRAL OHIO RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION FOR THE TIME PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2003 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2004,” Second Reading, Wright. Mr. Wright moved to adopt; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright, Mr. Shaver, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Fox voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
D. ORDINANCE 2003-72, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE CLEAN OHIO CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR FUNDS TO IMPROVE SIMSBURY PARK AND TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH THE OHIO PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION (OPWC) AS MAY BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE FOR OBTAINING SUCH GRANT,” Second Reading, Wright. Mr. Wright moved to adopt; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Shaver, Mr. Maxey, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
E. ORDINANCE 2003-73, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $3,705,000 OF REVENUE NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENEWING NOTES PREVIOUSLY ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COST OF WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMNTS,” Second Reading, Wright. Mr. Wright moved to adopt; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wright, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
F. ORDINANCE 2003-74, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR AND SIGN SUCH DOCUMENTS AS NECESSARY TO SECURE A STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK LOAN FROM THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DILEY ROAD WIDENING PROJECT,” Second Reading, Wright. Mr. Wright moved to adopt; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wright, Mr. Shaver, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Fox voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
G. ORDINANCE 2003-75, “AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF $400,000 OF NOTES BY THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON, OHIO, IN ANTICIPATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING PART OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND PARTICULARY WIDENING DILEY ROAD IN THE CITY,” Second Reading, Wright. Mr. Wright moved to adopt; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Shaver, Mr. Maxey, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
H. RESOLUTION 2003-17R, “A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STATE ISSUE II PROGRAM AND TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AS REQUIRED,” Second Reading, Maxey. Mr. Maxey moved to adopt; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Wright, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Maxey voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
9. LEGISLATIVE READINGS:
A. ORDINANCE 2003-65, “AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE BID OF THE CENTRAL OHIO BUILDING COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE PAD FOR THE SYCAMORE PARK SKATE PARK FACILITY,” Third Reading, Mr. Sabatino. Mr. Sabatino moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Shaver, Mr. Fox, Mr. Maxey, Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Wright voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
B. ORDINANCE 2003-66, “AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 1482.02 OF THE PICKERINGTON CODIFIED ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO THE BOARD OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT,” Third Reading, Sabatino. Mr. Sabatino moved to adopt; Mrs. Riggs seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Riggs, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Wright, Mr. Maxey, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
C. ORDINANCE 2003-67, “AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT SECTION 1286.32 OF THE PICKERINGTON CODIFIED ORDINANCES DESIGNATING TATTOO AND BODY PIERCING BUSINESSES AS CONDITIONAL USES IN C4 AND M1 DISTRICTS,” Third Reading, Sabatino. Mr. Sabatino moved to adopt; Mr. Wright seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Fox, Mr. Wright, Mr. Maxey, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Riggs, and Mr. Shaver voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.
10. MOTIONS: There were no motions.
11. OTHER BUSINESS: No other business was brought forward.
12. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Wright moved to adjourn; Mr. Fox seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fox, Mr. Shaver, Mr. Wright, Mr. Maxey, and Mrs. Riggs voted “Aye.” Motion carried, 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:38 P.M., August 19, 2003.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
__________________________________
ATTEST:
___________________________________