WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2008

REGULAR MEETING

8:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mrs. Hammond called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders were present. Mr. Wisniewski arrived at 8:30 P.M. Others present were Mayor O’Brien, Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chris Schornack, Ed Drobina, Brenda VanCleave, Bobbi Zelli, Suzanne Messmer, Jan Eichner, Lance Schultz, Molly Schwartz, Brian Maass, Nick LaTorre, Larry Jones, Miriam Segaloff, and others.

2. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 15, 2008, Regular Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. smith, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 29, 2008, Special Meeting. Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

3. 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 she and Mr. Hansley had met with the Franklin County Board of Health today and they will meet with the Fairfield County Health Department. She stated after that meeting she hoped to be able to provide a complete report to this committee at the next meeting.

Mrs. Fersch stated she had requested discussion regarding adding a note issue for the borrowing of $539,000 for the downtown outfall and replacement of the culvert on S.R. 256 to the group that is currently on Council. Mrs. Hammond stated she would like Mrs. Fersch to brief the Committee at this time. Mrs. Fersch stated at the end of the year if the Stormwater Fund has enough of a carry over balance we would use $150,000 for that one part of the borrowing. She stated for the other part of our share of the grant for stormwater downtown outfall we would need to borrow for, and that is $389,000. She stated we would not be going out for the borrowing until mid-January so at that point in time we can change the amount. She stated it made more sense to have everything together in the bid package. Mr. Fix clarified both of the projects are in the CIP for 2009, and Mrs. Fersch was recommending if we were going to borrow anyway it would be better to have all of the notes together. Mr. Fix further clarified since the other ten notes have had two readings, this note issue would need all three readings at the next Council meeting. Mrs. Fersch further stated the new ordinance combining all eleven of the notes could be amended by substitution for the one currently at council. Mr. Fix clarified we would be able to make some payment out of stormwater, but the amount would depend upon the impact fees that come in. Mr. Fix moved to approve the note issue borrowing of $539,000; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

Mr. Fix moved to approve the draft ordinance consolidating up to eleven bond anticipation note issues to Council; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2008 appropriation, Ordinance 2007-85. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a draft appropriation for review and she had added one additional appropriation under the Cover TIF for payment of funds for the roadway as per the Equity TIF agreement. Mr. Sabatino clarified the appropriation for legal fees under the Diley Road Improvement Fund was in for eminent domain proceedings and was in addition to the $175,000 amount she had already provided to him. Mrs. Fersch stated this is for fees that are projected in the future and some are ones that Mr. Hartmann had already informed Council about but she did not have the funds in Contractual Services. Mr. Sabatino clarified Mrs. Fersch felt this was approximately an additional $20,000. Mr. Sauer questioned why Walgreen’s would be using County water since they are in the City. Mr. Hansley clarified we have an agreement with the County that we provide service to the area behind the Stonecreek development that would have been served by the County and they provide service to the Refugee Road/S.R. 256 corner. Mr. Hansley further stated we actually gain on the agreement by serving an office client, which will ultimately be a larger water consumer, Lifestyle Fitness, and everything on that new road. Mr. Fix clarified with regard to the Cover TIF, according to the agreement Council recently passed; we would pay them a percentage of what we owe them based on the timeframe being done. He stated we would not give them the full amount of what they would be entitled if they had met the deadline. Mr. Smith moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

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) Mrs. Hammond stated she would like to address this later on the agenda as Mr. Wisniewski is attending the DARE graduation and will arrive shortly.

4. 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 Chief Taylor has recommended the hiring of an individual to replace the dispatcher that is retiring.

5. CHAIRMAN:

A. Review and request for motion to approve proposed 2009 Budget. Mrs. Hammond stated she would like to move this item to the end of agenda as well.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Pickerington Local School District Board Meeting – Update. Mrs. Sanders stated she did not attend the last School Board meeting as she was at Safety Committee that evening and she did not have anything to report.

B. Review and request for recommendation regarding Rule (3) Impact Fee Waiver Request. Mr. Schultz stated the last he heard from the applicant they were retaining an attorney to represent them on this issue. Mrs. Hammond stated she would like this item continued on the agenda for next month.

C. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the General Fee Schedule for the City of Pickerington. Mr. Hansley stated the major change in the ordinance is that a paragraph has been included that fees can be changed administratively by notifying Finance Committee and ultimately Council. He stated should Council disagree with the proposed administrative change, they could then change it back. Mr. Smith stated he understood a major increase was the cost of fingerprint fees by the Police Department, and Mr. Hansley stated that was correct. Mr. Hansley stated further this was a pass through because our costs have increased. Mr. Smith further clarified that this paragraph would allow fees to be added when necessary and they would be reported to Council within 30 days. Mrs. Yartin stated each department had reviewed the current fee schedule and adjusted any that were necessary. She stated the increases were largely just to cover the cost of the service. Mr. Sabatino clarified that Mr. Hansley was comfortable with the fees listed in the schedule. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Wisniewski abstaining, and Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-0.

Mrs. Hammond stated at this point she would return to item 3.C. on the agenda.

3. 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. Sauer moved to remove from the Table; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sauer, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 6-1.

Mr. Fix clarified that based on this proposal and based on the fact that our tax remains at one percent, the projected savings we could save by using RITA would be somewhere between $61,000 to $75,000 with an average of $68,000. Mr. Wisniewski stated in speaking to Ms Eichner, the income tax budget was being reduced by reducing the hours of the part-time tax clerk. Mr. Schornack stated the income tax budget for 2009 went up to $308,000 as opposed to 2008 when it was a $278,000 budget. Mr. Schornack stated with reductions the budget has been brought down to $275,000. Mr. Wisniewski stated then that would be $9,000 off of the savings that could be expected so that adjustment should be made. Mr. Wisniewski stated he has dealt with a number of third party administrators where some things are outsourced. He stated they promise to save dollars by administering programs and when actually working with them it is nearly impossible to get anything done and the cost savings were paper only because of the additional difficulties caused by it, and he viewed this in the same light. Mr. Wisniewski stated he has nothing but respect for our tax department and the work they do, and the faces they are to our community. He stated he has probably received more compliments for them as a division, outside of when we have a huge snow and our service department is out. Mr. Wisniewski stated when people are paying their taxes, which is something you don’t want to do to begin with, many people who have come in with a bad attitude and have left with a greater respect and appreciation for the service they have received. Mr. Wisniewski stated we provide excellent customer service and he would almost guarantee if we went with RITA we would not get anything close to the customer service we have now. He stated he would question if that would be worth $50,000, and he did not feel it was. Mr. Wisniewski further stated the savings is based on guesstimates until we actually get the process in place and understand the number of transactions that we have. He stated if those transactions are off by a factor of ten percent we could have a greater savings or it could be worse. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had no intention of supporting this and he did not believe we were in such a budget situation where we had to cut services to our residents by leaps and bounds. Mr. Wisniewski stated he has spoken to accountants in our area who have dealt with both our tax department and with RITA and who have nothing but praise for the ladies in our tax department. He stated one had stated he had a client who had just received their tax refund from RITA and two weeks later received a notice they had not paid any taxes. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we would go with this, lose our experience in-house, and we find it was a bad idea we would be going through significant pain to try and get it back in-house.

Mr. Smith stated he agreed with Mr. Wisniewski completely and is against this proposal. Mr. Smith stated he has had experience with outsourcing and none of them have delivered any savings. He stated he also felt our customer service would go in the basement and he is suspect of transaction based fees because usually those are used to find ways of adding costs as opposed to savings. Mr. Smith continued that he also did not believe there was the necessity at this time that moves us to this point and a budget savings of $50,000 more or less was not going to change our budget condition one way or another. Mr. Smith stated again he is completely against this.

Mr. Brian Maass stated he is a resident of the City and he is against this proposal, and he feels the customer service is important because the citizens should be treated with respect and given the guidance they need to do their taxes. Mr. Maass stated we have a confusing situation with the City income tax and the school district tax. Mr. Maass continued he has enjoyed working with the tax department and even if you are wrong and have made a mistake, at least you have someone that will talk to you and that would not happen with RITA.

Mrs. Hammond stated she agrees with Mr. Wisniewski and Mr. Smith and she has had personal experience with RITA and she did not get a lot of assistance from them. She stated as far as customer service she did not feel anyone could beat our department.

Mayor O’Brien stated he was in agreement with everyone who has spoken so far and before making a decision he would like to encourage Council to bring in people who have dealt with RITA. He continued that he has been told in dealing with Pickerington you can speak to a knowledgeable and helpful person and with RITA you get referred to a web site and a form to download. Mayor O’Brien stated further he would encourage Council to speak with communities who have left RITA and find out why they left and who were considering going with RITA and then did not. Mayor O’Brien stated he has been reporting tax collections that have been done in Mayor’s Court in coordination with the tax department and they have been doing a great job and are continuing to do better. Mayor O’Brien stated since we lost the tax issue we have to make cuts, and staff brought recommendations for those cuts to Finance, and those were done. Mayor O’Brien stated he did not feel it was Council’s position to tell them they need to make more cuts, it is staff’s job to live within their means and the money they have. He stated he felt Council should give the staff a dollar amount to cut and let them bring back a proposal. He stated he did not feel Council should tell staff specifically to cut income tax, or to cut something else; they have to run the City and be responsible for it.

Ms Eichner stated she has spoken to five of the seven cities that left RITA and the sixth city left because they did away with their tax and the seventh city only had 500 residents and she was unable to find a contact there. Ms Eichner stated all of the other five cited the cost as one of the reasons for leaving, they felt they could do it in-house for less cost, and customer service was always mentioned. She stated some had also left by popular demand of the citizens.

Mr. Sabatino stated he did not understand the Mayor’s comments that staff had made cuts and that was all we needed to do. He stated a few weeks ago they were hearing was that the sky was falling if the income tax doesn’t pass; it doesn’t pass and we’re making cuts to take care of 2009, but he was led to believe we need to do something beyond that because in 2010 we will have a worse situation than we have now. He stated for the record he would like to know if that was correct or not. Mayor O’Brien stated he was only saying to give staff the “what” not the “how.” If we want a cut, tell them we want a cut, make a motion to cut a dollar amount out of the budget, take a vote and let them to the how. He stated that was staff’s job and he did not feel it was council’s job.

Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt we need to get our financial advisors back in because a lot of the 2010 sky falling was based on converting everything to bonds. He stated things were being cut out of the budget this year that probably would not be going back in to the 2010 budget unless we have some other tax issue. He stated he felt there were other things Council needs to look at as he felt the citizens spoke pretty clearly that they do not want to support general government. He stated that is what he heard from it. He stated we tried to give them everything and it didn’t seem like they really wanted everything. Mr. Wisniewski stated there are three options as to why the tax issue failed: (1) They didn’t understand it – which is the easy cop out for council to say because then that means it was just not explained right versus they don’t want it. (2) They don’t believe in bigger government. (3) They just don’t want to support across the board and we failed to either deliver the message or talk about it in some fashion. Mr. Wisniewski stated there are a number of issues that could be discussed, would the citizens support the police department and if so maybe we could offload a lot of that from general fund onto a property tax levy. He stated we could also restructure our debt for Diley Road as that is a huge thing coming up, $725,000 a year and a $3,000,000 balloon at the end. He stated we could structure that to a 30-year loan, maybe get a higher interest rate, and save somewhere in the vicinity of $250,000 to $125,000 depending on the interest rate. He stated there are other options Council has available, and the citizens spoke so it is up to Council to get the financial advisors together and come up with how 2010 is looking.

Mr. Sabatino stated then did that mean we did not really need the income tax increase. Mrs. Hammond stated it meant that we needed the income tax increase to keep everything that we offer status quo, we didn’t get it, so we are offering less and we may have to offer even less in the future. Mr. Sabatino stated there were other money issues that did pass, the Senior Levy and the Meals On Wheels levy. He stated he is a little confused, did we really need to do the income tax or didn’t we? He stated everyone knew his position on that, he didn’t really think we needed to. He stated he felt he was hearing a mixed message now with someone saying the residents are not looking for bigger government and all the income tax was supposed to do, according to what he read, was to maintain services. He stated he is having a little trouble digesting what he is hearing this evening.

Mr. Hansley stated we spent several hours last week cutting things out of the budget that were not additions to a basic budget. He stated we are not paving any streets, we are maintaining some of our cruisers that by the end of the year will have over 100,000, and we have at least six positions short starting the year and we will continue the hiring freeze. He stated we took $1.5 million out of the proposed 2009 budget and we have not added dramatically to the budget since 2005 as far as paving and other additions to the general fund part of our budget. He stated we have not reduced debt, we are paying interest only, and that was one of the planks of the increase, so we could start paying principal as well as interest, and with knowing that it seemed Mr. Sabatino has not accepted anything about how dire the budget is. Mr. Hansley stated last week staff tried to get you a budget that was in balance for the 2009 budget year and telling you that in 2009 you still had to address it by making further cuts in the middle of 2009 or put something on the ballot in the spring or fall. He stated if it did not go on the ballot or went on the ballot and failed there would be additional cuts out of a bare bones budget through the middle of 2009. Mr. Hansley stated the ideal thing would be for council to say the tax failed, we are still going to be $1 million short in our 2010 budget, staff give us another list of where we can cut $1 million. Mr. Hansley stated we could give you the list and if that is not acceptable to council then, through the same process used last week, council would add to or trim that list and it would become the budget when council said it was the budget. He stated it is still council’s job to make that final decision, but Mayor O’Brien is saying you should use the staff you have to give you a recommended list to keep you in balance. Mr. Hansley stated ultimately council has to make the cuts or choose not to make the cuts staff recommended. Mr. Sabatino stated he was responding to the Mayor’s comments that we have made the cuts and we are good to go. He stated he did not think we are and he is hearing a couple of different things and is having trouble understanding just what the real message is. He stated from what he heard he believes we do need to have more cuts and need to look at things going forward. Mr. Sabatino stated that was part of why the Expense Subcommittee had looked at things and made this recommendation to bring before council. He stated the point he was trying to make was he was have a little trouble with the fact that we made these cuts and now everything is fine and he didn’t think it was. Mr. Sabatino stated we need more money or we need less expenses, one of the two.

Mr. Fix stated the savings from RITA would not make or break the budget in 2009, 2010, or whatever. He stated he is an advocate for saving every dollar we can, but the he did not feel the question should be about the money. Mr. Fix stated the parts of the presentation that RITA brought to us were the efficiencies they have because they are a bigger organization than we are, their ability to tap into the IRS and their data base and collect taxes we do not know exist. He stated you have to weigh that against obvious differences in customer service and clearly we have great customer service here. He stated this would be a difficult choice for all council members, the efficiencies of a bigger organization versus the hometown customer service we all appreciate here. He stated he did not feel the debate should be only about the money because Mr. Wisniewski is right, we don’t know what the savings will be. He stated the question would be if we want to maintain our customer service level or do we want to have what they presented as a more efficient, better tax collection system. Mr. Smith stated he was not convinced that we are not already collecting all of the taxes. Mr. Fix stated he was only saying that the ability to tap into the IRS data base, which they have and we do not, would provide us with information that he believed would allow us to collect more taxes.

Mr. Sauer stated Reynoldsburg has the same situation as we do with the city tax and the school district tax, and RITA handles them. Mr. Sauer further stated numerous communities were surveyed when we initially looked at this and the overwhelming response was positive. He stated a number of questions were asked regarding things such as customer service, collection rates, did collections go up or down, how much did they pay, etc. Mr. Sauer stated their recommendation was to retain an on-site tax administrator so that position would be retained and that individual would be in city hall. He stated further RITA had stated they would send individuals to our community during tax season and they have a web site feature so you can pay your taxes on line. Mr. Sauer stated in the survey a number of communities indicated the collections increased and the IRS capability has been added since then so that would add to the ability to tap into other data bases to see if we are collecting everything that is available. Mr. Sauer continued RITA is a not for profit organization and is an entity of a number of communities around the State of Ohio that has banded together to form this organization to do this in a more efficient manner. He stated with regard to the savings, obviously we do not know exactly what they may or may not be. He stated we do know a range of $52,000 to $66,000 and if it falls into that range he has heard comments that that is not significant. He stated if you add that amount to another amount where there may be savings, and this year we are looking at cutting our snowplowing by $97,000. He stated if we were able to save the $52,000 to $66,000, that is more than half of that cost, so all of a sudden we have found half of the money potentially available to do that snow plowing and to perform that service. He stated we are also cutting $380,000 out of paving this year, and if we aren’t going to find ways to be more efficient and save money here and there, we aren’t going to find that money all in one swoop. He stated that money has to be added together from somewhere and a little here, a little there, that money adds up over time. Mr. Sauer stated we do not have a tax increased that has passed, and we do not know if a tax increase is going to pass, and we don’t know when we are going to go back out to the ballot because we have yet to have that discussion. Mr. Sauer stated the point he would make is that the citizens were extremely clear on this and he felt they were telling council, like them, to tighten their belts and find a way to be more efficient with their dollars and find a way to get more done with less. Mr. Sauer stated he felt RITA would be getting more done with less.

Mr. Wisniewski stated, as he understood it then, in going with RITA we would be laying off two people from our tax department. Mr. Fix stated the ordinance provided by Mr. Hansley states those two people would be retained. Mr. Wisniewski stated then that would mean zero savings. Mr. Hansley stated if you decide to go with RITA, and approve the ordinance provided tonight, then in essence we have already saved part of the money by the staff imposed hiring freeze. Mr. Hansley stated those jobs are vacant so it would be a savings in the income tax fund. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood that, but if we go with RITA would our budget go up or down from where it is right this minute? Mr. Hansley stated he would answer by saying if you lay off two people you would have to pay unemployment insurance for a six month period, so that decreased the savings in the first year. Mr. Hansley stated by placing these individuals in the vacant positions we would not be paying that unemployment insurance. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood that, but it would still reduce the savings. Mr. Sauer stated from his view if you went with RITA and moved the staff to different positions that would be a good move because you would be making one department more efficient and you are filling an essential vacancy that wouldn’t be filled and perhaps increasing service in another area, but you are not increasing the budget to fulfill that task. He stated further one individual may be moved into a position that is covered by the water or sewer fund in which case that cost would not come out of the general fund anyway. Mr. Sauer stated you would still be collecting taxes, you would still have an on-site tax administrator, you would still have customer service, and you would be moving individuals into areas that may not be getting serviced all without increasing the budget.

Mr. Sabatino stated he felt there were two separate issues, one determining whether to go with RITA or not and the second is looking at the humanitarian thing of accommodating people where we have vacancies. He stated at the end of the day, if you go down that road, you have a more efficient tax department. Mr. Sabatino stated this was identified when Council decided to have two subcommittees of Finance, one looking at expenses and one looking at revenue, and other things were identified as well. Mr. Sabatino stated in that process RITA came to us and they made a presentation that made sense to the subcommittee that would allow us to modernize our tax department. Mr. Sabatino stated he was not saying we had bad people or bad service, he was saying there may be a more efficient way to do things.

Mr. Fix stated as he recalled the Administrative Code requires the Committee to put this forward to Council with either an affirmative or negative on it and Council would then vote on it. He stated the option tonight would be to move it forward to Council as either recommended or not recommended or to put it back on the Table.

Mrs. Sanders stated she supports RITA because she thinks technology has changed and as much as she hated to see the little town of Pickerington grow into a city, it has. She stated this has pros and cons because it is good to be a city, but it was really good to be little Pickerington. She stated she agrees with Mr. Hansley and the Mayor that we need to trust our staff and if at this point they do not feel this need we have to trust them. She stated council represents the citizens and staff works for the citizens and for Council. Mrs. Sanders moved to forward to Council with the ordinance provided this evening; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond stated for clarification the motion has been made to forward this to Council and the vote would reflect whether it was recommended or not. Mrs. Yartin stated that was correct, if the majority voted “Nay,” it would go forward as not recommended and if the majority voted “Aye” it would go forward as recommended. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. smith, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion failed, 4-3. (Clerk’s Note: This item will be forwarded to Council from Finance Committee as not recommended)

Finance Committee recessed at 9:35 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 9:50 P.M.

Mrs. Hammond stated she would move to item 5.A. on the agenda.

5. A. Review and request for motion to approve proposed 2009 Budget. Mrs. Hammond stated everyone had received a copy of the proposed budget information with the amendments made that was approved at the last Finance meeting. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did intend to speak with the dog warden because he had questions about the numbers they provided at the last meeting. He stated he could not believe there were only two entities in Fairfield County that donated money to them, and why our services would be cut if we did not donate money to them when the other 14 entities did not give them funds. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would be willing to split the cost with Violet Township, but he just wanted to make everyone aware of that. Mr. Hansley stated he felt she was speaking about the Pickerington community because she mentioned Park Place, and Mr. Wisniewski stated he agreed with that because 180 calls would mean that every other day out of the year they were here in the City of Pickerington only. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not see a problem with asking the Township to split the cost and providing $2,000 from each entity. Mr. Sauer suggested we just cut the amount to $2,000 and let them approach Violet Township. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would agree to that. Mr. Wisniewski moved to reduce the dog warden donation to $2,000; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mr. Sabatino stated if we didn’t have the dog warden, who would we call and even if the number of calls they have in Pickerington is half what they said, it was still a good deal. He stated he would be more inclined to say council should encourage Mr. Hansley or someone from staff to contact Violet Township to see if they would help out, but he did not feel we should cut the little bit we give them. Mr. Wisniewski stated this is a County service, and Mr. Hansley stated the County turns over to them all fines and license fees but does not provide them any space, utilities, etc., so they are the County dog service by virtue of that. He stated they do not get any money in the County budget, but they do get all of the fines and license fees. Mr. Wisniewski stated his point was they service Carroll, Baltimore, Violet Township, Amanda, and all the other communities who are not giving anything to them, so he felt it was not unreasonable to ask that it be spread out a little. Mr. Smith stated he felt giving them a little more notice would be appropriate and putting them on notice now that our funding next year would be cut to $2,000 would be more appropriate than just cutting it now. Mr. Fix stated he felt ultimately this is a County function and Mr. Hansley stated under the ORC the County does have the primary responsibility for stray dogs. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith and Mr. Sabatino voting “Nay,” and Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-2.

Mr. Sauer inquired if once this is moved forward would there be any further discussion on the budget at all. Mr. Hansley stated this will go forward as the budget and there will be an appropriation ordinance on top of it so you will have three readings and just like any other ordinance you can always have discussion at that time. Mr. Sauer stated his question was at this point right now when is the best time to discuss line items? Mrs. Hammond stated now would be the time to do it. Mr. Sauer stated he would like to know the cost to pave one of our neighborhoods. Mr. Drobina stated Mr. Sauer had asked him for a cost and, for example, Melrose Subdivision has 22,015 feet of paved street with an average width of 27 feet, and the estimated cost to mill six feet from the curb on both curbsides, put down a tack coat and overlay with 1.5 inches of pavement is $507,200. Ms VanCleave stated further ADA upgrades would be required. Mr. Drobina stated in 2004 we paid $37.40 per ton for asphalt, in 2007 we paid $52.75, and the cost today is $77.00 per ton. Mr. Hansley stated there is also a worldwide shortage of blacktop predicted into the 2010 timeframe. Mr. Wisniewski clarified with the reduction in the budget all we will be doing is crack sealing, which we weren’t doing before. Mr. Drobina stated that was correct, we did no crack sealing this year. Mr. Hansley stated some of that $20,000 would also be kept in reserve for emergency pavement replacement if something caved in or we had a major pothole develop, etc. Mr. Drobina stated to put it into perspective, Shelley Company quoted if we had one mile of road, 32-feet wide, we wanted to overlay with 1.75 inches of pavement it would cost $141,600. Mr. Sauer stated his other question was with regard to snowplowing. He stated he understood it would cost approximately $97,000 to reinstate that program and in looking over the budget there were some things he noticed that he was curious about. He stated for instance there was still a lot of office furniture and equipment in there and he was curious to see if that was really still in there or was some of it cut out. Mrs. Fersch stated the Building Department had removed office furniture from their budget and Mr. Hansley stated the $9,000 for furniture discussed in the last meeting was taken out. Mr. Hansley stated anything that is not a required expense and any minor capital item that we can delay; we can control that and plan to delay it until the last quarter of the year. Mr. Sauer stated he would like to make sure that if that type of stuff is in there, and administratively you can control that, he did not see the point in keeping those numbers in there if you are not planning on spending it anyway and not providing the service of plowing the streets. He stated that is what he would like to know, if that is real, fiction or a figment of his imagination. Mr. Fix asked Mr. Hansley to clarify what our snowplowing policy would be this year. Mr. Hansley stated our goal is to save as much salt, fuel, and overtime as possible compared to what we did in the past. He stated our policy in the past was to plow every street curb to curb, and salt every street in town as soon as possible after a snowstorm. He stated we were very aggressive and were noted for our snowplowing. He continued that policy would be very costly as the price of salt is up dramatically, and although fuel costs are coming down our overtime rates are up because by contract our union people are getting a 3.5 percent pay raise. He continued our goal was to try and save as much of that as we can by not plowing side streets on weekends and evenings if at all possible. He stated we plan to plow one major thoroughfare through each subdivision so they can get from their subdivision onto a main artery. Mr. Hansley stated every storm is different, it depends on the time of day, the wind, the temperature, or whatever, and we will try to avoid getting out there with a two inch snow storm we will not plow the subdivisions. He stated if there were 3.5 inches with heavy winds, real cold weather and a school day, we would be in the subdivisions. Mr. Hansley stated he and Mr. Drobina would meet on weekends and evenings and assess it without making a dangerous situation. He continued they will rate each storm and try to save money as opposed to giving the highest possible service as we used to. He stated the main thoroughfares would still be plowed on weekends and on overtime rates. Mr. Hansley stated this is a compromise because we will plow one main road in the subdivisions and we will plow the side streets so it is not unsafe, and that will be a judgment call storm-by-storm. Mr. Hansley stated whatever budget council adopts, within reason; staff will still under spend that budget. Mr. Sauer stated he would like some clarification on some things, but he will get with staff on those. Mr. Hansley stated to clarify for everyone the Charter states that the staff budget as proposed and amended is not adopted by December 31^st, if council does not adopt something other than that, then that budget goes into effect. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve the 2009 budget as proposed and amended; 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.

Mr. Fix moved to schedule a public hearing on the proposed and amended 2009 Budget for 7:15 P.M., December 2, 2008; 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.

Mrs. Hammond stated returning to the agenda, there were two items remaining for discussion.

6. D. Review and discussion regarding Process to hire City Engineer. Mrs. Hammond stated the Committee had received a memorandum with a proposed process to hire a City Engineer. Mr. Sabatino stated under the proposed duties listed he would like to request that the supervision of the staff engineer be added as a duty. Mr. Fix clarified that currently the staff engineer is supervised by the Development Director/City Manager. Mr. Hansley stated the only thing that would be a little problematic is that the City Engineer, by Charter, is an employee of Council and the staff engineer, by Charter, works for the City Manager, and there would have to be some wording such as “at the direction of the City Manager supervise the staff engineer” or something like that. Mr. Fix stated he liked the way the process was put together and Mr. Wisniewski stated he would personally like to see traffic and roadway not be such a high portion of this and directed what we were going to hire. Mr. Hansley stated he thought everyone agreed that the maximum bang for the buck was to compliment with the new engineer what we don’t have currently on staff. Mr. Hansley stated our staff engineer’s strong suit is utility engineering and the main thing we do with Stilson is traffic engineering. He stated with this particular proposal they were trying to recognize that, and if we hired someone who is a generalist but whose area of expertise would be traffic, that would give us the utility and the traffic in-house, and we would still have to contract out for whatever gap we had, and that is why this particular process was heavily geared toward traffic and transportation issues. Mr. Wisniewski stated then, the Category B that Stilson does for us entails any project that we cannot do in-house. Mr. Hansley stated further Category B involves any project that we cannot do in-house, and under today’s format anything that cannot be done in house or is not covered by the retainer, so anything beyond our staff engineer’s capabilities today becomes a Category B project and we pay for that by the hour. Mr. Wisniewski stated we have one traffic project going on and he couldn’t understand why our Category B for traffic is so high. Ms VanCleave stated any time there is a glitch in the system we need to have Stilson come down and physically open up the boxes and figure out the problem. She stated if a loop goes down, Mr. Seaman comes down and figures out which loop and why. Mr. Hansley stated further how often did Safety or Service Committees want something studied about speed limits or traffic control, etc. Mr. Wisniewski stated we are going to the next phase of the ACS light system and that should remove a lot of the issues on the loops breaking, etc. Mr. Hansley stated if we had a person in house that could at least do some of that or at least coordinate with the Category B engineer and keep the costs down. He stated that is balance we were trying to achieve. Mr. Sabatino stated in looking at the proposed contract we were cutting $7,500 out of the retainer, but we were adding the expense of the in-house city engineer. Mr. Hansley stated the next item on tonight’s agenda was a temporary contract until you decide about a full time city engineer. Mr. Sabatino stated he read the proposal as three one-year terms. Mr. Wisniewski stated he understood there was every intention of Stilson being on a month-by-month basis, and Mr. Hansley stated that was correct. Mr. Hansley stated Stilson had also looked at ways to reduce the retainer to give you the other option of not hiring a full time engineer and take a lower retainer. Mr. Sabatino stated what he was trying to understand was with what we would still pay Stilson and hired an engineer in-house, would we actually save anything. Mr. Hansley stated once you have a full-time engineer on staff as the City Engineer, you do not need the retainer any more, but you need to budget for some Category B to cover the gap between the two people on staff. He stated his memo had stated we would save in the range of $50,000 to $100,000 and have a higher level of service. Mr. Fix questioned what was needed from this committee tonight, and Mr. Hansley stated the committee could adopt this process and direct staff to begin to do their due diligence and run the ads, etc. Mrs. Hammond stated assuming we were going to adopt this process and hire a city engineer, we still need to adopt the month-to-month contract with Stilson, and Mr. Hansley stated that was correct. Mr. Hansley stated this process was requested by the Committee and it could be referred back to Rules, Finance, or whatever or adopted as it is. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt this should be referred to Service Committee to review as they are the ones that work with these issues more than anyone else, and it could be fine tuned there. Mr. Hansley stated that would be a very appropriate thing to do. Mr. Sabatino moved to refer the proposed City Engineer hiring process to Service Committee for review and under the proposed duties to include the language regarding supervision of the staff engineer; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mrs. Sanders. Motion passed, 7-0. Mr. Smith stated he would like to clarify that this would come out of Service and go to Council, it would not come back to Finance. Mr. Hansley stated that was correct. Mr. Wisniewski further stated the Employee Pay Plan would have to be amended to include this position, and Mr. Hansley stated that could be done at a later time.

E. Review and discussion regarding draft contract between the City of Pickerington and W.E. Stilson Consulting Group, LLC, for professional engineering services. Mr. Hansley stated the draft proposal had been provided for the Committee’s review. Mr. Sabatino inquired if this had been negotiated with the City, and Mr. Hansley stated Stilson’s contract is coming due and they had to submit something. He stated they were trying to come under the present number, take out some duties, but he has not negotiated with Stilson. Mr. Hansley stated he did not have clear direction as to whether the Committee wanted him to continue negotiating, if the Committee would do it, or if the Committee wanted to send it to Council for further discussion. Mr. Sabatino clarified there has been some discussion with Stilson and the City staff, and this is their first proposal. Mr. Fix stated he felt it would be appropriate for the City Manager to negotiate with Stilson and come back to Finance with a recommendation. Mr. Hansley stated he could do that. Mr. Fix moved to authorize the City Manager to continue negotiations with Stilson and bring a final proposal back to Committee; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. 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.

Mr. Hansley stated there was also the law director’s contract that seems to have been lost in the shuffle. He stated it was presented to the Expense Subcommittee and it was not moved forward. Mr. Fix stated perhaps that could come be on the agenda for the next Finance Committee meeting. Mr. Hansley stated the issue is that the current contract expires at the end of December. Mrs. Hammond stated the December Finance Committee meeting falls after the last Council meeting of the year. Mrs. Fersch stated we have end of the year last minute clean up items for appropriations and we have always moved the last Finance meeting so it falls before the final Council meeting of the year. Mr. Sabatino clarified that the law director contract must have three readings to avoid a gap in service, however, he was not in favor of passing the contract as an emergency. Mr. Wisniewski stated the Committee could forward the contract from Committee this evening so it would be on the December 2^nd Council meeting and if three readings were done then it would be effective on January 2^nd. Mr. Wisniewski clarified when the Expense Subcommittee reviewed the contract they did not have any problems with it. Mr. Hansley distributed copies of the proposed contract to all Committee members for their review. Mrs. Hammond stated the Finance Committee agenda on December 10^th would be very abbreviated to allow time for the work session/retreat. Mr. Sabatino stated he would suggest moving the contract out of Committee this evening and if any council member had any questions or concerns on the proposed contract they could contact Mr. Hansley and discuss those issues. He further stated if there were no questions or concerns then he would support suspending the rules for multiple readings at the December 2^nd Council meeting.

Mr. Fix moved to forward the law director contract to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 7-0.

Mr. Fix moved to schedule the December Finance Committee meeting for December 10, 2008, at 6:30 P.M., and have the Council Work Session/Retreat immediately following Finance Committee; Mr. Wisniewski 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.

7. 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.

8. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Smith moved to adjourn; Mr. Fix seconded the motion. Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Sauer voted "Aye." Motion carried, 7-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 10:55 P.M., November 19, 2008.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk