WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2009

REGULAR MEETING

7:00 P.M.

1. ROLL CALL. Mr. Fix called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M., with roll call as follows: Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Sauer were present. Mr. Wisniewski and Mrs. Sanders were absent. Others present were Mayor O’Brien, Tim Hansley, Lynda Yartin, Linda Fersch, Chris Schornack, Ed Drobina, Greg Bachman, Richard Stanley, Ilona Capehart, Marvin Capehart, Nate Ellis, Kim Hoffman, Mike Getru, Rolland Johnson, Amy Johnson, and others.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF July 8, 2009, Regular Meeting. Mr. Sauer moved to approve; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

Mr. Fix stated prior to getting into the agenda he appreciated all of the residents coming to the meeting tonight. He stated at Council last night they received some very good input regarding the Town Square Drive project and he has taken some steps today to try and respond to that. Mr. Fix stated if there were no objections he would like to add this item to the agenda right after Mrs. Fersch’s report.

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. Mr. Fix clarified that with regard to the Park Impact Fees Mrs. Fersch felt that we might come close to getting the additional funds from residential building permits by the end of the year.

Mr. Fix stated Mrs. Yartin had provided all of Council a new draft ordinance on the Change Order with Beheler Excavating for the construction of the Town Square Drive extension electrically today and this evening she had distributed an additional draft ordinance. He stated the draft distributed this evening includes the language “The City shall, prior to opening this new section of Town Square Drive, eliminate the connection of East Church Street to North Center Street by the construction of a removable barrier to be designed by the City Engineer and to be used for ingress/egress purposes of emergency vehicles only.” Mr. Fix stated he would like to keep the discussion this evening, not to whether we should or should not do the road at all, but is this an acceptable resolution of the concerns brought forward at Council.

Mr. Smith requested Mr. Bachman describe what a removable barrier would be like. Mr. Bachman stated he has spoken with the Police Chief and the Fire Chief and they have no problem with barricading East Church Street at Center Street, and also barricading the alley, with some sort of emergency access there. Mr. Bachman stated there are several types of products that look like grass but have a solid surface underneath. He stated we would probably put in something like that so that an EMS truck or fire truck could get and out of East Church Street. He stated there is just not enough room to do a full cul de sac there, but we could put in some sort of hammerhead turn around. Mr. Bachman stated he will need to work with the fire department to come up with something that is accessible to them; that either they could have a key to get through or be able to drive over if needed. Mr. Bachman stated it will take a few days to work through this with the Fire Chief. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt part of the issue was that it should be aesthetically pleasing as well. Mr. Bachman stated he knows where a couple were done in Hilliard and he would like to have the opportunity to look at those and take some pictures of them. Mr. Smith stated he did not see it as Council approving the particular barrier, he felt that was more staff and resident coordination, he thought the concept was what was under consideration this evening, and he was interested in hearing what those who would be impacted think about the concept. Mr. Bachman stated he would also like to point out that if the street is closed off, the alley would also be closed off. Mr. Bachman stated the next street up from Church Street is Borland Street and the houses on Borland back up to the alley with their garages in the back and that alley would be barricaded off. Mr. Bachman stated it seemed they should have dialogue with the residents on Borland as well.

Mrs. Ilona Capehart inquired what this would do to the by-pass that has been discussed earlier, and Mr. Fix stated the by-pass that was discussed years ago is not in the plans and it may or may not ever happen. Mr. Marvin Capehart stated he would like to know it if may happen or may not happen. Mr. Fix stated Council is not in a position today to say what may happen ten years from now. Mr. Capehart stated he wanted a yes or no answer as to if that will ever happen or not. Mrs. Hammond stated at the current time, this Council has no plans for doing this project and they do not see it in the plans for the foreseeable future. She stated, however, this Council has no control whatsoever on what your elected officials may do ten to fifteen years from now. She stated the City may be different, the budget may be different, so this Council cannot say yes or no as to if this project will ever happen.

Mr. Stanley stated at the meeting last night it seemed Mr. Fix wanted this project to go through, in its original form to connect to East Church Street. Mr. Fix stated he thought he made it clear that Council heard the resident’s concerns and he questioned if we put a stop on that road so there was no through traffic if that would work for the residents. Mr. Stanley stated he wanted to establish that Mr. Fix’s initial position was that he wanted that road to go through. Mr. Fix stated that is not what he had said, and Mr. Stanley stated that was the impression he had. Mr. Stanley stated Mr. Fix, as part of Council, needs to look at this situation in the eyes of the residents of that street, and he thought that was what they were starting to do. Mr. Stanley further stated with that in mind, he felt the residents were willing to reach out and work together with the City, but not look lightly on the fact that one more piece of the puzzle is starting to come together. Mr. Stanley stated he understood the reasons for a removable barrier, but anything can be put in place and anything can be taken apart, realigned, and done with what they want. Mr. Stanley stated he felt it was very important for this Council to think long term down the road as well as short term and find out what will work in its entirety. Mr. Fix stated he was sorry Mr. Stanley was left with the impression that he was interested in pushing this street through their neighborhood. He stated he did not say that and at the end of the meeting he asked if the street were cul de sac’d if that would work for the residents, and he felt like we had made some progress. He continued that within 24-hours we turned around a new ordinance that has a barrier in place, based on the feedback from the residents last night. Mr. Fix stated he very clearly understands the concerns about the by-pass, and at the current time this Council has no intention of moving forward with that. He stated he hoped that future Councils find other ways to move traffic around the City and they don’t connect the by-pass, but that will probably not be this Council’s choice and no one can ever guarantee that it will never happen.

Mr. Fix stated he would like to know how the residents felt about blocking Church Street at Center Street to prevent through traffic. Mr. Hoffman clarified that the barrier would prevent vehicles from entering Church Street, but would be something that fire trucks could get through. Mr. Bachman stated he has not designed it as yet, but he would be working on that. Mr. Hoffman further clarified alley would be blocked as well and stated if that is all done he thought it sounded good. Mr. Johnson stated he did feel that Council listened to the residents last night and did address their concerns. He stated he had provided a drawing showing an option of installing concrete parking stops along his parking lot at Sterling Coach and the alley so traffic could not go through there, blocking off Church Street at Center Street, and making the alley one way from East Street to Center Street. Mr. Bachman stated by making the alley one-way, traffic could come from East Street to Center Street and that would create some traffic. Mr. Johnson stated he felt once people found out that Church Street was closed off, there would be less traffic. Mr. Capehart stated if the fire department had to stop and open a fence when they were responding that would delay the response time for any emergency vehicle. Mr. Johnson stated he does have a lock box for his building and only the fire department has a key. He stated he has to have some kind of security, and he has seen the fire department come in and they can have the lock box open before he could get a crowbar out of his truck. Mr. Hansley stated it could be something as simple as a garage door opener as well, the technology is there. Mr. Fix summarized the thought tonight is to get a consensus from everyone and move this back to Council so that in two weeks when it comes time to vote on it, all of the questions would be answered. He stated that would give the City Manager two weeks to work with the City Engineer and all of the residents to get all of the issues resolved and questions answered. He stated if in those two weeks that has not been done, as everyone saw last night, it would not go forward. Mr. Bachman stated it would take him a couple of days to look at some of the options and see what is available and see what other communities have done. Mr. Fix clarified that the legislation at Council last evening was defeated so this will be new legislation on its first reading. He stated, however, there is the possibility that if everything is resolved that it can be moved through in one evening and that would take six of the seven council members to approve. He stated if all of the issues were not resolved that probably would not happen. Mr. Sabatino clarified that Mr. Bachman would meet with the residents before the next council meeting so they will know what was being proposed. Mayor O’Brien clarified that Mr. Bachman would provide Council with an estimate on the cost to install whatever barrier is decided upon. Mr. Fix stated it appeared that the Committee was in agreement that the ordinance marked as Draft #3 covered all the concerns discussed. Mr. Smith moved to forward to Council the ordinance currently marked as Draft #3; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

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 reflecting the appropriation of $18,775 for income tax software for the e-tax program. She stated this is the CMI cost as well as the Insource Solutions cost. She stated she is also requesting the appropriation of the funds required for the Town Square Drive extension that was just moved forward to Council. Mr. Sabatino inquired if the income tax software was what had been discussed earlier and could be used in other departments or was it specific to the income tax department. Mrs. Fersch stated she understood this was specific for the income tax department. Mr. Sabatino stated he had understood this was something that was primary to the income tax department, but also had side benefits that other departments could use. Mr. Fix stated he had understood there were possible secondary uses such as electronic payments, communications, and other applications that might be used. Mr. Hansley stated that would be a future additional cost, and was not included in this appropriation. Mr. Sauer stated in looking at the report that was provided to the Committee on May 28^th, it shows that for 2009 the expenditures for e-tax was $8,000, and he was curious what the $18,775 was for. Mrs. Fersch stated we were buying some other module they had suggested and did not include the CMI cost. Mr. Sauer clarified that was in addition to what was in the report, so the extra $10,000 was not in that report. Mr. Schornack stated some of that is for 2010 and there is one that is being implemented early and they need to get started so they were appropriating that and it would reduce the 2010 budget. Mr. Schornack stated he thought the CMI portion of this was $4,000 to $5,000. Mr. Sauer inquired if the total for the whole package over the next three years had changed at all for implementing this program. Mr. Schornack stated the cost for Insource Solutions has remained the same, the programming on the other side of our current system that was not included because we did not have those figures, and that is the $5,000 additional. Mr. Smith stated he thought it was in the discussion that there would be some adjustments. Mr. Sauer stated he was just trying to figure out what we would be paying altogether for this. Mr. Sauer clarified there would be no cost for the taxpayer to file on line, but there would be a fee for a tax preparer filed it. Mr. Sauer inquired if we had a point in time when we would see some of the benefits we would see in terms of cost. He questioned if this would make the staff more efficient, if it would eliminate a position, just where we would be saving the money. Mr. Schornack stated staff would be able to use their time in a different way, it would give them time to go after late filers, etc. Mr. Schornack stated further it would depend on how many people used the electronic filing, and that should increase each year. Mr. Sauer stated when you are going to implement something new there is usually a cost benefit analysis that goes along with it so you understand exactly what you are getting into, what are the costs associated with it, what are the expenses going forward, and when would we be getting our return, and he was trying to see if we have gone through that process and do we know what this is going to cost us. Mr. Hansley stated the decision Council made was to err on the side of maybe spending a little more money, not looking at the savings, but to put a high value on customer service, and the upgrade to an in-house software may cost more but we would retain our local office. Mr. Sauer stated he just wanted it on the record and understood that there is going to be a reasonable expense associated with this where there could be savings realized as well by going in a different direction. He continued that by doing this is actually increasing costs over what we are currently doing, and there is also an option out there that could decrease costs from what we are currently doing and potentially be as efficient. He stated his point is that it would appear that we are looking at an option that is actually going to increase costs in the way that we administer income tax collections. Mr. Sabatino stated he recalled a discussion that if in the future our tax rate did change the City would receive more of the benefit because we would be using the same people to collect more money and the fee for utilizing an outside firm would be higher. Mr. Hansley stated that was correct. He stated he would like to see the information based on a two percent with the rate that was provided by RITA that showed it would be a higher rate at two percent with 100 percent credit or two percent with 75 percent credit. Mr. Schornack stated he could get that information for Mr. Sauer. Mr. Sabatino clarified that the amount of the credit impacted on what RITA charged. Mr. Sauer stated he just wanted to see the information because from his point of view customer service is important, but not important enough to spend a significant amount of money for this program. Mayor O’Brien stated there is a cost for having someone scan the income tax forms, and the processing of the delinquencies and the paperwork being done in Mayor’s Court to help out tax in tax season has a quantifiable cost to that. He stated therefore there were quantifiable costs to be saved if this work would go back into the department. Mr. Sauer stated he would like to see that laid out so they could see exactly what it was they were looking at. Mr. Fix clarified that Mr. Schornack knew what information Mr. Sauer wanted and that he would provide it to him. Mr. Sauer stated he would appreciate that. Mrs. Hammond moved to approve the appropriation ordinance and forward it to Council; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer voting “Nay,” and Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 4-1.

C. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance declaring official intent with respect to reimbursement of temporary advances made for capital expenditures to be made from subsequent borrowings. Mrs. Fersch stated this is for the benefit of the Internal Revenue because the money the general fund is advancing to pay for the Town Square extension would be borrowed in January if we find at the end of the year that our balances are not where we want them to be and we do not have an extra $125,000. She stated the IRS requires we state our intent when doing the project because these are tax exempt issues, and this would show when we borrow the money it is for a past project, not one in the future as we usually do. Mrs. Fersch stated again this is an IRS requirement and our bond counsel had prepared the ordinance. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Smith voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

D. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to continue membership with the Central Ohio Risk Management Association for the time period October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010. Mrs. Fersch stated the cost is less than last year and she should learn next week at the CORMA meeting what the rates have come in for our liability and professional liability insurance. Mrs. Fersch stated she had included a not-to-exceed figure that she felt would be sufficient. Mrs. Fersch further stated with two new members coming into the pool that should spread the costs out as well. Mr. Smith moved to approve and forward to Council; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

E. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to amend the Investment and Depository Policy for the City. Mr. Fix stated as he understood it, this policy has not been changed in many years and these are minor changes that should be made to keep us up with state laws. Mrs. Fersch stated that was correct and it would also give us some flexibility for our investments. Mr. Sabatino inquired if this dealt with our policy of investing outside of the City limits, and Mrs. Fersch stated it did not. She stated that would be covered next month when she requests permission to solicit proposals for our interim investing and our main checking account. Mr. Sauer moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

F. Review and request for motion to approve draft ordinance authorizing the City Manager to enter into a two-year contract with the Local Government Services Division of the Office of the Auditor of State to assist the City in preparing General Purpose Financial Statements and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Mr. Fix stated we have contracted with them for the past several years and it has always worked out well. Mrs. Fersch stated the 700 hours is an estimate, however, we pay them the actual hours they work. Mrs. Fersch also stated this will lock in their rate of $50.00 per hour for two years. Mr. Smith moved to approve and forward to Council; Mrs. Hammond seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sabatino, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

G. Review and request for motion to approve resolution accepting the amounts and rates as determined by the Fairfield County Budget Commission and authorizing the necessary tax levies and certifying them to the County Auditor. Mrs. Fersch stated this is the annual resolution required by the State and must be filed with the County Auditor by October 1^st or we cannot collect any real estate taxes. Mrs. Fersch stated we have done this by emergency in the past, however, if Council does all three readings at the next meeting, she will not need the emergency language. Mr. Smith moved to approve and forward to Council with no emergency language; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

H. Review and request for motion to approve draft resolution approving the admission of Grove City and Powell as members of the Central Ohio Risk Management Association (CORMA) pool. Mr. Fix stated this would reduce the City’s expense as it would spread the risk. Mrs. Fersch stated that was correct and she had provided a letter from our broker that explains the advantages. She stated all current members of the pool need to pass legislation approving the admission of new members. Mr. Sabatino moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mr. Sauer, Mr. Fix, Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Sabatino voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

Mrs. Fersch stated at the Budget Commission meeting she was informed that we would receive another $10,000 less in Local Government Funds this year so that should work out to about $40,000 less than the $316,000 we had estimated in our budget. She stated the estimate we will receive next year is $271,000.

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.

5. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fix stated he had nothing to bring forward.

6. OTHER BUSINESS:

A. Pickerington Local School District Board Meeting – Update. Mr. Fix stated Mrs. Sanders was on vacation and he understood the School Board would meet next week.

The Finance Committee recessed at 8:20 P.M., and reconvened in open session at 8:30 P.M.

B. Review and discussion regarding storm water fees. Mr. Hansley stated our storm water fees have never been raised and Council has been provided with a list of possible projects that will be funded out of any additional revenue. Mr. Hansley further stated our storm water fees are the lowest in the area and if we want to continue to have this be a solvent utility we should do for it what we have done with the other two utilities and raise the fees to a reasonable rate to provide for the projects that are on the list. Mr. Hansley stated even with a storm water fee increase we will not be able to do all of those improvements that we need to make, it will take probably ten years to do the projects on that list and the system continues to grow. Mr. Fix clarified the recommendation was to raise the fee from $1.50 to $3.50 per month. Mr. Sauer clarified the balance in that fund currently has $369,000 unencumbered as of the end of July. Mr. Hansley stated we have an operating side to that budget as well because we have been reluctant to charge enough of the staff engineer and now the city engineer’s time to that fund to recognize what they are putting into storm water improvement. Mr. Fix clarified that currently we generate $205,000 in user fees and that would go up to $480,000 so that would be a $275,000 annual increase. Mr. Smith clarified the impact on the residents would be an additional $2.50 per month and that it would not be a graduated increase, but increase at once. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt an increase to $3.00 would be received better because more than doubling a fee has a psychological impact. Mr. Hansley stated staff has made their recommendation and it is now up to Council to make the decision. Mr. Hansley further stated the ordinance on the books requires this committee to review it and report back to Council for the action to be taken. Mr. Smith stated he assumed staff’s recommendation would cover the projects on that list, so if there is less money there would be less projects. Mr. Hansley stated that was correct, and the list provided is not the complete list, it is the current CIP for storm water projects. Mr. Smith clarified that in the surrounding areas Lancaster charges $5.00 per ERU, Canal Winchester charges $3.00, Gahanna charges $3.21, Reynoldsburg charges $2.00, Newark charges $5.50, and Marysville charges $2.75. Mr. Drobina stated the way the current ordinance is written, we are to look at the rate every odd year with the increase being enacting in an even year. Mr. Hansley stated that was correct and if we do not increase it now, we will have to wait a minimum of two years to look at it again. He stated further this is a relatively new utility for the City and it has never been funded anywhere close to the level it needs to be funded at. Mr. Smith stated he liked our approach when we did the water and sewer increases where they were incremented as opposed to doing a two and one-half times increase shock at one time. He stated perhaps we could do a $1.00 increase each year over the next three years or something. Mr. Fix stated we have never raised the fee and he felt we could communicate to everyone what the reason for the increase was. Mr. Hansley stated should Council decide to raise the rates, as soon as we begin the reading process, we would use all of the outlets we have to start telling people what it is about, what the savings in misery would be as we would stop flooding basements, streets, and everything that we do now. Mr. Sabatino stated he agreed we needed to increase the rates, but he felt Mr. Smith had a valid point and a two-tiered increase versus one lump sum would be more palatable. He stated this is what we did with our water and sewer rates and that came out fairly well. Mr. Sauer stated he understood the need, and questioned how the graduated increase would affect our projects. Mr. Schornack stated he had worked out a graduated schedule over a three-year period of $3.00 to $3.25 to $3.50 so that the projects that are in the CIP a little bit further down might be funded. Mr. Sabatino stated he felt we were playing catch-up to get where most other cities are, and then if we do something every other year, the small incremental changes would be more palatable than doubling the cost. Mr. Sauer stated he would prefer to see it graduated just because times are tough right now and we have no idea what it will be six months from now, and he hated the idea of hitting people with more money and it seems like it is constantly happening. He stated on the other side there are some projects he would like to get done, but he would err on the side of caution and go along with graduating it. Mr. Smith stated he had promised before his term was up to try and get curb and gutter on Columbus and Long, but there has never been any money to consider that. Mr. Fix stated he understood people were in difficult situations, and he was not talking about raising the income tax or doing away with credit, but only $24 a year. He stated we have projects that have been on hold or have not been done which causes us to go into an emergency situation to fix things and spend more money than we should. He stated he felt it was reasonable, since we have never raised the rates, to just raise them, get it over with and get some projects under way so we can keep our city moving forward. Mr. Sauer stated he agreed with Mr. Smith on the psychological impact and stated perhaps we could raise it to $3.00 this year and to $3.50 next year. He stated that would be doubling it, and Mr. Sabatino stated he felt that was the threshold. Mr. Sabatino stated if you more than double it that has a big psychological impact. Mr. Schornack stated going to $3.00 would raise an additional $205,000 and then the following year going to $3.50 would generate $275,000. Mrs. Hammond stated she felt everyone must remember that the utility rates will increase in January as well, so this would just seem like another increase to people. Mr. Smith stated he agreed, this is just one more increase that the state, the county, the city, the nation is putting on top. He stated to the extent the blow can be softened for the residents, he felt this council owed them the discussion to do that. Mr. Hansley clarified with an initial increase to $3.00 there were some projects on the CIP that would have to be delayed. Mr. Smith stated he supported raising the fee, but this discussion was where the bar was. Mr. Fix suggested that the fee be raised to $3.00 this year and $4.00 the next year. Mr. Sabatino stated that was going to be his suggestion as well. Mr. Hansley stated staff could support that and Mr. Smith stated he was okay with that as well. Mr. Fix moved to increase the storm water fee to $3.00 in 2010 and to $4.00 in 2011; Mr. Sabatino seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Fix, Mr. Smith, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

C. Review and request for motion to approve amended General Fee Schedule. Mrs. Yartin stated this was an update of the General Fee Schedule to include the increases that have been approved earlier in the year. She stated the changes included the residential repair/replacement permit fee that had been discussed in Safety Committee and approved by Finance, a Special Flood Hazard Area Development Permit fee, and the Administrative Costs section. Mr. Fix moved to approve and forward to Council; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Sauer, Mr. Sabatino, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Fix voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

D. Review and discussion regarding proposed changes to the Functional Organizational Table. Mr. Fix stated everyone had received a proposal from Mr. Hansley and he understood everyone had ideas and comments they wanted to put forward. He stated he was hoping that everyone would agree to each person looking through this and preparing their thoughts and then perhaps scheduling a work session for open discussion. Mayor O’Brien stated he felt Mr. Hansley’s proposal was a good step in the right direction. He further stated he felt the discussion should be limited and he was willing to take the point if everyone wanted to funnel their input to him. He stated he would add and make sure there were no duplicates. He stated his concern was that this showed five direct reports to the Manager and he would like to see that cut to three. He stated then if potential department heads were identified then work with them to look at their individual departments and not make this a one-night discussion. He stated he would also like to do a duties survey for the staff and list what they do and that would help identify duplications and omissions. Mrs. Fersch clarified that Mayor O’Brien would like the survey to be for all employees excluding the police department only. Mrs. Fersch stated she has been wanting to do this because some job descriptions do need to be updated and also with union negotiations coming up it would be helpful. Mr. Hansley stated he had hoped to have something before we get into the budget preparation, and if we get down to that level it may take a great deal of time. Mr. Fix stated he agreed that having a new organizational chart in place before the budget process would probably help everyone. Mr. Fix determined that everyone should provide their input to Mayor O’Brien by August 14^th so he would have time to put something together. Mr. Fix stated he would let the council members who were not present tonight of this project.

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. Fix moved for Executive Session under Section 121.22(G)4, Matters involving bargaining sessions with public employees; Mr. Sauer seconded the motion. Roll call was taken with Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voting “Yea.” Motion passed, 5-0.

Finance Committee adjourned into Executive Session at 9:25 P.M. and reconvened in open session at 9:30 P.M.

8. ADJOURNMENT. There being nothing further, Mr. Smith moved to adjourn; Ms. Hammond seconded the motion. Mrs. Hammond, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fix, Mr. Sabatino, and Mr. Sauer voted "Aye." Motion carried, 5-0. The Finance Committee adjourned at 9:31 P.M., August 5, 2009.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

________________________________

Lynda D. Yartin, Municipal Clerk