PICKERINGTON CITY COUNCIL

TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2009

CITY HALL, 100 LOCKVILLE ROAD

 

REGULAR MEETING

7:30 P.M.

 

1.         ROLL CALL, INVOCATION, AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Council for the City of Pickerington met for a regular session Tuesday, August 4, 2009, at City Hall.  Mayor O’Brien called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.  Roll call was taken as follows:  Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Sanders, and Mayor O’Brien were present.  Mr. Wisniewski was absent as he was on vacation.  Others present were: Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Ed Drobina, Phil Hartmann, Chief Mike Taylor, Greg Bachman, Rachel Schofield, Nate Ellis, Richard Stanley, Rolland Johnson, Amy Johnson, Jessica Seymour, Derik Seymour, Gary Weltlich, Pastor Adam Babcock, Kim Hoffman, Mike Getru, and others.  Pastor Babcock of Eastside Vineyard Church delivered the invocation. 

 

2.         A.        APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2009, PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING GAS AGGRAGATION PROGRAM.  Mr. Smith moved to approve; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

B.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2009, REGULAR MEETING.  Mr. Fix moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Hammond, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

3.         COMMUNITY COMMENTS.  Mayor O’Brien stated several individuals were present to address the issue of the Town Square Drive extension and he would request that the City Engineer, Greg Bachman, give a brief presentation that may answer some questions on this project.  Mr. Bachman stated the proposed project would extend the existing Town Square Drive approximately 700 feet from where it is now a cul de sac down to Center Street.  Mr. Bachman stated continuing straight from Center Street you could go down East Church Street, onto East Street, and continue down to S.R. 256.  Mr. Bachman stated the existing Town Square Drive was built in approximately 2000 and since that time it has not been extended.  Mr. Bachman stated he would like to point out this is not the by-pass that has been discussed in the past, but a slow speed route, an alternate east/west route for the city.  Mr. Bachman stated some residents on East Church Street are, however, opposed to this project as they do not want more traffic in their neighborhood.  Mr. Bachman stated the estimated cost from the contractor to construct this road is about $125,000, because the City has the contractor putting in a storm sewer right now, and by doing a change order to his contract, this would be the quickest and cheapest way this road could ever be put in.  Mr. Bachman stated his recommendation would be to build the extension, but to make it a slow speed connector.  Mayor O’Brien clarified that since the extension would not be the same road that Town Square Drive currently is, the City can effect weight limitations in an effort to keep large trucks off of that street.  Mr. Bachman further clarified the existing road is a 42-foot with curbs and gutters, and the extension would be a 24-foot wide road with asphalt but not built up to the normal thickness and the thought that should development go into that area it could be built up. 

 

A.        Mr. Kim Hoffman, E. Church Street.  Mr. Hoffman back in the 90s this road was set up in three phases.  He stated his concern was he knew this road would come in, but if it was going to be done, it should be done right.  Mr. Hoffman stated Church Street in front of his house is only 23-feet edge-to-edge, and his truck is 8 feet, so that leaves 15 feet of pavement for two-lane traffic.  Mr. Hoffman stated there are no sidewalks in the neighborhood, and that is a big concern for him with children walking to school.  Mr. Hoffman stated his biggest concern is that there is just no room on E. Church Street.  Mayor O’Brien inquired what Mr. Hoffman thought of making E. Church Street a one-way street going toward Center Street, and Mr. Hoffman stated he would rather see Church Street dead end at Center Street until the road could be done right. 

 

B.         Mr. Rolland Johnson, E. Church Street.  Mr. Johnson stated the residents on E. Church Street found out about this proposed project less than a week ago.  He stated they had a short meeting with Mr. Bachman this week, but they did not have much time to prepare their thoughts, however, they are against this type of by bass going through.  He stated the main issue is safety.  Mr. Johnson stated he owns Sterling Coast Restorations on E. Church Street and he has been in business there for almost 28 years and a resident of Pickerington since 1972.  He stated he has seen a lot of growth and a lot of change in the area.  Mr. Johnson stated his business is a mechanical and collision business, so he understands how people drive.  He further stated his main concern is that the undue heavy traffic that they have never had before there, creates a severe egress and ingress problem for his customers and his employees.  Mr. Johnson stated the residents of Church Street have seen what this traffic is like when there are festivals, etc., in the old downtown.  Mr. Johnson stated at this point E. Church Street is not a thoroughfare, but if this road goes through, this thoroughfare will be a heavy traffic area.  Mr. Johnson stated his parking would be diminished with this coming through and would create a safety issue for his customers and employees as well.  Mr. Johnson stated the residents had not heard anything from the Mayor or Council about this project until it was in the paper a few days ago.  Mr. Johnson stated he then contacted the City and set up a meeting to find out what was going on.  He stated he felt this was the wrong approach and the residents should have been involved as they were in the past.  He stated their concerns were that this is a safety issue, it is a traffic issue, the traffic will move down through there faster and as it exists now there is a severe ingress and egress problem.  Mr. Johnson stated as this progresses he would like to feel that the City would like to converse with the residents; he would appreciate that.  Mr. Johnson stated from his view, in this form, he is totally against the project.  Mr. Sauer clarified Mr. Johnson would prefer E. Church Street be closed off at Center Street rather than making it a one-way street.  Mr. Johnson stated, however, he did not see how there would be an advantage to the City to run all the traffic down to Center Street and right back across the railroad tracks and to the same traffic signal you tried to avoid.  Mr. Johnson stated this just doesn’t work.  He further stated he understood there would be construction savings, but he didn’t feel the City could just jump in without really thinking about it and that would just be money spent incorrectly. 

 

C.        Mr. Richard Stanley, E. Church Street.  Mr. Stanley stated he has owned the property at 59 E. Church Street for almost 19 years so he has lived through all of the discussions on the potential by-pass.  Mr. Stanley stated he is not adverse to the City spending money, and spending money wisely, but he would state for the record that he is sympathetic with his neighbors on this issue.  Mr. Stanley stated E. Church Street was never built to handle the shear number of vehicles that this administration is considering throwing down that road.  Mr. Stanley stated whether it was called a by-pass, a connector, or whatever, when the word gets out that there is a road there, people will use it.  Mr. Stanley stated his business is a destination business and he does not need traffic coming to his building, his concern is about everyone’s safety.  He stated the biggest thing he wanted to relate to Council is the safety factor of E. Church Street.  Mr. Stanley questioned if there was an estimate on the number of vehicles that would be going east/west through this connector as he would be interested in knowing what it was thought that would be, as he also questioned where the residents would park their cars.  Mr. Stanley stated he owns three buildings on E. Church Street and the one that holds his business is all glass.  He stated the distance from his building to the street is probably eight feet, and one year during a festival one vehicle had gone upon onto his sidewalk and parked within inches of his building.  Mr. Stanley stated just to move cars in this town is one thing, but you’ve got to do it right, you’ve got to do it smart, and don’t try to save a dollar while endangering the residents of the City.  Mr. Stanley stated further that in the mornings going north on East Street, it is packed with busses from the turn all the way to the school and he questioned how you would move cars through there.  He further stated the acceptable solution for him would be to turn E. Church Street into a cul de sac and abandon this project. 

 

            Mayor O’Brien stated he understood where the residents were coming from and looking at dead-ending Church Street is something that can be considered.  He stated Council would not work in a vacuum, they would take everyone that lives up there’s perspective into account. 

 

            Mr. Stanley stated he has a file that dates back to 1999 regarding the by-pass project, and he is very disappointed in this administration that they did not send seven letters out to the people that live on this street.  He stated if someone had not read about this in the paper, then no-one on that street would know about it.  Mr. Stanley stated he did not feel it was in the best interest of this city to spend $125,000 just because there is a contractor on site to correct a problem with the storm sewer.  He stated it is in the best interest of the city to investigate and make better decisions and not to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past.  Mr. Stanley stated it seemed the City was trying to steamroll this project through. 

 

            Mr. Sauer stated he would like to respond to Mr. Stanley regarding this project being steamrolled.  He stated that was never the intention and at the last meeting procedurally there was an option where it could have been passed and moved out, but there were a number of members of council that made it known they wanted to slow it down so the public would have an opportunity to come in state their case and have their opinions heard.  Mr. Sauer stated the resident’s opinions were extremely important to him and a number of other council members as well, and some of the comments he has heard tonight definitely adds some questions that he has in regard to the project.  Mr. Sauer stated tonight is the first he has heard of dead ending the street and that is a possible alternative, but his one overriding concern with that particular road is that previous to any of the current council’s tenure a lot of money was spent to buy that particular location and running that road through was one of the biggest reasons that particular parcel was purchased by the City.  He stated he would not comment on whether that was right or wrong at the time, but putting a road through to Center Street helps to develop that particular area.  He stated his initial reaction to this was “no way” but as time has moved on he has changed that position a little bit but he wants to make sure that side of town is protected.  Mr. Sauer stated with the investment that has occurred something has to occur there and getting some sort of soft development that does not impact the community and can help bring a tax base to the community is also beneficial as well, but not in a way that it would impact the community on the other side of Center Street. 

 

            Mr. Stanley stated he understood and his use of the term steamrolling stemmed from the fact that the residents in that area were not notified. 

 

            Mr. Sabatino stated as some of the residents have indicated, this was originally a multi-phased proposed project from the beginning.  He stated while the way this is a deviation from the initial path, he understood the resident’s concerns because while it may help Council it would create a problem for them.  Mr. Sabatino stated after seeing the proposed alignment now it concerned him if this would be the smartest thing to do or should it be looked at to do it the way it was designed even if that were a much bigger project.  He continued this would impact traffic on E. Church Street and maybe it can be looked at to see if things can be done differently. 

 

D.        Mr. Mike Getru, E. Church Street.  Mr. Getru stated this street really is not wide enough to add a volume of traffic and he would not have a problem with dead ending the street.  Mr. Getru stated further school busses use E. Church Street as part of their route and it is narrow for them. 

 

            Mr. Bachman stated everyone was aware that this was a multi-phase project at one time and it is still on the Capital Improvements Plan, with two future projects that are not funded at this time that total $7 million.  Mr. Smith clarified that Mr. Bachman had looked a more northern route for the extension, however, that would be a very difficult turn and with the grade it would not be something the would recommend.  Mr. Fix further clarified that Mr. Bachman had not had a chance to discuss with the fire department how ending E. Church Street with a cul de sac would impact their ability to respond to that area. 

 

4.         COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS.  None.

 

5.         APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA.  Mayor O’Brien stated there were no consent agenda items this evening. 

 

6.         APPROVAL OF AGENDA.  Mr. Sauer moved to approve; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Mr. Sauer moved to amend the agenda to add Ordinance 2009-46, “An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to consent for Ohio Department of Transportation Project PID: 82971, FAI SR 204 00.00, Mill and Fill of S.R. 204 from S.R. 256 to Pickerington Corporation Limit, and to request a councilmanic waiver of committee action;” Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken on the motion to amend with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.  Roll call was taken on the agenda as amended with Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

7.         REPORTS:   

 

A.        MAYOR.  Mayor O’Brien stated the Monthly Mayor’s Court Report had been distributed.  Mayor O’Brien stated due to some confusion caused by an article that was in the paper last week, he would like to have department heads brief on agenda items as they come up rather than during their reports. 

 

B.         LAW DIRECTOR.  Mr. Hartmann stated he had no report but would answer any questions. 

 

C.        FINANCE DIRECTOR.  Mrs. Fersch stated she had no report this evening but would answer any questions.   

 

            D.         SERVICE MANAGER.  Mr. Drobina stated we have received a letter from Rumpke notifying us that the State of Ohio has increased the solid waste disposal fee by $1.25 per ton.  He stated this was in effect on August 1st and in order for Rumpke to comply with this mandated fee, effective August 1st residential invoices will reflect a $.13 per month regulatory cost on their next quarterly bill.  Mr. Drobina further stated the storm sewer project in the old downtown has started, and Long Road closed yesterday.  Mr. Smith stated he is impressed with the way the intersection at Long Road and Diley Road looks.  Mr. Sabatino stated he had received a call from a resident stating that the bill from Rumpke did not have anything on it about how to get the senior discount and he understood that should be on the bill.  Mr. Drobina stated Mr. Sabatino was correct, it should be stated on the bill, and he would follow-up on that.   

 

E.         CITY ENGINEER.  Mr. Bachman stated he has met with MetroParks and talked about trail connections for bike paths, particularly to the Diley Road bike trail, and he will be working on that. 

 

F.         CITY MANAGER.  Mr. Hansley stated he had provided a written report and he would answer any questions.  Mr. Hansley stated a final invoice had been sent to the Violet Festival for the remaining police overtime from last year and the overtime for this year and he anticipated that would be paid before the middle of the month. 

 

8.         PROCEDURAL READINGS:

 

            A.        ORDINANCE 2009-40, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LAND DONATION AGREEMENT WITH BGM DEVELOPMENT CORP., AND ROCKFORD HOMES, INC., SAID PROPERTY BEING APPROXIMATELY 16.096 ACRES, LOCATED AT 749 WINDMILLER DRIVE,” Second Reading, Finance Committee.  Mr. Hansley stated this ordinance and the next ordinance deal with the land donation and exchange for the water tower location on Refugee Road.  Mr. Fix moved to adopt; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

            B.         ORDINANCE 2009-41, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANGER TO ENTER INTO A LAND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH VILLAGE PROPERTIES,” Second Reading, Finance Committee.  Mr. Fix moved to adopt; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

            C.        ORDINANCE 2009-42, “AN ORDINANCE CREATING A CHARTER REVIEW BOARD,” Second Reading, Rules Committee.  Mr. Smith stated this will create the seven-member Charter Review Board.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

            D.        ORDINANCE 2009-43, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR HEALTH SERVICES WITH THE FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH FOR 2010,” Second Reading, Council.  Mr. Hansley stated this will shift our health services from Fairfield County to Franklin County in 2010, and this is their typical suburban contract.  Mr. Fix moved to adopt; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

            E.         ORDINANCE 2009-44, “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 220.04 ENTITLED “COMMITTEES” AND REPEALING CHAPTER 268 ENTITLED “UTILITY FEE REVIEW COMMISSION” OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES OF PICKERINGTON,” Second Reading, Rules Committee.  Mr. Smith stated this Commission is currently not meeting, but Council does have the capability of recreating this Commission at any time they feel necessary.  Mr. Sauer stated he would not support this legislation because he was a member of that Commission and he felt some of the things they did were worthwhile and good and he felt that Commission still served a purpose.  Mr. Smith moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Hammond, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 5-1. 

 

            F.         ORDINANCE 2009-45, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE ORDER WITH BEHELER EXCAVATING, INC., IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $125,000 FOR THE EXTENSION OF TOWN SQUARE DRIVE,” Second Reading, Service Committee.  Mrs. Sanders clarified that the contractor would need to know this month if the City wanted to go ahead with the project.  Mr. Hansley questioned if there would be a downside to constructing the road to save the money but dead end it at Center Street.  He stated that would still allow it to be built in a timely fashion, it would be available for an emergency opening if we had to by-pass the downtown.  He stated we could gain the benefit of construction, it would be there, it would just be considered phase two of a multi-phased project, and it would just be like the first phase that is gated off now.  Mr. Fix stated we would pay $125,000 and not moving any more traffic.  Mr. Hansley stated we would still get the 30 to 40 percent discount.  Mrs. Sanders stated overwhelmingly safety has to be the biggest concern and she felt the residents had brought up some very valid points that need to be discussed.  Mr. Fix stated he appreciated the input of the residents and he knew it was the Mayor’s and the engineer’s intent to have conversations with them as we worked through this process.  Mr. Fix stated it is sometimes a six to ten week process from the time Council starts considering something until they are done, and they weren’t trying to scoot anything through.  He stated there was every intention of making sure the residents concerns were brought forth and they had brought out some very legitimate points and they are points that need to be addressed by Council, the engineer, and staff.  Mr. Fix stated he felt the City had an opportunity to create an east/west connector that would not otherwise exist without spending millions of dollars.  Mr. Fix stated he understood the desire to have this road done “the right way,” but the City is in a very difficult financial situation and we do not have $7 to $10 million that would give us the ability to do it the way it was originally intended.  Mr. Fix stated he felt creating that east/west connection for the minimal amount of money we are talking about was clearly in the best interest of the 17,000 residents of the city.  He continued he felt there was a very legitimate discussion to be had about putting a cul de sac on their street to protect their interests and it seems everyone we have heard from so far is okay with doing that.  He further stated if that does not create safety issues for our fire department and police department he would guess this Council would be in favor of that.  Mr. Fix stated those are conversations that must be had before anything is finalized on this.  Mr. Fix stated the residents concerns are heard, and will be dealt with, but he still firmly believed that moving forward with this project is very much in the best interest of the entire city.  Mr. Sabatino stated at first blush this sounded good to him, but then he saw where it was going to go and considering the fact that we were going to try to move traffic down a very narrow street.  Mr. Sabatino further stated he felt this created some issues that he was not comfortable with and he is still concerned about the safety elements of this.  Mr. Sabatino stated he would like to see some consideration given to some of these proposed alternatives that would enhance the safety of it and make it something that ends up being a true addition to the phase we are at now and puts us in the position of being able to continue on with it at some future point if funding became available.  Mr. Sabatino stated he is more concerned with getting it done right than getting it done quick.  Mr. Sauer stated he is still weighing the pros and cons and if that connector is built without closing E. Church Street, traffic will go through there.  He stated that street is narrow and when you increase traffic and create a safety hazard, it will affect the property along there, both in value and the quality of life.  Mr. Sauer stated he does not have a problem extending that road to Center Street, but he does not want to see it extend any further unless it is done correctly, and that means buying the property and widening the road so it does go through correctly.  He stated he would like to see some sort of rider along with this ordinance so Council would at least know that particular road would be blocked off, closed, cul de sac’d, or whatever it is and he felt that needed to occur when this particular piece of legislation passes.  Mrs. Hammond stated in listening to everyone she felt there were two separate issues.  She stated regardless of whether or not we were planning on extending the road to Center Street, E. Church Street needs to be looked at from a safety perspective anyway.  She stated there are obviously issues that should have been addressed in the past and have not been.  Mrs. Hammond stated she would support the road going through to Center Street, and the issue of the other side of the road is something that needed to be addressed separately because she looked at this as being only a connection to Center Street.  Mr. Smith stated he would not support this if the legislation did not include any addressing of these resident’s concerns.  Mr. Smith stated he did not feel the way the current ordinance is written that it respected the concerns of the residents on E. Church Street.  Mr. Fix stated he felt the best thing that could be done tonight is to move this forward and give Mr. Bachman an opportunity to proceed with his discussions with the residents and business owners in the area, and also speak to the fire and police departments, and come back with perhaps an amended piece of legislation that would address the concerns heard tonight.  Mayor O’Brien stated he was not sure how this ordinance would be amended to accomplish what Mr. Smith wanted to accomplish and inquired if he had a proposed amendment.  Mr. Smith stated he did not and he hoped that over the next two weeks staff could work out a companion ordinance that would either close off this street or that is most fair and acceptable to the residents.  Mayor O’Brien stated such a proposal may never come to Council because it would typically be an engineering and staff issue.  Mr. Smith stated he felt the most appropriate legislative action would be to table this item and allow the staff to address the residents concerns.  Mayor O’Brien stated the original design of this road is well over ten years old and none of the people that were involved in that are still here, so he did not feel that was a valid proposal.  He further stated he apologized to the residents that he had not had the time to come over and talk to them, but it was not the intent to not speak to them.  He further stated the legislative process works to the resident’s advantage because it does give them a chance to voice their concerns.  Mr. Sauer stated he agreed with Mr. Smith that he would like to see this legislation amended to address the resident’s concerns because he did not want to see it pass without some kind of assurance to the residents that the other side of this will occur as well, and he would support tabling the ordinance and allowing staff to come up with something that would be appropriate.  Mr. Fix stated if the second reading occurred tonight, staff could address the concerns of the citizens and bring an amendment forward for the next meeting.  Mr. Sabatino stated he is also in favor of tabling this ordinance to allow us to confer with the interested parties and if an alterative can be agreed upon, bring that to the next meeting.  Mrs. Sanders stated she would be in favor of voting on this tonight, using the next two weeks to let staff work on this, and if necessary table it at the next meeting.  Mr. Smith stated if it is tabled and the amendment is satisfactory at the next meeting, then the final two readings could be done then.  Mr. Smith moved to Table Ordinance 2009-45; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mrs. Sanders, and Mrs. Hammond voting “Nay,” and Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.”  Motion to Table failed, 3-3.  Mr. Fix moved to adopt; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Sauer voting “Nay,” and Mr. Fix, Mrs. Hammond, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.”  Motion failed, 3-3. 

 

            G.        ORDINANCE 2009-46, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO CONSENT FOR OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PID: 82971, FAI SR 204 00.00, MILL AND FILL OF S.R. 204 FROM S.R. 256 TO PICKERINGTON CORPORATION LIMIT,” First Reading, Council.  Mr. Sauer stated the State of Ohio has determined that the area of S.R. 204 from S.R. 256 to the Pickerington Corporation Limit can be paved, and they will pay for 100 percent of the paving.  Mr. Smith clarified the City is requesting no special items on this project.  Mr. Bachman further stated he had checked with ODOT and they will replace the detectors for the traffic signals as well.  Mr. Bachman stated he understood they had received stimulus funds for this and that was the reason it was coming forward so quickly.  Mr. Fix moved to waive the requirement in Charter Section 2.06 that the ordinance be read on three separate meeting days; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, and Mrs. Sanders voting “Yea.”  Suspension passed, 6-0.  Mr. Sauer moved to adopt; Mr. Fix seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.

 

9.         LEGISLATIVE READINGS:

 

            A.        ORDINANCE 2009-33, “AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PICKERINGTON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR EXTRAORDINARY POLICE SERVICES,” Third Reading, Safety Committee.   Mr. Fix stated the school board needs to pass the revised contract and they will not meet until next Monday.  Mr. Fix moved to Table; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.  (TABLED)

 

            B.         ORDINANCE 2009-34, “AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE RELEASE OF AN EASEMENT FOR LOT 109 OF THE WINDMILLER PONDS SUBDIVISION,” Third Reading, Service Committee.  Mr. Sauer moved to adopt; Mrs. Sanders seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0.  

 

            C.        RESOLUTION 2009-08R, “A RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE ANNEXATION OF 4.088 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, IN VIOLET TOWNSHIP, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, TO THE CITY OF PICKERINGTON (SWIMMING POOL),” Third Reading, Service Committee.  Mr. Sauer moved to adopt; Mr. Smith seconded the motion.  Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mrs. Sanders, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.”  Motion passed, 6-0. 

 

10.       DISCUSSION.  There was no discussion. 

 

11.       REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE.  Mr. Fix stated he would request that Mr. Hartmann and Mr. Bachman prepare legislation that would bring the Town Square Drive Extension project back before Finance tomorrow evening with the understanding that should it be passed out of Finance it would give staff two weeks to work with the residents to address their concerns and have them resolved.  Mayor O’Brien stated he was referring this issue to Finance Committee for consideration tomorrow evening. 

 

12.       OTHER BUSINESS.  No other business was brought forward. 

 

13.       MOTIONS:  None. 

 

14.       ADJOURNMENT.  There being nothing further, Mr. Fix moved to adjourn; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion.  Mrs. Sanders, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, and Mrs. Hammond voted “Aye.”  Motion carried, 6-0.  The meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M., August 4, 2009. 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 

 

 

_______________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk

 

 

ATTEST:

 

 

_______________________________

Mitch O’Brien, Mayor