WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 2009

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Wisniewski called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Wisniewski were present. Mr. Fix and Mrs. Sanders were absent as they were both out of town. Others present were Mayor O’Brien, Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chief Taylor, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 4, 2009, Regular Meeting. Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

3. FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

A. Finance Director’s Report. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a written report to the Committee and she would answer any questions. Mrs. Fersch stated she had attended a meeting on Monday regarding the budget for the Fairfield County Department of Health. She stated the budget was approved as submitted, but they still need to come up with funding for their septic program and they hoped the District Advisory Committee would approve charging per inspection. She stated it was asked if the City left, how would the $788,000 budget be affected. She stated our $90,000 would not be passed on to the other entities, they would have to lay off a couple of people. She stated this amount is actually larger because they receive inspection fees from the restaurants, pools, spas, etc. in the City. Mr. Wisniewski stated Mrs. Fersch’s report indicates they will proposing a contract with a fee of $80,000 and our current fee is $89,961. Mr. Wisniewski further clarified the proposed fee from Franklin County Board of Health is about $82,000. Mrs. Fersch stated the Franklin County fee was based on $5.82 per capita. Mrs. Fersch stated during a meeting attended by Mayor Smith, Mr. Hirsch, Mr. Martin, Mr. Vandervort, Mr. Fix, Mr. Hansley, and herself, she suggested a flat fee be charged and not to look at per capita. She stated she made this suggestion because the population figures from MORPC and Ohio Department of Development are not the same. She stated then negotiations could start this summer for 2011. Mr. Sabatino inquired what basis was used to come up with the $80,000 other than coming under the Franklin County cost. Mrs. Fersch stated it was just that everyone around the table felt $80,000 would be an equitable amount. Mr. Sabatino stated we should be given a price based upon what it costs to service us, not just a low ball price to get the business. Mrs. Fersch stated Fairfield County had proposed $5.73 per capita, but the question was which population number we would use. Mr. Wisniewski clarified Franklin County based their fee on the MORPC 2007 population number and what it would cost to serve us. Mr. Wisniewski further clarified the Franklin County proposal was for 2010 only. Mr. Wisniewski questioned again how the $80,000 figure was arrived at for Fairfield County and Mrs. Fersch stated she had suggested using a flat fee and Mr. Fix had suggested $80,000, and everyone around the table agreed. Mr. Sabatino questioned if the MORPC figure was good enough for Franklin County to use, why was it such a dilemma for Fairfield County to use it as well, and Mrs. Fersch stated she did not know. Mr. Wisniewski stated what bothered him was that the $80,000 figure was at the request of our Council President, it is strictly a one year fee, and we do not know what they will base it on after that. Mrs. Fersch stated after that it would depend on the City of Pickerington, the City of Lancaster, and the District Advisory Council because the contract will end for 2010. Mr. Wisniewski stated if we had a County Health Department that was not based on a merger, what would be our options for 2011. Mrs. Fersch stated it would be to go, based on a per capita basis, with Franklin County or Fairfield County, and the District Advisory Council in both counties would have to approve the contract. Mr. Sabatino stated it appeared to him that the Fairfield County District Advisory Council was dysfunctional and Franklin County’s was more stable, and there are many other suburbs that are already doing business with Franklin County. He stated it seemed to him that Franklin County had a history of doing these contracts and this would be the first one for Fairfield. Mr. Wisniewski stated his concern was what our options would be for 2011 if Fairfield turned back to a County Department rather than this merger type of thing. Mr. Wisniewski stated this $80,000 with Fairfield County troubled him because the figure came out of the blue, we would be entering into a contract with them that they have never done before, we would have to get the approval of the District Advisory Council that rarely meets, and have them approve it. Mayor O’Brien stated he did not know where the $80,000 figure came from and he was shocked by that. He stated further he had asked if he should attend the meeting Mrs. Fersch referred to since it could be a conflict of interest in negotiating this contract as he is a member of the District Advisory Council and would have to vote on it. He stated he would either have to abstain from voting on it or abstain from going to the meeting, and he chose not to attend the meeting. He stated with the history of the Fairfield County District Advisory Committee not having a quorum at their meetings, it could be several months before they have a meeting, so how would we know if they would even approve the contract for $80,000. Mr. Sabatino stated his question would be what the propriety was of having Lancaster involved in a meeting that was designed to produce a contract for Pickerington other than the fact that it might change their rate. Mrs. Yartin stated the draft contract provided electronically to all Committee members by Mr. Hansley today provided a per capita charge. Mr. Sauer stated at the beginning of the draft contract there were a lot of items lined out and he questioned if these were items that were currently being done for us and being deleted. Mrs. Fersch stated we are not currently receiving those services and this was a draft contract based on the contract that Franklin County had with Reynoldsburg. Mr. Sauer stated at the last meeting he had asked if there was enough time for Fairfield County to prepare a contract and here we are a month later and we don’t know if the cost is $80,000, if it would be based on per capita and if so, what population they would base it on. He stated there is nothing in writing that this Committee has that tells explicitly what is being proposed. He stated he would hope that by the Special Finance Committee meeting on April 21^st, they would have a contract that is written and is a document for the Committee to either approve or not approve at that time. Mr. Sauer stated unless he has something concrete he cannot make an intelligent decision. Mr. Wisniewski stated even if we have a contract it does not mean that the Fairfield County District Advisory Council will accept it or that they will even meet to talk about it. Mr. Sauer stated he understood that, but his concern was we are not even at step one. Mr. Wisniewski stated his concern was the draft contract has several items that are red lined and he questioned if those were items that Franklin County would offer to us, such as the dead animals, the rat control, etc. Mrs. Fersch stated she believed that draft contract was one Mr. Hirsch had obtained from Reynoldsburg. Mr. Hansley stated he had never been asked to negotiate a contract with Franklin County, they had given a presentation to this Committee on their basic contract they have with other cities, but he has never been asked to negotiate a specific contract with them. Mr. Sauer stated, however, with Franklin County we do know the price, and Mrs. Hammond stated that was unless we added additional services. Mr. Sauer stated even if we added additional services we still know what the cost of those are. Mr. Sabatino stated if Fairfield County was going to provide a proposal for Council to consider, it should be one that they have approval from the District Advisory Council on and until we have that, we have nothing. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt the Committee tonight should make a motion to authorize the City Manager to enter into contract negotiations with Franklin County so we can have something in two weeks from both entities on which to base a decision. Mr. Wisniewski stated somehow we got to a point where we are negotiating a contract with Fairfield County, and our law director is working with them, and he wasn’t sure how we didn’t get to that point with Franklin County. He stated it seemed we were dealing with one entity and not the other. Mr. Hansley stated our negotiations with Fairfield County were based on a motion made last month where he was directed to get a deal from Fairfield County and bring it back to this Committee. Mr. Wisniewski stated in order to make a decision in two weeks it seemed we needed to have a contract available from both entities. Mr. Hansley stated he thought they sort of had that from Franklin County as they said they would offer us the same terms they offer all of the other cities they have under contract minus any extra services that we want, at a per capita rate. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not know what that included though, and he wanted to see a contract that we could enter into. Mr. Hansley stated his impression was the services include all the services that Fairfield County red lined because that red lined version is the City of Reynoldsburg’s contract with Franklin County. Mr. Hansley stated in the over ten years he spent with the City of Dublin they had a contract with Franklin County and there were no health services they needed or wanted that were not covered by the contract. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would request the Committee have contracts from both Fairfield County and Franklin County, to review before the special meeting on April 21^stand that they be finalized that could be signed off on. Mr. Hansley stated there are still some questions regarding which court system we would go through since we lie in two counties, but our attorney is working on that. He stated for the most part Council has it in another format, but he thought he could put it in two side-by-side contracts so Council could choose one or the other. Mr. Wisniewski asked if Mr. Hansley would like a motion and Mr. Hansley stated he thought he understood what the Committee wanted.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance amending the 2009 appropriation, Ordinance 2008-92. Mrs. Fersch stated the Committee had received a draft appropriation ordinance and she would answer any questions anyone might have. She stated under the Law Enforcement Seizure Fund we had received $16,000 from the Hocking County Drug Task Force and State law gives law enforcement agencies the right to spend this money as they choose as long as it is within the State guidelines. Mrs. Fersch stated the Chief would like to use this money to purchase a canine vehicle. She stated the Street Fund (201) appropriation was a duplicate of what she had requested last month and should be deleted from this appropriation ordinance. Mr. Smith moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Wisniewski, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0. Mr. Wisniewski stated since we are getting a canine vehicle, when would we be getting a canine, and Chief Taylor stated he planned to have one in operation by fall. Mr. Wisniewski clarified the Chief felt he could get the dog and the training for about $9,000.

C. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance accepting donations from C3 Church. Mrs. Fersch stated since the amounts being donated for each of these programs were over $1,000, it needs to be formally accepted. Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0. Mayor O’Brien stated he and our staff engineer had attended a service to accept these checks and he had thanked the congregation at that time and he had also sent letters thanking the Church as well.

4. PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT.

A. Personnel Director’s Report. Mrs. Fersch stated she had provided a report to the Committee and she would answer any questions.

(1) Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance to amend Ordinance 2008-84, The Employee Pay Plan and Authorized Strength for 2009. Mrs. Fersch stated she had some minor changes to the Pay Plan and Authorized Strength. She stated this would establish the pay range for the city engineer that Council had approved, and also includes the position of Manager and Assistant Manager for the swimming pool and increased the minimum wage for Aquatic Seasonal Recreation 2 to be in accordance with the State minimum wage law. Mrs. Fersch further stated the police officer strength has been increased by two positions in order to be in compliance for the COPS grant Council had just authorized. Mr. Smith clarified we are not obligated to fill the two police officer positions if we do not receive the grant, it just establishes the positions. Mr. Sabatino clarified the city engineer pay range does not include benefits; it is only the hiring range for the wages. Mr. Smith moved to approve the amended Pay Plan and Authorized Strength for 2009 and forward to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

5. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wisniewski stated he had nothing to bring forward for the Chairman.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Pickerington Local School District Board Meeting – Update. Mr. Wisniewski stated there was no update this evening.

B. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance approving and authorizing the acceptance of an Engagement Letter from Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP. Mr. Hansley stated Steve Grasbaugh is our TIF attorney and he has changed firms, so we need this official engagement letter in order to keep him on our TIF projects. Mr. Wisniewski clarified there is nothing financial related to this contract. Mr. Hansley stated Mr. Grasbaugh is very good in this field and he knows our projects. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

C. Review and discussion regarding proposed Community Event Permit Application. Mrs. Hammond stated to provide a background on this issue, it is sometimes a little confusing for some people to know the number of permits required for events and where you have to go for the various permits. She stated it was determined that it would be nice to have an event calendar for the community so all of the events would be listed and everyone would know what dates were being used by various organizations. She stated further it was determined that one application that came to the City and was signed off on by the various departments would allow the event organizer to get everything taken care of at one time. Mrs. Hammond stated several people were invited to participate in the meetings that led up to the event package being created, and a survey was sent out as well to get input from various organizations. She stated further a lot of the content was based loosely on applications from other communities. Mrs. Hammond continued that as far as the fees, all but a couple of them are fees that we already have. Mr. Sauer stated he felt the goal of having an events calendar and having an application that gives everyone a road map of what they need to do is a great idea and would make things a lot easier for the individuals organizing an event. Mr. Sabatino stated the feedback he has received is that the application requires a great deal of information, takes a long time to fill out, and every engagement with the City has some sort of fee attached to it, as well as the timing of the whole thing. He stated some of these groups already have events in the works and they felt if the City was going to do anything it would be proper to make any changes with regard to filing papers, etc., and make it effective next year. He stated these groups have already made value decisions based on the structure they have had in the past. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not feel these groups should be penalized because we took so long to get this done. Mr. Wisniewski stated he did not feel there was anything unreasonable about asking them to fill out the application and he didn’t see that there was a great deal of information required. Mrs. Hammond stated, not getting into the question of the fees, she did not feel it would hurt to have the groups fill out the application this year to familiarize themselves with what the process is going to be. She stated further this process is not new, it was just that you had to go to the Chief of Police for parades and road closings, you had to go to the Service Department to get the barricades if you were closing the roads, and you had to go to Planning and Zoning if you were putting up signs. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not know if this was creating a solution for a perceived problem because these events have occurred in the past without this application. Mrs. Hammond stated this was initiated at the request of people who were putting on events. She stated last year the bicentennial committee was new at doing this and they had no idea what they were supposed to do. Mrs. Hammond stated we did not have a set process and some groups got to skip the process while others had to go through everything. She stated to be fair, everyone needs to go through the same process. She stated as an example, groups that are having an event on City property, we need to know they have insurance, etc. Mayor O’Brien stated he had been approached about a year ago on this issue because it seemed there was different treatment for different organizations, such as the non-profits being given certain assistance by the City. Mayor O’Brien stated this was circulated as a draft and then the complaints began coming in. Mayor O’Brien stated he did not think this application would take a great deal of time to fill out, he did not feel any information was being requested that would put someone at risk of losing a sponsor or losing funding, and if there is they don’t have to put it in. He stated as far as the fees, we do not have to assess them this year but we should implement the application with the filing fee because it will cost at least $25 in staff time to review the form and make sure it is complete. He stated this would give us a year to collect data so next year we would know if we need to refine the application. Mr. Smith stated he agreed that this event package was not an unreasonable burden at all as it appears that all of the information required should be readily available. Mr. Smith questioned, however, if for the Fourth of July and other City sponsored events, the City would be required to fill out the application as well. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt, to a certain extent, it should be filled out. She stated this way each department would know an event was occurring. Mr. Smith stated if this application is going to be used to build the event calendar, whether City sponsored or not, it seemed reasonable that every event would be included. Mr. Smith stated again he felt by the City filling out the form for City sponsored events, it would be a checklist so if a department head was on vacation or sick then everyone would still know what that department was scheduled to do. Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt for those reasons it made sense for the City to complete the application form. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would question what an “event” was, and Mr. Hansley stated it is defined in the application and anything that involves one department, such as someone renting a shelter house, would not be an event. Mr. Sabatino inquired if the Seton Festival was an event and Mr. Hansley stated it would be considered an event. Mr. Hansley stated he did not want a great deal of discussion on this topic tonight because he feels staff has been improperly criticized since it has never been adopted, it has always been a draft, it came out of the private sector, and it helps coordinate a lot of issues for both public and private entities. Mr. Hansley stated if Seton Parish has their festival totally on their property and consume no city services, and if we don’t know about it, we don’t know about it. He stated the advantage to having them go through the process is the event gets put on the calendar and we know when the event will occur and if other events are going on at the same time, and it gives the police department a heads up that a large alcohol consumption event is going on. Mr. Sabatino questioned if it would be appropriate to create a shorter form for events that would not require services, and Mr. Hansley stated that could be done just be not filling out parts of the application. Mr. Sauer stated he has heard there is a storm out there because of some of the fees and he questioned what fees were causing the problems. Mrs. Hammond stated she has not been contacted by anyone. Mr. Hansley stated he has heard concern about the tent inspection fee, but apparently there was a misunderstanding on that. He also stated that there might be the capability to cap that fee if there was more than one tent. Mr. Sabatino stated he understood the fee for a road closure was something like $100 and all the street department does is drop off the barricades. He stated the people in charge of the event put the barricades up and remove them, and they felt that was a very high fee for doing nothing. Mr. Hansley stated that fee was more the cost to the community of closing the street as opposed to putting the barricades there, it was to show there was a value to some profit making group raising money that they put in their pocket. Mr. Sauer clarified the two fees that people seem to be concerned about are the road closure fee and the application fee. Mr. Hansley stated these are not new fees; they just have not been enforced unilaterally. Mr. Sauer stated he felt this would make it a lot easier for someone who is planning an event, and it would also let them know what the costs would be in advance. Mr. Wisniewski stated he also did not see anything out of line with the information requested on the application. Mr. Wisniewski asked if everyone would like to take a couple of weeks to review this application and discuss it further at the special meeting scheduled on April 21^st. Mrs. Hammond stated the problem was that there were some events that are coming up in May, and she would request the staff be allowed to approve those events until a final decision is made by this Committee. Mr. Wisniewski stated if this application were approved by this Committee, without the additional fees associated with it, it would not have to go forward to Council. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt anyone who is having a function this year, that had the same function last year, be treated the same as last year. He stated then once the application is finalized then we move forward with it in 2010. Mr. Wisniewski clarified that Mr. Hansley would prefer to have the application filled out this year so we could use that information as a guideline during the budget process next year. Mr. Wisniewski stated the $25 application fee and the $100 street closure fee seemed to be the two main obstacles and if those were deleted for 2009, this could be approved this evening and then it can be looked at for 2010. Mr. Hansley stated he would assume then that any fee that was already on the books and we were not charging, we would not charge in 2009 for a recurring event. Mr. Sauer stated with regards to the police overtime charge, he felt the decision was made on that earlier this year as a Council, and he felt we should stick with it. He stated this was well publicized at the beginning of the year that this was an item we would have to charge for, and he felt we should do it. Mr. Sabatino clarified that we had billed the Violet Festival for the police overtime for last year and they have not paid that bill. Mr. Hansley stated when they come in for their official request for this year’s event, one of the conditions for approving the application will be payment of last year’s bill and this year’s bill. Mayor O’Brien clarified that the intent was for everyone to fill out this form for this year’s events. Mr. Wisniewski summarized that it appeared everyone was in agreement to remove the $25 application fee and $100 street closure fee and charging people for the services they will be using. Mr. Smith stated, as he understood it, any exception to this would come before Council as the Lions Club did earlier this year. Mr. Wisniewski stated staff had the ability to waive a fee and it would not have to come before Council unless they were not happy with staff’s decision and wanted to appeal it to Council. Mr. Sauer clarified that staff would not waive a fee that we did not have the financial ability to waive. Mrs. Hammond stated she would like it clarified if non-profit groups would be treated differently than for-profit groups. Mr. Hansley stated he would clearly look at those groups differently. Mr. Wisniewski moved to approve the Community Event Permit Application Package, deleting the $25 application fee and $100 street closure fee for 2009; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino abstaining, and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-0.

D. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance adopting the City of Pickerington Service Department Identity Theft Program. Mr. Hansley stated this deals with a federal law passed that any group, like us, that collects personal information must have a process in place to protect that information. He stated our utility billing office is that type of organization and our law director worked with us to draft the policy that is attached to the ordinance. Mr. Hansley stated staff recommends adoption of this policy. Mr. Wisniewski inquired if this would also affect the income tax department, and Mrs. Fersch stated it might affect income tax at the point where tax returns are scanned. Mr. Sabatino stated if we need to have this policy for other departments, perhaps this policy should indicate all the departments and not just the Service Department. Mr. Hansley stated he would recommend this be moved on to Council this evening and he would check with the law director and see if an amended version covering all departments would be appropriate. Mr. Smith moved to forward to Council with the condition that it be amended to include other departments if necessary; Mr. Wisniewski seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Wisniewski voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

Mr. Sabatino clarified the Administrative Order the Committee had received is to notify this Committee, in accordance with the ordinance adopting the fee schedule, of the fee. Mr. Hansley stated this fee was already on the books, but it has not been updated in several years. He stated Mayor’s Court has requested this as we have people who have damaged our softball fields and we needed to arrive at a figure for administrative overhead. Mr. Hansley stated even though this updates an older administrative order it is technically a new fee, so he was notifying this Committee.

Mr. Wisniewski stated he had a request to start talking about a tax issue since it is April and if we want to get something on the November ballot we need to get discussion about it going. He stated he has heard from one member of council that all they would support would be a replacement or a renewal of the police levy and it is important that there be a united council on that. He stated he had spoken to Chris Schornack, the Deputy Finance Director, and he got a rough estimate of what we would get if we did a renewal of the police levy to take it back to 5.5 mills. He stated we currently get about $1.5 million and a renewal taking it back to 5.5 mills would bring in roughly $2.25 million. He stated he would like to get some initial discussion going to see how everyone felt about this, and he personally felt this might be the best thing that can be done to get something going to help the budget situation. Mr. Wisniewski stated he realized this was a stopgap measure, but it is better than where we are right now and it is something where people will know what the money would be going toward. Mr. Wisniewski continued he felt some of the problems we had with the income tax issue was that people did not understand it and there were too many things the money was directed toward. Mayor O’Brien stated there were a lot of options besides a police levy because of the impact on senior citizens. Mr. Sabatino stated he knew we had to do something and he did not feel there was a chance of an income tax passing but the police levy might be something that could buy us a little time to show that we are effectively using everything that we are getting now. Mayor O’Brien stated the options he was referring to included room to work with the credit, room to work with the income tax percentage, room to include the credit in the ballot language so the voters had a choice on the credit and the tax, and Council also has the option to tweak the credit by the end of this year to set in place the funding necessary for next year. He stated this could be changing the credit from one-half percent to one-quarter percent or something like that. He stated if Council, as a body, can’t come to a decision on the type of tax issue, and get a 7-0 vote, then we need to try a 7-0 vote to see if they want to tweak the credit. He stated something that could be done was to attach a time limit to it, such as cut the credit to one-quarter percent for three years, put that in an ordinance, and at the three years it would go back to one-half percent. He stated he felt all the options should be looked at. Mrs. Hammond stated even if a policy levy would pass, we would not begin collecting that money until the following year because the taxes are collected one year behind. Mrs. Hammond stated then Council still needed to look at what could be done for the 2010 budget. Mr. Sauer stated he felt a lot of the problem we had with the income tax issue was because nothing was done ahead of time to convince the residents we needed it and they could see that it was tangible, and he felt it was confusing because it seemed like a catch all. He stated it seemed like it was going to anything, it was not specific to any one specific thing and you eliminated that when you are dealing with a police levy, and it would also be a renewal so it is already here, it is a renewal. Mrs. Hammond stated a renewal would still cost residents more because their houses are worth more. Mr. Sauer stated his point was he felt if anything were going to have a chance, it would be a police levy. Mrs. Hammond stated that would still not give the City any additional money for 2010 and her point was that Council needs to now start looking at what will have to be done in 2010. She questioned if people would have to be laid off or whatever and those decisions should be made now. Mr. Sauer stated he agreed, and they couldn’t start too early on the budget for 2010 because there are going to be a lot of tough decisions that will have to be made. Mr. Wisniewski stated the option for 2010 is adjusting the credit and Mr. Sabatino stated once you go there it will make passing any additional tax increase very difficult. Mr. Wisniewski stated that was correct, and obviously reducing the credit was the last thing they would want to consider. Mr. Wisniewski stated, however, the next Finance meeting would be in May and there is no way we can get a consultant in, have them do the survey, and still get a 7-0 vote out of this Council on an income tax increase or a police levy.

Mayor O’Brien stated if we went for a police levy that is where all of the money would go. Mr. Hansley stated the problem was with a police levy we still couldn’t pave streets, we couldn’t pick up leaves, you still don’t strengthen anything else except the police department. Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed with some things Mrs. Hammond had mentioned and he felt we needed to take a comprehensive look at our staffing level. Mr. Smith stated he felt we also had to consider the people a tax increase would be hitting. He stated if we reduce the credit the only people who would be penalized is the people who live here and work somewhere else, and a police levy hits the senior citizens, and he would have a very hard time hitting the senior citizens with anything.

Mr. Wisniewski stated that is why he wanted to start this discussion, because it does not sound like we could get a 7-0 vote on anything, so we need to come up with what is going to be acceptable. He stated we cannot continue to sit on our hands and not address the 200-pound gorilla that is sitting in the room, which is our 2010 budget. Mr. Hansley stated he was directed for the meeting on April 21^st to have a recommendation on the consultant that will do the survey and the firms he is looking at have expertise in asking the types of questions to see what people will support.

Mrs. Fersch stated we are applying for federal money for two police officers and as she understood it from the past when we have had grants, if we accept that money we cannot lay off those officers. She stated then we could not lay off any police officer because the union contract requires that the latest hired if the first laid off. Mr. Sabatino stated he did not think anyone was talking about laying off police officers, and Mr. Hansley stated if we are going to look at lay offs to address the budget issue, you need to cut where the money is, and our general fund money is in the police department. He stated because of the hiring freeze several positions have been eliminated already, so to make a major difference in your budget you have to look at the police department. Mr. Sabatino stated the police officers are busy every day of the week and we have a building department that has three full time people who are doing a mere fraction of what they used to do. Mr. Wisniewski stated even if you laid off two people in the building department, that would not solve the budget problems. Mr. Hansley stated if you laid off those people in the building department, there is a revenue side to that department that would suffer as well. Mr. Wisniewski stated the majority of the general fund salary is coming from is from the police department, and if we were going to make any significant impact there is no department that has the people to be laid off other than the police department, and then we would be risking the safety of the community. Mr. Hansley stated we probably should not apply for this grant because it would almost mean that we could never lay off police officers.

Mr. Sauer stated it is hard to know where we are going to be short when we don’t know what will be coming in next year and questioned if they could get that estimate. Mrs. Fersch stated she is working on the tax budget now and that is an estimate of the revenues expected for real estate tax, income tax, hotel tax, etc. and what our expenses could be. She stated since the union negotiations are not done yet, the figures will probably be very flat. Mr. Sauer stated that is his point, we don’t have a clue what it is that we are facing next year. Mr. Wisniewski stated the big unknowns in next year’s budget are the FOP and AFSCME contracts and health costs. Mr. Wisniewski stated revenue estimates are easy compared to the other items.

Mr. Wisniewski stated his reason for this discussion was to see if there was any consensus and he was hearing none so it appeared there would be a split council again. Mr. Hansley stated, however, the survey could tell you something that you did not expect. Mr. Wisniewski stated whatever council wanted to do, he felt there needed to be a consensus on it. Mr. Wisniewski stated he had asked the Finance Department to provide a chart showing the revenue enhancement proposals that he distributed to the Committee members. Mr. Sauer inquired if Council could get a conservative estimate that would have as much information from this year as possible. Mrs. Fersch stated she felt uncomfortable trying to estimate this year because there are so many variables, so it would be very difficult. Mr. Wisniewski stated he would like to have everyone think about that grant for the two officers before the next Council meeting, because as Mrs. Fersch had pointed out we could not cut the two least senior people on the police department because of the FOP contract and the grant requirements. Mr. Wisniewski stated with regard to lay offs, the Charter requires we have the City Manager, the Finance Director, and the Municipal Clerk, so it comes down to the biggest budget item, which is the police department. He stated nobody wants to do that, but if we accept two officers we cannot lay them off and we cannot reduce staff in the police department. Mr. Sauer stated this is a value judgment and if you value safety over the others. Mr. Sabatino stated in his mind, safety was the most important element. Mr. Wisniewski stated his point was it is a very real possibility that the police department does get hit at some point and there are to many unknowns to say the police department will never be touched. Mr. Sauer stated he refused to use the police the department as a punishment tool to get what he wanted. Mr. Hansley stated earlier this evening this Committee approved the appropriation for the donated canine car, and the Chief of Police is going to add the canine unit back in so he felt the last thing we should do is add two more people. He stated even though the Chief has said the dog and training will be donated, it will impact the 2010 budget somehow. Mr. Sauer stated when preparing the 2010 budget this Council has the right to say no to items being requested. Mr. Hansley stated what he was trying to point out is that sometimes things that are “free” aren’t really free. Mrs. Hammond stated as she understood it, the COPS grant would cover the basic salary only. Mrs. Fersch stated overtime, step increases, etc. would not be covered by the grant but would need to be covered by the City.

Mr. Wisniewski stated he felt everyone was a little clearer on where everyone wanted to go with this issue and he appreciated the discussion this evening.

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. Mr. Wisniewski stated an executive session was not required this evening.

8. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Smith moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Wisniewski, and Mr. Sauer voted "Aye." Motion carried, 5-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 10:25 P.M., April 8, 2009.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk